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
@wjmaggos it would be nice to at least see talk about user focus, even if its expressed as a longterm hope or a direction that we'd like to see development progress in.
Heck, if we talk about such things then who knows if a developer with experience in, say, email spam filtering might not be able to offer a relatively easy solution from solved problems in that world.
However, I see so much talk about server focus without and developing things to help servers that talk of user focus is starkly absent.
If these are problems to be handled by a more developed ecosystem, all the more reason to start working and highlighting them now.
@wjmaggos that's a great example I might use, as email server spam protection very often works with users to tailor filters for each one.
So we could focus on doing similar things here.
For generations now we've watched email server spam filters try various ways to tailor themselves to each user, with techniques ranging from analyzing frequent contacts through feedback mechanisms.
Let's learn from that and follow the example here!
@taco no, that's not what the case rested on.
This was a case about regulatory process, not about data.
The administration is required by law to follow certain procedures, which it didn't follow. THAT is what the judge is judging.
The administration might have rejected misleading studies in the course of following the legal process, but regardless, that's not the question before the court.
It reminds of Federalist 51 where Hamilton (maybe) laid out the reason for designing a government that could function even with bad people involved.
> But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
It seems like you're misunderstanding over and over.
For example, when you say that has nothing to do with efficiency, I say YES! That's exactly my point!
It doesn't have to do with efficiency, which is why we need to stop acting like it does!
The purchase price in energy for Bitcoin is not about efficiency but about value. The energy traded for Bitcoin doesn't have anything to do with efficiency, so let's stop buying into the stories saying it does.
BECAUSE it's about value and not efficiency, let's stop misunderstanding that as a metric for efficiency.
@dalfen a problem is that if people just stop at your excerpt instead of going out of their way to read the rest, then what they'll see won't be an accurate version of the statement.
So it's not so much seeing what they want in it, but they won't see it at all.
That's the problem. There is so much misleading information out there caused not by what people want to see but rather claims that are incomplete (at best) in factual terms.
@wjmaggos but therein lies the problem :)
How does the server know what the user would consider crap vs what they want?
And even harder, how does the server deal with two different users having vastly different judgments about that?
This is the problem with focusing on servers.
It's exactly why I think we should rather focus on users, letting them control what they see, based on what they would find to be crap vs wanted content.
@HeavenlyPossum selfless?
Whoever said selfless?
No, it's even better, it's an alignment of interests.
No need to rely on selflessness that might disappear from day to day.
Sure: people continue to find value in Bitcoin, which is why they trade for it.
Can't really say there much of a market for buggywhips, though.
That's exactly how Bitcoin works: I trade some amount of energy for a chance to score Bitcoin.
That is the definition of mining.
In other contexts--car fuel efficiency, lighting efficiency, whatever--there are more externalities and complications, but not in this case.
The way Bitcoin works allows people to buy the chance to earn in exchange, directly, for energy.
Each miner decides whether it's worth each 1kWh he might want to spend on it.
@abucci what? I'm referring to them foregoing immediate benefit for the sake of a project for greater good.
That's the whole point.
@MugsysRapSheet that's a bit of cutting off the nose to spite the face, though.
SpaceX does good work in support of NASA's service to the public, so the public would lose out should those contracts be canceled.
I wouldn't want us all to lose out over an unrelated dispute like this.
@dalfen but don't cut the quote short.
It's hard enough to make sense of Trump's verbal spew, but the rest of the quote does change it a bit.
Oh, it's worse than that: it's not that the parties have failed but rather that they have successfully promoted candidates that their members wanted promoted.
The parties are successfully capturing how bad the public has gotten.
@LALegault @DavidBruchmann @micchiato@mastodon.social @GRA3432 @YakyuNightOwl
@snscaimito maybe helpful: You know how a webpage might look different on your phone than on a laptop screen, even though it's the same website?
It's similar with Fediverse.
Each program (Pixelfed, Mastodon, etc) displays and engages with the same Fediverse content, but they each display the content in ways that make sense for their particular goals and users.
So in this case it will be up to Mastodon to do its best to take whatever content has been posted--the image here--and display it as best it can.
@wjmaggos but this is where I promote the idea of giving users more control over their own feeds, so that servers aren't so central to figuring out one-size-fits-all policies for all of their users.
Different users will want that balance set differently, so we should focus on letting users have controls over their experiences.
volkris
boosted
An Introduction to Conversation Containers
A conversation is a collection of messages with a common context. The ActivityStreams specifications define both collections and contexts, but very little guidance is provided on how to use them effectively. This document specifies an Acti #fediverse #activitypub https://kbin.social/m/fediverse@lemmy.ml/t/827071
@HeavenlyPossum I'd never equate value with efficiency, so I don't know why you're going down that path.
But my point is that so many DON'T consider the output of the process.
The energy that people are choosing to trade for Bitcoin is exactly a measure of the output.
Gates innovated the mob tactics of protecting his IP religiously? No, that's not how that works in reality.
In reality, the same governments who provided that free computer time also provided the IP structure and restrictions on usage of ideas.
That's not up to Gates but to our active support and reelection of the politicians who implement those policies.
We get the government we vote for as we keep reelecting the same types of folks with the same bad ideas.
@Wolven @hosford42
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:
