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
Let's not forget that criminal charges are not about survivors or victims but about crimes against the state.
These criminal investigations are not about survivors or victims but about people who have transgressed against society as personified in the government itself. It's about folks who broke criminal law against the state.
The reason this matters is because it shapes how we approach this whole thing. If we want prosecutors to go after these people then we probably need to stop releasing documents that perpetrators can use in their defense through the due process processes that we have set up.
Survivors and victims can go through civil processes, but we are undermining the criminal cases by confusing the two. It is effectively letting the perpetrators go free because we are too interested in salacious tabloid.
@FranckLeroy I'd say this is a case where the free market is the worst driver for humanity except for all the others.
The alternative to the free market is some sort of authoritarianism that puts the power in the hands of some fallible humans, which is even worse.
At least in the free market the function is win-win associations.
So to illustrate, say you have a city that needs to be split into two districts. You give it to an independent commission to do the splitting. How do they split it?
Do they split it along historical neighborhood lines so that two different communities each get their own district? Do they split it with an eye to avoid disenfranchising an ethnic group in each district? Do they split it purely geographically, drawing a straight line through the city?
Just to name three options.
Okay so it's an independent commission. Their choice among those three options is fundamentally political. And that's simplifying it.
You see the issue? Independent commissions do not somehow make it non-political. We have done independent commissions, that's not a mystery to us. It's just that, there's no escaping the political. Yes, it will be political. That's just the reality of government.
I'm talking energy and physics. It doesn't take much energy to run Bitcoin. That's how it was designed, to only take the amount of energy that people want to spend on it.
The entire Bitcoin system can run on a car battery. You can literally do this any day of the week if you want to. Load up the daemon and let it rip. It does not take much energy at all to run. That's the physical truth of it.
All of the rest of the energy is optional, all of the rest of the energy is extra that people are trading because they think it's valuable.
But physically, it does not take hardly any energy at all to run Bitcoin. That's how it was designed, to use a minimal amount to function.
Again, everything above that minimum is optional, it's just that people decide to opt in to spending that. Everything above that minimum is economic.
Again, Americans have legally required it. Americans actually want it this way. The thing is, Americans want districts gerrymandered because of all sorts of things starting with ideas about historical justice.
But let me be very clear, we have had independent commissions gerrymandering our districts. They have come with their own problems, including corruption and illegal districting.
Again, gerrymandering is unavoidable. Even leaving the gerrymandering to independent commissions doesn't make it not gerrymandering. It just moves the problem around.
If it's a waste of energy that's not worth the cost then people won't spend the cost, and then the system is designed to lower the difficulty automatically in response.
The ONLY reason this much energy is being spent is because people believe it's worthwhile and not a waste to spend it.
That is built into the system. Any moment that people decide it's not worth the energy then the difficulty will be lowered in response.
That is how we know it's not a waste, because people are choosing to spend the energy because they value it.
That's the whole point. That's what you're missing.
If you personally don't value Bitcoin that much it's perfectly understandable! Don't spend your energy that way. I don't value Super Bowl tickets at $200. I'm not going to spend my money that way.
But it would be foolish for me to say that $200 is being wasted on the Super Bowl just because other people value it that way.
And that's exactly what's happening here.
Other people happen to have different values than you. Well that's life.
I've run it on a single battery before. You can too. Grab a RaspberryPi, install the daemons, and let it rip.
Proof of work is designed to allow people to decide for themselves how much energy they think the network is worth. If they think it's worth very little then they'll give it very little energy--they won't give it much work--and then it won't take much energy to operate.
Currently people believe Bitcoin to be worth 1300 kWh of energy per transaction, and people believe Super Bowl tickets to be worth $200 and Taylor Swift tickets to be worth $1000.
Is that insane? Well, people are going to value what they value.
It's important to realize this is a mainstream #GOP approach to the legal situation surrounding #ICE actions, and responses to it.
Confirmation bias is running rampant in the #Republican party that has lost all intellectual rigor, and that is now lead by sportscasters and other shallow thinkers.
#BrianKilmeade: How could #ICE arrest all of the people it wants to if it had to get a warrants? Why, that would stop them from conducting a lot o...
No. Gerrymandering was required by law long before Trump was on the scene, and courts have been addressing it for generations. The laws, and practical realities, would remain long after Trump has wandered off.
Gerrymandering cannot be ended by creating independent election commissions. That just puts those election commissions in charge of the gerrymandering, for better or worse.
But let's not kid ourselves. Gerrymandering is a completely unavoidable factor in our election systems. We need to face that so we can manage it.
Well, it's more be understanding of the Court.
There are very good reasons for these two actions between TX and CA. Both are reasonable if one understands the background.
Yeah, it's been sad to see that over the past decade or so a lot of otherwise respectable experts, particularly in legal fields, have seemed to give up and tell pop audiences what they want to hear.
Luttig might be one of them.
Because this is utter nonsense and completely divorced from what the SCOTUS actually said.
@foxmental.bsky.social SCOTUS only works in public.
That's key to how the Supreme Court functions. Its rulings are public; its binding opinions as well.
There are no secret agreements. There can't be, or else they wouldn't count.
Well the main thing that too many people have bought into is that Bitcoin wastes that much power. That gets it backwards.
No, the Bitcoin system itself could run on a solar cell. It's a fairly efficient method of accomplishing its goals of trustless transaction recording.
The rest of the power isn't Bitcoin's waste but rather what people are paying to use the system. It's effectively customer revenue.
To say Bitcoin wastes this ton of power is like saying Taylor Swift wasted $13 million since fans paid that for her concert.
It's a descendant of feudalism in the same way that modern agriculture is a descendant of superstitious practices to ensure a good harvest:
It shed the control factor because that wasn't scaleable or sustainable as the world moved on.
It is BECAUSE it's not about control that it descended feudalism, rather insisting on voluntary exchange, which works much better in the modern context.
So capitalism, or at least things that aren't capitalism, is born out of bad things, and things that aren't capitalism generally comes from exploitation.
You see the problem with that perspective? It criticized capitalism for things that aren't capitalism!
Heck, capitalism is ANTI-exploitative as it insists on mutually beneficial, voluntary exchange.
MORE capitalism would have prevented some of the concerns you raise.
@hamishcampbell @info
@dougiec3 wrong branch of government.
Well, if you listen to mainstream conservative media, it's more of a moral panic than a want for control.
They harp on it every day as a panic, a generation lost to mind control basically.
Akhil Amar has been talking about this topic recently, so you don't have to go back to 1987. He's even been laying out application to current events.
Basically, NO, the federal Congress doesn't have to authorize states to pass legislation. States can do what they want legislatively.
So if an ICE agent breaks a state law, then regardless of what the federal Congress says, the state can bring charges against the agent in state courts.
Then it's up to the agent to show that they were actually carrying out an authorized, *constitutional* function of the federal government.
If they weren't, then they get thrown to the state.
@freeschool Well, different people have VASTLY different views about what Social should be about or what experiences they want. Some don't realize the tradeoffs they're making.
For example, I personally hate the Twitter-style microblogging format specifically because it impedes deep dives. Other people insist on it without necessarily realizing they're losing the deep dive.
Or the person might simply be apathetic to deep dives in the first place.
That's at the technological level. On the social level, folks who hate Facebook-style platforms don't develop the durable connections that engender deep discussion.
In short, a lot of people make technological and social choices to avoid deep discussion, and while that's not my style, they have to follow their own paths.
Personally, I like to see technology that empowers people to make that choice.
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:
