volkris @volkris@qoto.org

@remixtures the critical point is that this doesn't mean trusted third parties are required.

ETFs can help serve as anchors for Bitcoin, similar to interest rates, but they're optional, with users free to take advantage of them or not as they feel like.

It's nice to see such an anchor emerge, as it has positive implications for the operation of the currency, so the good vibes from the SEC decision are rational.

@tom I'm under the impression that AP groups aren't well documented simply because they're still rather theoretical.

Which is to say, in the abstract, people talk about group functionality, but it means different things to different people, folks haven't really settled on how they are supposed to behave, the semantics of them, etc.

In the protocol itself we can see the bits that would enable that functionality, but we haven't really reached a consensus on how it would/should translate from bits to user experience.

And part of the problem is that when groups run up against popular UIs that aren't ready to deal with them, it can really blow up the user experience, so it's hard to develop that incrementally.

@CSB@noauthority.social this is wrong, though.

Firstly, with Bitcoin itself, there are ways built in to the technology to enable wallet recovery. If people aren't using those mechanisms, well, that's a different matter.

Secondly, even beyond Bitcoin, in modern finance we certainly have solved these problems with things like insurance and custodial relationships.

There are other reasons Bitcoin doesn't catch on, but this isn't it.

@Free_Press I always love when a report quotes someone complaining about out of context quoting, but does so in an piece with out of context quotes.

@TCatInReality that's just not accurate, and here's a link to the plaintiff's plea so you can read for yourself.

Not only did the lower courts agree to hear the case, but they were *still in the process of hearing* the case.

So the Supreme Court merely said they'd let the normal process work through, as is normal and constitutional.

That there wasn't a single dissent registered against the SCOTUS decision is a good indication that many of the sensational stories about this are false.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23A820/302105/20240306105608311_SCOTUS%20Injunction%20Application_Final.pdf

@ScottLucas I can try to rephrase: I have many criticisms of the SOTU presentation on infrastructure and the economy, but one of the core criticisms is that Biden's presentation didn't work toward consensus that would actually lead to the implementation of his proposals.

By sticking with positions that have already been long-rejected by groups outside his base, Biden's speed didn't work to bring over supporters that he'd need to actually do what he was proposing.

And that's regardless of whether they were good ideas or not--a much bigger question.

This is why it's so noteworthy that he delivered a stump speech at the SOTU address.

As for supporting Trump, no, I do everything I can to point out what a defective candidate he has been.

@TCatInReality Well right, because that's how the US judicial system is set up.

It's not the legislative branch. The place to handle that sort of concern is in the other branch of government.

This is the judicial branch where the system is set up to take time, let lower courts debate and explore issues before overtime raising them to the upper court.

It is absolutely reasonable, given the design of the US system, that the Supreme Court would be much more interested in taking on established rights, as that sits roll in the government.

@julie sure.

You're responding to a comment where a person just slings mud at the court without any particular argument or outlining of a disagreement or anything else, just a profanity. It's not useful.

So when you ask now what, I agree, what is going on?

And the answer is that here is a person who is just slinging mud on social media without any particular understanding of the court or current events.

And I think it's worth calling such people out for the toxic influences that they are on society.

Anyone saying something like fuck scotus is someone to be called out for being negative, someone looking to tear down based on their own misunderstanding of the world, not a serious person, and it's really antisocial.

But this is social media. That is pretty common around here.

@RainofTerra

@julie now another person posts a well reasoned and articulate argument to social media.

Oh wait, no, they just throw some mud about something they probably don't know anything about.

Carry on.

@RainofTerra

@ScottLucas you asked about the administration's record. Well, the record is really pretty awful, an administration that is failing to accomplish the goals of the departments under its perview as it is, much less as it might be if we gave the president even more power.

So specifically, I was pointing out that the national labs have suffered tremendous degradation under this administration, with new rules coming down that interfere with the scientific missions.

And they want more power? After they're screwing up what they already have to do?

This is a pretty big deal.

We need to call out Biden for being a disaster and not give him the more power that he is requesting in his ridiculous State of the Union address.

That the address provoked chants of four more years just highlighted what a ridiculous campaign speech it was instead of a speech that could actually lead to consensus to drive his policies forward.

@SteveThompson perhaps so.

But I fear that a lot of the misleading stuff is also symptomatic of intentional editorial decision. It seems that reporters have flat out said they would put their fingers on the scales for the sake of promoting their causes.

But either way, it doesn't really matter why, whether they are lazy or intentionally wrong, it has the same effect of misleading the public and needing to be called out.

Hanlon's Razor doesn't really matter when it has the same effect.

@ScottLucas I'm not talking about the administration's record, even though I have enormous issues with it and the harm that the administration has done particularly to things like science and the national labs.

The national labs are having tremendous problems operating under this administration because of their dictates. And I really want to bring more attention to that because this administration has been terrible for science.

But what I'm trying to highlight is how the SOTU stood up as a stump speech that failed to address the larger country as it must if Biden wants to actually implement any of his proposals.

You might love what the guy is pushing for, but that's even more reason to bash him for a speech that will make it even harder for him to gain support for his proposals.

Everything is falling apart under this guy. We need to highlight that and get a different nominee.

@PeterSoukup they aren't coming though. They are absolutely not literally trying to do the same thing.

There are different goals, different technologies, different processes, it's just all together extremely different on all levels.

@ScottLucas but they weren't approached with substance.

Which was a shame, a missed opportunity, which is exactly what I am faulting Biden for

@BohemianPeasant true, and unfortunately the vast majority of people will never actually read those opinions and will instead make assumptions about this question based on whether or not the court confirms their biases or not.

I fully believe that the opinions will reflect once again that politics have not infected the court.

I also fully believe that politics will have the vast majority of people ignore what the opinions actually say.

Same thing over and over.

@mhjohnson I just always want to emphasize that presidents and vice presidents run separately even if it has become the norm that we vote for them on the same slate.

Presidents technically do not choose their vice presidents. The process chooses each independently.

I think it's a shame that people never consider voting for split tickets.

@PeterSoukup but this is not analogous to Saturn v/ Apollo.

This is analogous to the research programs that proceeded those, where there were plenty of failures.

This is not the final product. SpaceX does not claim this is the final product.

@65dBnoise I wouldn't say this was little progress. It was quite a feat.

And in larger context, I would emphasize that government regulations are slowing them down.

If NASA wants to go faster I'm sure SpaceX would be for that, but the agencies and the executive branch need to work together to allow it.