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
We don't, though. Congressional Democrats could fix this pretty quickly, but they just aren't interested in standing up to the administration.
They just want to spend their time on Facebook trying to score political points by fighting instead of actually winning.
Let's call out Congressional Democrats for being so ineffective, and let's, for goodness sake, stop re-electing these same people that don't serve us.
@timrichards Well, when the museum reaches capacity is everyone else just out of luck? They don't get to go to the museum?
But again that doesn't really change the question.
Yeah, you can draw the line eight different ways that still have the same number of people per district, but the question is, which of those eight ways do you draw the line?
And the choice of where to draw the line is necessarily political.
Again my example, do you just draw a straight geographical line with the same number of people on each side, or do you draw a curved line to preserve community interests, again with the same number of people on each side?
The choice between those two lines is political. The choice itself is a political one.
@FunkETown I mean, sounds like he is giving the president a whole lot more authority than he actually has.
In the end, it doesn't really matter what the president thinks, we don't trust them to decide for themselves to leave office. We don't leave that choice up to them.
They are out, whether they accept it or not. It's not their choice.
The problem is, the other side is tolerating them.
Seriously, we keep reelecting the same Democrats that are completely ineffective, completely disinterested in using the power that they have to counter Republicans.
They're complicit.
Let's stop boating for Democrats until they stand up to Republicans.
Yes, both sides are bad. Let's be very clear about that. One side has Nazis? Okay, well the other side is tolerating and even promoting them. Not sure which is worse, to be honest.
The reason it makes a difference is because its important to realize that by choosing this tax policy y'all are pushing them hard to deliver this result that you don't want.
So if you don't want that result, maybe don't choose the policy that causes that result.
This is the choice that you are making. Realize that you have this power. And maybe don't use this power to cause the result that you don't like.
Up to you.
@redsad I mean that's dumb, but whatever, they are leaving with the money, so you can't even "take it back" once they're out the door.
I am curious as to how you think they stole it though.
@i_give_u_worms No, not for the purpose of evading taxes, but because taxes incentivized them to do that.
This is an important distinction as we talk about how to design tax policy.
@redsad If you don't need them and their money, then why are you taxing them and writing it into the budget?
@brenttoderian.bsky.social I think that's their point...
I think we need to highlight that we are choosing to fund this nonsense.
We should probably stop appropriating money for this sort of BS.
We should stop reelecting the same congresspeople that agree to fund this.
But we will reelect them, so I guess we like it.
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...
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:
