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
@hdv the problem is, they're actively providing that service. It's not externalizing the cost when the costs are being actively encouraged by the server.
We really need to fix these false abstractions in the tech industry to more concretely solve problems.
@erininthemorning.com the judge misstates the record, though.
Crickets from the defense? Hardly, the judge even quotes the defense on the questions earlier in the ruling!
Regardless of what one thinks of the policy, this ruling was terribly flawed.
@Christofurio the problem is that so many people actually believe it literally works that way.
It's an unfortunate case of people mistaking satire for fact.
@JuanWild@newsie.social
I'd say one complication is the evolution/effort to get ActivityPub into more and varied types of interfaces.
The experience of someone accessing microblogs through Mastodon is going to be very different from someone accessing Lemmy content vs an interface focused on video sharing.
These new paths are kind of lateral to communities as there is the goal of having it all one big system, so any particular subculture would still intersect with each of these content types.
But then, I think the natural evolution as people figure out how to adapt to the more complicated network is going to be interested, mainly if it's not centrally managed.
I'd say the key is to always emphasize empowering of end users.
We don't need one version of the #Fediverse. We should promote a million versions as each user chooses and tweaks their interfaces to fix their needs and wants.
We don't need to keep the network messy. We need to *allow* it to be messy, without trying to shoehorn it into one particular idea of what it should be.
Unfortunately, too many devs seem intent on making it match their own aesthetics, forgetting the different opinions of users.
@hamishcampbell
@amcasari so they don't even know that it happened for sure, or exactly what happened, but people are charging ahead based on assumptions
People are really sensationalizing the report of #Roberts pushing back on #Trump's call for impeaching judges.
No, the statement doesn't have teeth. It's a mild statement of the record, that it's an established norm not to impeach over disagreement.
#Congress is always free to go there anyway.
No, it's not Roberts throwing bombs or a sign of a new direction. In fact, it was about preserving direction.
Sure, it was appropriate for Roberts to make the statement, but it just wasn't the big deal so many are making it out to be.
Sensationalizing it does play into Trump's rhetoric, though.
@Nonilex and that sort of arrangement has been clearly unconstitutional, as the fundamental structure of the US government doesn't provide for independent actors outside of the three legally established branches.
Hopefully we're on the way towards cleaning that generational mess up, as it has caused a ton of legal and practical problems over the years.
@Christofurio it's not so simple as whether a group is getting together to curb abuses. That's not how the Court works.
The Court adjudicates cases before it on a case by case basis, based on the arguments presented to it, and often enough there isn't a clearcut, complete win for either/any perspective speaking before it.
The view of teams against team Maga just isn't a realistic view of how the Court functions.
@JuanWild@newsie.social
@Mogleg sounds like you're cherrypicking reports based on your own confirmation bias now.
@micchiato The thing is, we're already there. These retirees getting Social Security payouts are already free to spend that on this parade of horriables.
And yet somehow the world has not melted down.
No this is silly. Letting people have more control of their own lives is, arguably, a pretty good idea on a few different levels.
@charly22 Oh in the US impeachment is not up to the judicial branch. It's a congressional process.
The Chief Justice is right to point out that such an impeachment would be inappropriate by existing norms and reasonable standards, but it's only an advisory opinion.
Constitutionally, Congress can impeach at will. It's purely up to them, and the Supreme Court has nothing to say about it.
@GottaLaff The Supreme Court absolutely did not make a mother fucker absolutely immune from crimes.
In fact, in its ruling the Supreme Court actively stated that prosecution of Trump should continue for his crimes.
A whole lot of reporting gets that backwards. It does make for better headlines I guess.
@EndIsraeliApartheid Independent press reports from around the world dispute that narrative, saying that the ceasefire had already been violated and was over before Israel acted.
@EndIsraeliApartheid Independent press reports from around the world dispute that narrative, saying that the ceasefire had already been violated and was over before Israel acted.
@karlauerbach I mean you can believe whatever you want, but you're talking about going to institutions to impose your beliefs when they, for better or worse, don't really agree with you.
You can yell at the umpire all you want, but if he doesn't agree with you about where you kind of believe the strike zone should be, you're not going to make any headway that way.
And that's my point. It sounds like you're trying to follow a strategy that is not only futile but can be actually counterproductive, actually supporting the exact behaviors that you are against.
If you want to improve things, especially if you want to convince other people over to your personal beliefs, then you have to think strategically, not just act on reflex like that.
Well, there's a complication that people have started talking about your truth and my truth.
You get to the point where people value truth... for a certain meaning of truth.
@Deixis9 Musk isn't an engineer... which is why he's not the one engineering these projects.
Company engineers are engineers, though, and they're the ones doing the engineering.
People need to stop being so obsessed with Musk.
@bibliolater that gets the argument backwards, though.
The idea isn't that the Court would grant Trump more power but rather that it would remove power from other branches, that have been throwing the system off-kilter for years, recognizing that the president has more responsibilities and accountability than he's had lately.
It's not granting power. It's recognizing the system of checks and balances at the core of the US design.
@bibliolater that gets the argument backwards, though.
The idea isn't that the Court would grant Trump more power but rather that it would remove power from other branches, that have been throwing the system off-kilter for years, recognizing that the president has more responsibilities and accountability than he's had lately.
It's not granting power. It's recognizing the system of checks and balances at the core of the US design.
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
