volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@HeavenlyPossum it's not wasted, it's traded.
The people trading it value what they get in exchange.
Otherwise they wouldn't.
@brinnbelyea@fosstodon.org
You almost had it. The people willingly trading energy for crypto do so because they value the crypto.
Same as people turning trees into lumber. Those people value the lumber, and the people trading energy for crypto value the crypto.
@HeavenlyPossum not at all.
Bitcoin could be run from a solar panel and a car battery. It doesn't take that much energy to run the Bitcoin system.
However, people do decide that they would like to pay more in energy as they bid for new bitcoin. That is their choice, and It reflects the value of Bitcoin to each person exchanging extra energy for the Bitcoin.
Mining bitcoin doesn't have to be expensive. But people have decided it's worth more energy, so they trade more energy for it.
@enmodo No, you have it backwards.
The 2000 decision if anything emphasized different states applying the same standards to counting of votes. In fact, consistent standards was key to the ruling then.
Y'all are reaching really hard to try to justify a supreme court ruling that is simply not in the cards based on the arguments before the court.
Sometimes one side loses the case because it's simply not the side with the winning argument.
@hulavikih but those claims are simply not factually true
@StephenRamirez@universeodon.com I mean he didn't tell the nation to inject bleach into their veins at all.
That was a lie that went viral without enough people stopping to check on whether it ever actually happened.
@dalfen Well there are examples like when he said his advisors didn't give him alternatives for the Afghanistan pull out, when the advisors later said they did, that provide exactly that sort of evidence
@kern really?
"My memory is so bad I let you speak" doesn't come across as particularly, well, coherent.
@Free_Press I mean, right. That's how the democratic process works.
No one is in charge, there is no authoritarian at the top of the GOP caucus, rather the independent representatives are accountable to their voters.
@josemurilo the energy is being spent to buy bitcoin.
It's not that bitcoin consumes it but that people are willing to trade it for the value they get for Bitcoin.
@ianhecht I mean, it just goes to prove that Florida's GOP did not ban those books.
The solution debunks the claimed problem.
@dalfen again, they didn't say they didn't find a crime.
And they also didn't say there wasn't enough evidence to warrant the conviction of any crime.
That's just not what document said, even your own highlighted parts.
All they said was that they didn't believe they were in a position to present it at trial, which is an entirely different matter.
@katrinakatrinka in the US system the president is held accountable by Congress and through the election process.
That sounds to me like you are suggesting the unelected attorney general is somehow easier to hold accountable, but how would that be?
@dalfen the post above said there was no crime.
So that's what I'm addressing.
As far as I can tell there was a crime, but at least we can say that the report doesn't say otherwise.
The report says it's not strategically advantageous to charge a crime, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.
@lauren I really don't care about Trump.
Trump is awful. But Biden is as well. But let's hold Biden accountable for his own missteps regardless of Trump.
Maybe if we recognize how awful Biden is the Democrats might propose a candidate who's better.
I see no benefit in indulging the morons that Biden has surrounded himself with. It's not like that somehow makes Trump better or worse, it just means we are kidding ourselves about this group of idiots.
Of course it is. And we can tell because we can quote the rulebook that very very plainly and simply states that the executive power is vested in the president.
It is simple for a very very good reason, because that allows for accountability that is so important, which is exactly why it is made so simple.
You bring up power but you get it exactly backwards: It is because we need to fight against power that it is made so simple, so that there isn't room for complication through which an authoritarian would try to escape the checks on power.
It is BECAUSE we need to restrain power that it is made simple that the executive power is in the hands of the president who stands to be impeached the moment the executive branch does wrong.
No complication. No room for the president to claim innocence or ignorance or independence. It is his responsibility to obey the law, and if he doesn't, boom, he's out.
To make up this idea of an independent agency is to relieve the president of accountability, it is to promote exactly the authoritarianism that it sounds like you and I are both worried about.
It is exactly why it is simple, and exactly why we need to emphasize that simplicity, that is core to the design of the US government
The president must be held accountable for his branch of government, including the DOJ. That is how the US government is designed, simply and unquestionably, to avoid the chaos of an unaccountable department.
@dalfen Even that is a huge leap from saying there was no crime.
This is a statement about prosecutorial discretion, not about innocence.
The investigator concluded that they weren't on a strategic high ground, regardless of criminality.
@mjf_pro looking at the actions of this administration I really don't know where you get the impression that Biden is surrounded by well intentioned intelligent people.
In case after case, everywhere from legal proceedings through rhetorical public appearances, the people surrounding Biden seem both corrupt and pretty damn stupid.
From weak arguments before the courts through really counterproductive policy positions published in the federal register, this administration isn't filled with particularly competent people.
@dalfen No, that's not what your highlighted part says.
It absolutely does not say there was no crime. It says they don't believe they could successfully prosecute the crime.
@katrinakatrinka I go the other way around.
I'm not trying to simplify a legal complexity but rather trying to point out that it is simple and we don't need to complexify it.
The president simply has control of the executive branch. We don't need to make that more complicated by imagining independent legal institutions within the executive branch with all the complications that that would entail.
We can simply point out that it's all up to the president and he has to be held accountable for everything that happens in his branch.
It overcomplicates things to try to grant some sort of independent agency within the branch somehow divorced from the constitutional order that defines it. We just don't need to jump through those hoops.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
