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
@eriner okay, but I repeat, what might happen if the people decide that you're on the wrong side of justice?
The deflection doesn't absolve you from thinking about that.
What if they decide that you are up for murder? You okay with that?
I really don't care about oligarchs. I'm just suggesting that maybe you think about yourself and what might happen when you face the guillotine.
Sounds like it's more that NPR had some coverage that confirmed your bias. It told you what you wanted to hear.
In general on topics like this NPR has extremely slanted coverage that often enough even misrepresents the positive side not to mention failing to cover the negative side.
NPR reporting has gone so downhill in the last decade or so. And we really need to call them out on that so that they hopefully improve, not just let it slide when it happens to be convenient for our opinions.
@eriner uh huh.
Consider what might happen if "the people" decide that you're on the wrong side of justice.
Careful with how you set your interests.
@ncoca it's like, if this apple was an orange, you can bet it would taste a lot different!
The two situations you describe aren't comparable. The targeted killing of a high profile individual carries suggestions of terrorism that just aren't so present in the other case.
They are very different in ways that have nothing to do with lives mattering more. It has to do with vastly different offenses against society.
@ncoca it's like, if this apple was an orange, you can bet it would taste a lot different!
The two situations you describe aren't comparable. The targeted killing of a high profile individual carries suggestions of terrorism that just aren't so present in the other case.
They are very different in ways that have nothing to do with lives mattering more. It has to do with vastly different offenses against society.
@Phil Well, key to this is whether an offense is the action or the crime.
If I break a federal law but I'm not charged, did I or did I not commit an offense against the United States?
Another issue with your post is, do you mean preemptive to the action or preemptive to charging/conviction? I'm not sure which you were saying, and it makes a difference.
@Athavariel but that's not right, and to me it's really important to be clear about this to #Fediverse users:
#Mastodon and the other ActivityPub clients do almost nothing to keep your data out of the hands of others like #Meta. It's a broadcast platform leaving the door wide open for actors like Meta to vacuum it all up for their own uses.
Anyone posting their content here needs to be aware of how public it all is, how uncontrolled the access to the content really is.
But this is why such questions are to be hashed out in legislative branches, not judicial branches. The courts merely deferred to the democratic process in its reasonable finding that the two are different, and different in ways that the state has substantial interest in recognizing.
So, make sure your representatives are doing what you want them to do. All too often people keep voting for exactly the reps that are voting against their wants while distracted by the courts like this.
@Phil do you have a citation to the finding?
We should be able to pull up the opinion and see what they based it on.
@realcaseyrollins
@PeterSoukup no, that's not how the process works.
Due process often involves review after the trial, which is what's going on now.
Until the completion of his due process rights he's not a convicted felon. He's just someone a jury in a contested trial has voted to find guilty.
Our legal system has other protections in place before conviction, though. The jury is just one part of the process.
@PeterSoukup correction: not convicted felon.
Biden's people didn't manage to get the conviction entered in a sentencing hearing as they dropped the ball.
Well I'd frame it as a question of overhead and cost benefit.
E2EE necessarily carries administrative and resource overhead, and for one category of message that's completely worth the trade to keep secrets secret. But for other messages? Might as well leave them fairly exposed because you don't care that much about secrecy.
In this case, though, aren't they talking about real time voice communication? It's harder to do that over TLS through trusted servers.
You're missing the context and why she asked the question. It's not about whether it's OK or not OK, but rather it was referencing previous court decisions that analyzed discrimination claims in terms of de jure history.
She was giving the challenger an opportunity to prove discrimination using an existing legal framework for showing it.
It sure would have been nice for the article to give that context.
@yamainu but that's exactly why under the US system the Supreme Court isn't charged with deciding between studies. That's not its job.
SCOTUS is to rule on law, not on studies.
It's the wrong forum to try to battle out studies. That's to be done in the other branch, the legislative bodies, not the judicial bodies.
THEY'RE the ones tasked with considering studies to set the law. After that, the courts are to rule on the laws as they were passed.
@delve but that's not at all the question before the Court.
The Court doesn't rule on medical opinions. It has neither the expertise nor the authority to make such determinations.
The Court rules on legal questions only.
Whether suicides are cut or not and how to approach that is a matter for our legislative branches, and this misunderstanding often ends up letting them off the hook for doing what we want them to do.
@lisagetspolitik that's not how the legal system in the US works, though.
SCOTUS sitting as an appellate court here doesn't rule on whether you can never prove sex discrimination. The question is whether in this particular case there is clearly sex discrimination, and this case is very different from so many others where that charge is made.
SCOTUS cannot rule through this case that sex discrimination is a thing you can never prove.
@lps yeah, at the least IPFS would be great for hosting static content like memes and cat pictures.
IPFS is a little weak on serving dynamic content like a feed of posts, but it can be done.
The big problem is in overhead, though. Decentralized systems like IPFS trade inefficiency for their features, so who knows how well IPFS would be able to scale.
@breedlov hey, look at it the other way: this is this idiot handing millions to others who will hopefully put the money to better use.
Access to medical care in the US has long been highly regulated. Politicians interfere in personal medical decisions every single day.
Personally, I don't think that's right, but it's the status quo, and it's not going to change any time soon, especially when so many insist on turning a blind eye to that fact.
But it's in that context that "hands off my body" arguments fall flat. We have long lived in a society where political intrusion into personal medical decisions is not only tolerated but actively demanded.
At this point it's not about whether to keep politicians out but rather which politicians to give the power to.
People need to realize, though, that the Supreme Court doesn't sit to judge medical questions. Whether or not medical associations support the procedures is irrelevant to the question before the Court.
The Court rules on matter of law, not medicine. The question is whether the TN law runs up against federal law, not medical determinations.
Folks misunderstand that quite often.
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
