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
@blogdiva but the Supreme Court isn't about conscience. It's about law.
As an appeals court the job of the SCOTUS is to rule on law, regardless of conscience.
Any justice putting conscience ahead of law is not playing their role in our democratic system.
@PattyHanson that's not what was allowed by the decision, though.
@W_Lucht I mean, it sounds like it's backlash against ideologically motivated rhetoric, and you're laying out the ideology, confirming the motivation.
@Remittancegirl the thing to remember is that the design of the US government considered that, and that's exactly why presidents don't get to do just whatever they want.
A major reason for constraining the office of the presidency is to make that not really matter.
Indeed: ponder that, and recognize how brilliant the system of checks and balances is to mitigate that risk.
@mk twist: I don't really care about your bio.
@mk he's making fun of you.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees.
The point is NOT whether some position of Biden's is good or bad. For the sake of argument let's say all of his positions are great, if that helps you.
Even in that case, with every one of his proposals excellent, his presentation was the issue, as they squandered his ability to make progress on his own policies.
So you see, IF all of the policies were great but the speech set up roadblocks to great policies, THAT's why the SOTU was itself the problem.
@aka_quant_noir well right, because none of that dramatic side story actually matters, no matter how many reporters are trying to milk allegations for clicks.
What matters from the Court are the opinions that they hand down. So Breyer was asked about the opinions, which is a good thing.
We have enough of the side show out there already. Anyone can pull up all of the mudslinging that they want already.
It's good to ask a former justice about the actual work of the Court.
@PeachMcD 90% of Americans don't understand the legal or current event issues well enough to have an informed opinion, though.
I mean, that kind of ignorance is how Trump got elected in the first place.
@mk nope.
I didn't say you run a server, and you don't have to do anything for anyone else if you don't want to.
It honestly sounds like you're trying really hard to find fault with a system without understanding it, and understanding why your complains don't apply.
@Hyolobrika @CSB@noauthority.social
@ScottLucas well, skimming through the speech, the funny thing is how often Biden himself identifies his rhetoric as explicitly divisive.
Take, for example, "With a law I proposed and signed and not one Republican voted for we finally beat Big Pharma!"
You may very well be happy about the law, but that's not the point here.
The point is that this is no way to gain Republican support for the things he now needs their votes for going forward.
Not to mention, Republicans reject the idea--again, for better or worse--as shown by the lack of votes that Biden himself recognized for some reason.
This kind of thing is exactly why this speech was so counterproductive.
@TCatInReality it's simply not true that the SCOTUS has complete discretion to grand injunctions.
If you read through rulings you'll see the courts laying that out very strictly, showing that they have serious limitations on granting injunctions, as they interfere with very important legal processes.
The Supreme Court is only granted limited authority in the US system. It cannot legally apply whatever discretion it would like, as it was not granted such unlimited authority.
When you read court rulings, that point is emphasized throughout. It is fundamental to the way the US judicial branch functions.
@mk basically, yes.
Briefly, data is referenced by hash instead of by a location or server address, so it doesn't matter *where* the data is, so long as some server somewhere has the data corresponding to that hash, you don't really care where it's coming from.
IPFS has functionality for helping people who want the data connect to someone--anyone, anywhere--who has it.
@Hyolobrika @CSB@noauthority.social
@jupiter_rowland can you point to the specific part of the ActivityPub standard?
I'm curious and now I wonder between you and @mikedev who's right :)
As for Mastodon, though, I'm happy to apply Hanlon's Razor here and assume that without an issue opened for it, Mastodon devs simply might not be aware that it exists.
Although I would fault them for not knowing the AP standard more completely, but that's different from intentionally going non-standard.
(To be clear, I wouldn't put it past them, but I wouldn't assume it)
It's instructive that the most rabidly anti #TikTok conservative figures seem to be coming from a place of being completely out of touch with and misunderstanding the youths.
I keep hearing them say, Where did [insert idea] come from? Nobody was talking about that before the Chinese started manipulating kids through the TikToks!
But of course, they were talking about it, just in different circles that the speaker wasn't aware of.
This says a lot about many topics and many sides, but generally:
Echo chambers promote ignorance that leads to assumptions that manifest in heavy handed non-solutions to misidentified problems.
And all too naturally, those proposals will tend to be rather authoritarian efforts to fix people.
@TCatInReality the other critical thing to keep in mind is that it is adamantly NOT the job of the Supreme Court to defend the 1st amendment or any other amendment.
That's more a function of the other branches.
The Supreme Court was granted limited judicial power, not executive power, in deciding cases coming before it, a grant of jurisdiction for it to use as it will, so long as it doesn't cross the Constitution.
For practical reasons at times courts will skip unnecessary steps in the judicial process, but in this case the petitioners didn't make the case that the steps they were looking to skip were so unnecessary.
What the Court did, in declining to shirt circuit lower courts is exactly how it's supposed to work, as per the Constitution.
Had they done anything different, they would have been breaking their constitutional responsibilities.
@mk IPNS is a way for locating data without needing to rely on the DNS system.
It might be a useful approach for increased decentralization, especially for content addressed records.
@Hyolobrika @CSB@noauthority.social
@Hyolobrika I don't think so at all.
To the extent that we can identify a spirit ( :) ) I'd say giving end users the authority to enter in to whatever sort of relationship meets their needs is exactly what Bitcoin is aiming for.
It pushes those decisions out to the individual user of Bitcoin rather than forcing them into a fairly limited set of approved possibilities.
If I want to enter into some sort of custodial relationship because that works for me and my needs from currency, Bitcoin empowers me to do so.
@CSB@noauthority.social
@TCatInReality right, under certain circumstances a stay or injunction is legal and appropriate.
The problem is that they didn't find it to be that here.
So rather than exceed authority by issuing an inappropriate stay here, they stuck to their Constitutional role and let the process work though the normal procedure.
@TCatInReality the Constitution limits the authority of the Supreme Court.
For the Court to exceed its authority by issuing rulings outside of the legal process, THAT would be failing their duty to the Constitution.
And the dissents would have noted objections without risking taking the case in any fashion. That's part of why that process exists.
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:
