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
This undermining of the Court and the public interest is a bit of a chicken and egg deal:
First gin up doubt and then answer public questions with misinformation about what happened in the Court, thus amplifying those doubts and providing more room to misinform.
No, the Court didn't take away rights, weaken voting protections, or do a hundred other things that conspiracy theories against the court insist.
If folks read the opinions they'd see those claims easily debunked.
But it's not tough to explain. The decision is spelled out pretty clearly in the Supreme Court's publicly released opinion.
That's why they bother writing and releasing opinions to the public, so it's all explained.
But honestly, Vox is just not a reliable source. All too often its reporters act like they're confused by the world, whether that's an act for clicks or not.
Well, he THINKS he gets to issue decrees at will. Courts have pointed out that no, that's not how it works, consultation is often a requirement.
He's just too ignorant to know.
If it's good then enjoy it!
I'm sure your ancestors can compartmentalize. You're enjoying this food, so enjoy it. When you want a course of culinary history that's different, but this is just TJ food that makes you happy, and there's nothing wrong with that.
A rose by any other name and all.
SO MUCH of tech billionaires saying the wildest shit is because that's what the public wants, sadly. It's so important to keep that in mind.
They say the wildest shit because that's what gets them headlines. They get rewarded by the public for saying shit, so they say more of it.
It doesn't mean they believe it or want to be saying it. It means we, collectively, pressure and even pay them to say it.
We want reality TV stars stirring shit, so we tune in whether it's Survivor or CNBC.
No, the Supreme Court is absolutely not supposed to block this, and that's core to the design of the US system. People really misunderstand how the system functions, sadly, so they don't know who to talk to when things don't work right.
SCOTUS has no authority to block a case like that. It's left up to the states specifically to prevent unelected justices from having such power.
So many media outlets are getting this story wrong, and the headline here misses the mark too. SCOTUS blocked a lower court that was misbehaving. It didn't allow Alabama; it blocked the Northern District.
Yes, AP is misinforming and needs to be called out.
@basxto well how does it work with non-Mastodon ActivityPub clients?
I thought I remembered that looking into it AP had necessary functionality to handle communities.
Pigs wrestling with pigs. There was no high ground here.
Pelley threw mud and put CBS in a no-win situation.
Firstly, unfortunately you're running up against a fundamental issue with core fediverse design, that it's based on instances instead of users. The instance is your circle, and the instance decides how larger circles work. You're only able to tweak how the instance relationship works.
I will always be critical of fediverse/ActivityPub over this design decision. Places like Bluesky chose the other path, putting users at the center.
Second, if we're talking real advancement I would emphasize Friend Of A Friend methods that were solved generations ago. Decentralized affirmation of relationships is a very underutilized strategy, for some reason.
NBC doesn't exactly get the important technicalities correct.
SCOTUS prevented (not allowed) a lower court (not Alabama) from issuing orders that go against federal law.
The press needs to do a better job even when it comes to legal technicality as otherwise it misinforms the public.
Well.. right. That's what the SCOTUS said.
A lower court was insisting on racism, and the Supremes here issued an order that lower court's race based order cannot stand.
Cowards for issuing an unsigned order over the dissent of three? You think they think we can't figure out the other members of the Court? Come on.
No, that's just how this sort of ruling generally works in the Supreme Court. It's not cowardliness; it's the common procedure.
And NO, the Court didn't dip into the nationwide flurry. Again, that's not how the Supreme Court works. Instead, a lower court was misbehaving and this Court was asked to weigh in by the one being wronged. This Court did its job by answering the question and preventing the malfunction elsewhere in the judicial branch.
The thing to keep in mind is that Trump is absolutely no leader. He doesn't come up with this stuff on his own. Instead, he just parrots whatever he sees coming out of mainstream conservative US media.
And mainstream conservative media is full of idiots with the minds of children and sports analysts.
This is the stuff the kids say they want to see, so Trump repeats it.
Meh.
It's marketing of a product and an invitation to scifi dreams, something of an ARG or a fan club.
It's not villainous. Just kind of dumb.
It's funny how the ruling emphasizes Trump's administration's inability or unwillingness to even put up a solid fight.
According to the court they didn't even attempt to satisfy the need to show evidence that they were acting rationally. It's as if their lawyers were sabotaging the case.
https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2026/06/25-5087-2176040.pdf
I don't know how things are in day to day politics in Canada, but in the US at least it's really clear that votes matter far more than what rhetoric some bloviating politician squawks out to a microphone.
That's why I was looking at specific voting. Talk is cheap, so I tend to dismiss whatever Poilievre may say, personally, maybe on behalf of a large group to engage with the even larger group of constituents.
Again I ask questions like, what in the SpaceX filings is false? Where is the actual fraud?
Yes, it seems foolish for indexes to be including the company like this. That may be many things, but fraud?
Notably, the Raw Story story throws around the f word quite a lot, but it doesn't lay out fraud either.
Even if you want to focus on the indexes and say they're violating trust to include SpaceX, well, that's the index, not SpaceX.
SpaceX seems like a foolish, hyped stock to me. But that's not fraud in and of itself.
Where is the fraud exactly?
If people want to take a bet on a risk that's one thing, but what in SpaceX filings is false?
I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but maybe I missed it.
Well, it's more like investors are expected to throw a record $75 billion in the IPO.
Tapped makes it sound like the money is being taken when really it's being given, for better or worse.
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:
