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
@pkraus The federal government treats the loans as a source of revenue, effectively as a tax.
It's not about whether you pay any other tax, it's about saying they don't have to pay their taxes in this case even though the government was relying on those revenues to fund government programs.
@pkraus The federal government treats the loans as a source of revenue, effectively as a tax.
It's not about whether you pay any other tax, it's about saying they don't have to pay their taxes in this case even though the government was relying on those revenues to fund government programs.
A fantastic sign that so many people cheering the murder of the #insurance #CEO are really off base is that so many describe that role as parasitic.
Factually that is wrong.
A parasite doesn't ask for permission to take, it just takes. In stark contrast, we pay for insurance. And these employees are paid, they don't just drain bank accounts unilaterally.
There's plenty of room to criticize insurance, insurance companies, the healthcare system, the political systems that support that, and on and on, but anyone buying into that entirely false perspective of parasitism is losing the argument flat out.
Because right from the start they're showing they don't know what they're talking about, and it only makes it worse that they're jumping from there into killing people.
They don't make a compelling argument for anyone not already in their echo chamber.
@marius_gs I mean, it doesn't though.
@georgelakoff Well the other thing you need to consider is that maybe you're simply wrong about the economic benefits?
I see that sort of thing all the time, progressives insisting that something is economically against so and so, but when you sit down and work through it, the progressive simply has their analysis wrong.
Question your priors. Don't assume that you're right just because the other side doesn't agree.
@enmodo so you see how that's not quite the same?
@QasimRashid It's absolutely not, though.
That's not how the government works, that's not how government finance works.
To say that those students don't need to pay for their share of the government budget isn't about letting them eat cake or whatever you think that means. It's about defunding government programs that our democratic process decided needed to be funded in that way.
No, you have that completely backwards.
Just pointing out why your story is so ridiculous.
You're jumping through more holes than a flat earther here, and so I don't know why you believe that stuff, but what you're saying there really isn't convincing.
@maeve ha, they are calling for more frequent appointments to the bench and they say that will cause LESS political turmoil?
Anyway, to be clear for those who don't click through, this is proposing a constitutional amendment, so it's not going anywhere anytime soon.
As it, arguably, shouldn't as it wouldn't have the results they're selling.
Many #Trump supporters take the stance that he was never ACTUALLY going to impose tariffs, that they were mere negotiating threats, and anyone who doesn't know that is an idiot.
Meanwhile #Harris was criticized for not laying out specifics of what she would do in office.
Funnily, then, that was a contest between someone who **wouldn't** say what they **would** do versus someone who **would** said what they **wouldn't** do.
What a time to be alive.
@constantine If you watched how he handled developing Mastodon and dealing with honest disagreements about the user interface, there's nothing surprising here.
The guy always had the attitude that his personal opinions were the one true opinions, and anyone with different personal opinions didn't know anything about the world.
He had an attitude that he was going to shape society because he knew best.
@manton often things like this are due to practical limitation and not philosophical disagreement.
The company might very well be serious about more open APIs, but unfortunately they have to gatekeep because the APIs are hitting their systems, and they have to manage that load on their infrastructure.
@manton The thing that I see people missing so often is not about what AI can do for animators, but rather what it can do for people who aren't animators.
I'm not an animator, but thanks to AI, AI allows me to do more art, helping augment my skill set where it has holes.
I think it kind of misses the mark to ask an animator. It's everyone else that benefits from this.
@Hex It's funny that first you go back to a mere transcript from generations ago to talk about what's happening today, and then you miss the key part and the transcript that you highlighted that talks about "they" providing care, not we provide care, emphasizing that the insurance company does not provide care.
And all that to build up this abstraction with hand waving toward models, not care, that all concludes something about incentives that are themselves not something that would block care.
Don't you see how weak your case is? Every link along the chain that arrives at your sensational story is critically flawed
And sadly enough, promotion of that nonsense is getting people killed when they believe it.
@enmodo citation to them telling you that?
@enmodo I mean they do, if you bother to listen.
But then it kind of confirms their opinion that you don't bother to listen.
@notjustbikes seems perfectly reasonable to me.
This is their experience that they are crafting. Why in the world should you be able to intrude like that into their experience?
This is about respecting users' abilities to make of the service what they want.
And by the same token you have every right craft your experience by blocking such people, or you should in a functional system. The UI should not force them on you, but you should not be able to force their UI to exclude you in a list like this.
Empowering of users goes both ways.
Oh no, I know quite a few personally. Real flesh and blood humans who are sadly misinformed about how the world works.
Oh you were so close.
Insurance companies get in the way? No. That's not how that works. That's not what insurance is or what it does.
If a healthcare worker wants to provide care, they should go for it. The insurance company isn't going to jump in the way of their scalpel to stop them.
You are absolutely correct that insurance companies don't provide healthcare. Unfortunately, so so many people think they do. So congratulations for not falling into that bit of misinformation.
But then you had to swerve and say insurance companies just get in the way, which, no. They don't do that either.
Insurance companies provide risk management which has only indirect application to healthcare, it neither provides healthcare nor blocks healthcare.
They just aren't part of that either way unless people insist on them being, which is their option.
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
