/ is on Nostr

Why Nostr? What is Njump?

Public Key

npub1z9nz50nu849nt8ucwtr0ssa4pyzkre30z6mzw9dpemjfq5ankypsug7jc5

NIP-05 Address

[email protected]

Profile Code

nprofile1qqspze328e7r6je4n7v893hcgw6sjptpuch3dd38zksuaeys2wemzqcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43qmwq5q2

Publishing to

relay.mostr.pub

Author Public Key

npub1z9nz50nu849nt8ucwtr0ssa4pyzkre30z6mzw9dpemjfq5ankypsug7jc5

Show more details

Last Notes

2024-06-26 16:35:04

- reply

@npub1pqp…e753 Well it would be about servers you trust. It’s up to the server as to which people see the content.
But from quickly re-skimming the protocol spec, I’m not even sure how true that is. It looks like the protocol still allows servers to send content to other servers regardless of what a user requests.

2024-06-19 16:59:37

- reply

@npub1axm…dsle uh huh.
It just means this will now be scraped and that you have it on there will be added to your profile in the company's database.

2024-05-29 00:05:07

- reply

@npub1m34…njzz well, I just try to emphasize that in most cases SCOTUS is sitting as a court of appeals, so it’s naturally judging lower courts more than the individual people named.

2024-05-13 21:31:54

- reply

@npub1788…9nku I mean they lay out their reasoning showing that there is no genocide there, particularly the efforts taken to avoid killing.
They deny it because they have the evidence that it doesn’t exist.

2024-04-22 16:46:06

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p that’s not really consistent with how ActivityPub is designed in its core.
It’s really designed around instances, not identities, so you’d run into problems trying to share identities across instances.

2024-04-12 22:14:01

- reply

@npub1ahq…wjwd It’s up to all of us.
If we decide differently, things will be different.
We should not accept disempowerment.

2024-04-12 20:00:25

- reply

@npub1ahq…wjwd It’s the difference between could versus will.
Yes, that political option is on the table. No, there’s no realistic chance that the politicians that we have elected will take that option.

2024-04-12 17:28:37

- reply

@npub1ahq…wjwd Well of course it has a lot to do with politics since political decisions impacted the money supply which impacted the prices charged for that money.

2024-04-09 14:35:09

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 sounds like you prefer to have a generic accent.
Which is itself the adoption of an accent--a generic one :)

2024-03-17 20:31:54

- reply

@npub18ec…c8r8 IPNS is a way for locating data without needing to rely on the DNS system.
It might be a useful approach for increased decentralization, especially for content addressed records.
@npub1pqp…e753 @npub1njp…djv3

2024-03-09 00:23:31

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Yeah, one thing I was struck by was the constant talk of himself and what he (supposedly) did, instead of what we did, or what the government did, etc. Humility would be nice, but at least he should realize that it wasn’t a moment to talk about himself.

2024-03-09 00:13:03

The big problem with the #Biden State of the Union speech was that instead of speaking to the whole country about the whole country, it focused on speaking to his own choir about himself and his reelection.
That’s why people are criticizing it as a campaign speech.
If you’re a Biden supporter, realize that the speech did not invite non-supporters, including independents, to join in his efforts. It appealed only to those already on board, which is not productive in terms of actually getting those efforts done.
In other words, if you’re in favor of what Biden was calling for, you too should be critical that this #SOTU won’t help get those things done.
The speech seemed focused on helping nobody… except Joe Biden’s personal reelection.

2024-03-05 00:17:16

- reply

@npub1pqp…e753 I’d be interested in learning about those proposals.
My concern is that it’s like trying to bolt wings onto a car to make it fly instead of starting from scratch with an airplane fuselage: I think the platform is fundamentally not adapted for it, so I’m skeptical that those additions would work in an elegant way.
But I’m interested!
@npub1ks4…x88p

2024-03-04 23:52:46

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p
Well for what it’s worth, my opinion, just an opinion, is that the platform was held back by engineering decisions that came out of a web server world, where everything was focused on servers instead of users.
If you look at the technologies underneath ActivityPub, it looks like developers grabbed a bunch of off-the-shelf web technologies and cobbled them together. Lots of http and webfinger and web certificates, etc.
They could have started more from scratch, but this is the direction they went, and for better or worse, it’s going to be a server oriented platform because it was built on server oriented technologies.
I think it was a case of having a hammer and everything looking like a nail 🙂
@npub1pqp…e753

2024-03-04 23:43:18

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p It sounds like you might be talking about the actual rollout rather than the protocol itself, which is kind of a different issue.
The AT protocol is decentralized even if nobody takes advantage of that feature. So it could be theory versus reality, and I’m talking about the theory, even if in reality right now the network isn’t particularly built out yet.
But speaking of the protocol, as I recall one difference is that, the way you frame it, your mobile doesn’t have to talk to A relay. It can talk to multiple relays, as many as it wants, it’s in control. The control over who to talk to is distributed down to your mobile.
AP puts everything at the instance level. Your mobile has to talk to your instance, no other instance. And not multiple instances. Your mobile is bound to your instance.
With AP your mobile is really just an extension of the instance. With AT the relays work for the mobile.
@npub1pqp…e753

2024-03-04 23:10:26

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p Well the other half of the ax that I grind is that I wish Fediverse developers had much more of a focus on end users, on letting end empowering end users to shape their experiences the way they want so that different people can use the same platform in different ways.
We do see some of that with, for example, picture posting sites existing alongside the microblogging sites. Different interfaces just have to figure out how to handle different types of content coming across.
But taking it a step farther, this is why I emphasize ActivityPub being not so much decentralized as centralized around instances. That is a constraint that prevents this platform from being as flexible to different users.
And I think ATProtocol seems more decentralized and more flexible so that more users can have different sorts of experiences all on the same network.
In a way it’s like how web traffic and email all coexist on the internet. If you decentralize more control you can have more different approaches to the experience.
@npub1pqp…e753

2024-03-04 22:56:53

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p
It’s a really important point that different people use social media differently and expect different things out of social media.
The reason I think this point is so important is because too often users will think the system works one way and expect it to work that way when in reality it’s working a different way.
That applies here. You bring up the idea that most of what we do on social media is targeted toward the public, and platforms like Twitter and Mastodon seem very focused on that mode, and there’s absolutely nothing wrong with that.
However, a user that expects more privacy and less targeting toward the public might find themself surprised if their content is much more public than they were expecting.
So that’s why I grind that ax pretty regularly.
@npub1pqp…e753

2024-03-04 21:32:20

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p I think that the AT protocol is MORE decentralized, not less, because of that: it decentralizes past servers/ instances, so that there’s less server to server interaction is a result of being less centralized around servers.

2024-03-04 21:07:32

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p what about ATProtocol prevents decentralization?
From what I’ve read it promotes it better than the protocols here.

2024-02-23 06:55:23

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 a while back, maybe last year? I heard somebody propose that these days Republicans tend to err in magnitude while Democrats err in direction or sign.
Since then it’s been very interesting to think about current events through that lens.
For example, off the top of my head, you could consider federal government deficit spending where Republicans have been talking as if it’s the end of the world while Democrats have been talking as if it’s actually a good thing.
So I don’t think Democrats are following suit, but they are committing their own errors in ways that are orthogonal to the errors of Republicans.
To put it simplistically, it’s almost like Democrats are doing a good job of a bad task while Republicans are doing a bad job of a good task.
I don’t know which is worse, but I personally find the Republican side to be more frustrating.

2024-02-22 20:33:17

I often stay up to date with #conservative media in #USPolitics just to keep apprised of what the #GOP is talking about, or to put it in a different way, so you don’t have to, but lately it’s getting just two much even for me.
It’s one thing to disagree with facts that #Republicans are working with, but lately they are getting more and more unhinged in their actual arguments, contradicting themselves but seeming oblivious of it.
For example, this week I heard the line that progressive attacks against #Trump are good for him because they will make him seem moderate to voters. If the ideologues are attacking him, then he must be moderate, right? But then the next moment that same presenter started talking about progressive attacks against #Biden without applying the exact same reasoning to that case.
In the past few weeks mainstream conservative talking points have just gotten ridiculous in their blind support for Trump. They’ve stopped talking about policy, or their claims about accomplishments, or anything like that. Now it’s just getting into chanting that really didn’t exist before.
On one hand, it’s sad to watch, it’s pathetic, and on the other hand it’s boring.
So I figure they are setting themselves up for a repeat of the red wave that never showed up during the last election. They are not setting themselves up to win.
Sigh. I wish they would at least make it interesting to watch.

2024-02-22 20:16:28

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 these days I'm constantly struck by how much money is spent to buy the latest computers that are slower at doing the same processes we used to do decades ago on hardware that was exponentially slower.
Because apparently efficiency is not given enough priority in computer engineering these days.
It's really something.

2024-02-22 18:52:18

- reply

@npub126j…vmuu One of the huge issues I have with #Fediverse / #Mastodon / #ActivityPub is that it is engineered to be completely centered around instances, unlike other platforms.
And so this is one downside of that decision. When the instance goes down, it really messes with users.
It's why I emphasize that this platform is not decentralized but rather it is centralized around instances. Federated, not decentralized.
#BlueSky did not make the same design choice.

2024-02-12 16:04:29

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p it would be nice to at least see talk about user focus, even if its expressed as a longterm hope or a direction that we’d like to see development progress in.
Heck, if we talk about such things then who knows if a developer with experience in, say, email spam filtering might not be able to offer a relatively easy solution from solved problems in that world.
However, I see so much talk about server focus without and developing things to help servers that talk of user focus is starkly absent.
If these are problems to be handled by a more developed ecosystem, all the more reason to start working and highlighting them now.

2024-02-12 15:35:46

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p that’s a great example I might use, as email server spam protection very often works with users to tailor filters for each one.
So we could focus on doing similar things here.
For generations now we’ve watched email server spam filters try various ways to tailor themselves to each user, with techniques ranging from analyzing frequent contacts through feedback mechanisms.
Let’s learn from that and follow the example here!

2024-02-12 15:21:40

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p but therein lies the problem :)
How does the server know what the user would consider crap vs what they want?
And even harder, how does the server deal with two different users having vastly different judgments about that?
This is the problem with focusing on servers.
It’s exactly why I think we should rather focus on users, letting them control what they see, based on what they would find to be crap vs wanted content.

2024-01-29 02:05:24

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Yeah, the way I figure if we elect someone to office who is really into dictatorship, well, that’s really going to suck for them because they are going to spend every day in the Oval Office lamenting that they don’t have dictatorial powers
We probably shouldn’t elect such a person, but if we do, honestly that person is probably going to be the worst off from it.
@npub1pqp…e753 @npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-29 02:02:17

- reply

@npub1pqp…e753 maybe the thing that you are missing is that in a system like the US they don’t get that power merely because they get elected.
In the US it is fundamental to the system that no, we absolutely don’t trust ANYONE with such power.
It doesn’t matter if you get elected, it doesn’t matter if you really really want the power, it doesn’t matter if you think you have the power, you still don’t have the power, because the US system was designed specifically to make sure you don’t have that power.
That’s a huge problem with this whole “ democracy is on the ballot” nonsense. No, it’s not, because the US system was designed specifically to make such a thing impossible.
So I would say that if the people want to elect somebody promising things that they wouldn’t have the authority to do at all, then the people are wasting their votes and they’re going to be disappointed, but that’s really the long and short of it.
Might as well vote for the candidate that is promising to flap his arms and fly to the ceiling.
We should absolutely educate the public on civics so that they know those promises are unfulfillable, but if they want to vote for someone based on a promise that he can’t keep, well…
@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-29 01:50:07

- reply

@npub1pqp…e753 @npub1kpw…xzz4
I always find definitional arguments to be a bit uninteresting, but FWIW the professional, trained historian, academic friends of mine have mentioned that fascism is basically a useless word historically because it doesn’t have a workable, agreed upon definition, so they sound like they would rather people just never use that word again unless maybe in reference to Mussolini specifically.
@npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-29 00:37:57

- reply

@npub17wh…5q4q have you ever considered the possibility that Mussolini wasn’t actually that smart?
@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1pqp…e753 @npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-28 23:52:48

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Right, neither do I, and that's why I would say we both (and everyone else) need to be ready to proudly state that we are intolerant of certain things 🙂
That's my point.
Rather than redefining tolerance we should all own the causes where we promote intolerance.
@npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-28 23:51:16

- reply

@npub1pqp…e753 I think the first step in that question is being honest about what it’s doing.
Like you said, sacrifice some democracy. I’m glad you put it that way. So many people not only refuse to put it that way, but they deny that they are doing that in the first place.
We as a society can’t really discuss whether we want to make that trade off or not if we are refusing to call it what it is.
@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-28 23:49:10

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4
Well I was channeling the nonsensical notion that in tolerance would be tolerance but to be practical:
If you want to be a tolerance absolutist, to borrow Musk's term, then yeah you do have to be tolerant of even absurdity. If you want to claim such absolute tolerance, well, that might be rough, but it will involve tolerating a bunch of wacky stuff.
And that's why absolute tolerance is pretty unworkable in the real world.
In the real world, in most situations, we will be intolerant, and that is a good and healthy and mature thing so long as we draw the lines in appropriate places.
We should celebrate being intolerant of things that make the world, or our lives, or the situation worse.
Don't like Nazis? (whatever that means to you) Fine! You're probably going to want to be intolerant of them, and that's the right thing to do.
But it's the wrong thing to be reasonably intolerant of Nazis but claim that you're being tolerant.
No, be intolerant! And proudly say that you are intolerant of Nazis!
It's just Orwellian to try to rewrite the word for no particularly good reason like that.
@npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-28 23:41:15

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 nobody said you have to be tolerant!
But if you're going to be tolerant then, yes, you have to be tolerant to the point of absurdity if it comes to that, by definition.
And that's a great reason not to be absurdly tolerant!
@npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-28 23:29:59

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I'd say the key is to just be honest.
If a person doesn't want to tolerate something, great! They should own it. I'm going to be intolerant about my friends being jerks in my living room.
Intolerance is not necessarily bad.
And in fact a person can highlight just how bad they consider something to be by saying, that idea is so unacceptable that I will be intolerant about it.
So I always tell people to just be honest, own what they are doing, don't try to rewrite the language instead because that just gets silly and even undermines their causes.
@npub1q8n…kct8

2024-01-28 23:06:48

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 @npub1q8n…kct8
2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of two
Tolerance is absolutely a virtue for sufficiently intolerant definitions of tolerant.

2024-01-28 22:06:41

- reply

@npub1ulm…ug75 My sense is that a whole lot of it comes down to rebels without a place to direct their rebellion.
They need a The Man to fight against, but given the state of the US government they don’t see much to fight against there, so they start making up monsters.
@npub1kpw…xzz4

2024-01-28 22:04:37

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 yep.
It's the old internet adage don't feed the trolls.
Trump was on his way out of the limelight and into history until Democrats started renewing the attention and supporting his rhetoric by the way they acted.

2024-01-24 02:27:07

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Hey such profound factual ignorance isn’t exactly a GOOD thing :)
Yeah I’m happy to strongly fault people for this kind of basic lack of knowledge, when it’s not exactly rocket science or state secret. And I’m also happy to consider that it might be intentional blindness, which makes it even worse.
If a person wants to talk about a president but hasn’t bothered learning what a president actually does (or lies to themselves about what a president actually does) then I think they can’t move forward from that.
At that point they’re not even thinking about this reality, regardless of any reasoning they might need to build on top of that base.
@npub1vnz…6xl8

2024-01-24 01:01:02

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 and maybe just as importantly, basic knowledge of civics.
I seriously believe that if more people understood how the u.s government functions they wouldn’t be as susceptible to these hysterical claims.
@npub1vnz…6xl8

2024-01-24 00:55:42

- reply

@npub1vnz…6xl8 It strikes me that I heard such outlandish claims before Trump was elected last time. People shouting that kind of foolishness look only more discredited after so many of the last claims didn’t turn out.
It’s crying wolf.
And in the end, I would say that if you want to oppose Trump then the best thing you could do is point out how ineffective he is, what a loser he was, instead of promoting these nutty ideas that actually earn him more support from the nutty base who might vote for him.
If you want to oppose Trump, why not point out that he’s not the strong leader that would deport all the Muslims, or whatever, to a erode his support from voters who want to see that?
@npub1kpw…xzz4

2024-01-13 20:52:57

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I don't think this person has met a lot of professors if they don't know there are professors who are indeed very engaged in indoctrination.
Many of my professors were explicitly pushing their values even during class time on topics unrelated to the material.
I've even had professors conducting political party business during class time. They were apparently officers in the local branches of the party.
Yes, it's absolutely a thing.

2024-01-12 16:41:19

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 it's the thing that happens to so many public figures... not to mention sitcom characters:
When a person can consistently get a crowd reaction with some superficial action, eventually they get lazy and just lean into that action instead of putting in the effort to have depth, which is harder.
Basically, these real life figures eventually give up and become the caricature that their fans want, just like a sitcom character where writers get lazy and just write them as one dimensional.

2024-01-12 16:15:26

- reply

@npub1z9z…c6cq are dollar bills money?
Because they aren’t the exact same as each other.
Same with Bitcoin.
The concept of dollar and of Bitcoin remain fungible even if the actual paper or transaction record might involve some uniqueness.
And thus, Bitcoin is money, particularly since people buy and sell things with it, as money.
@npub1m29…khl9

2024-01-09 16:53:24

- reply

@npub1z9z…c6cq
Have you actually used Bitcoin lately?
I have, and even if I offer extremely low fees on my transactions they go through the chain just fine.
What you’re claiming there just doesn’t match real world experience.
@npub1m29…khl9 @npub1gzc…fsz3

2024-01-06 01:10:58

- reply

@npub1dgq…7aev we’ll see..
Personally I wouldn’t be so excited about betting on a loser like Trump.
I seriously don’t know why Republicans would look at a guy who made such giant strategic missteps that he gave away the last election and lost to someone like Biden, and then say, yeah that’s the guy we want to run this year.
@npub1aar…a0ap

2024-01-06 01:02:27

- reply

@npub1dhn…t4q2 not allowed?
The members of Congress don’t ask for permission. They can do what they want, and they were absolutely able to conduct that review regardless of the mayhem.
And the New York Times isn’t exactly authoritative these days.
The joint session of Congress had the exact same ability to review before and after the events, so they judged that they had sufficiently reviewed the matter.
I don’t know who you think would have been there preventing review, but that’s just not how the process works.
They were perfectly able to conduct their review, and that’s how the EC vote turned out, with a resounding loss for Trump.
No matter what excuses he might try to be making for his loss.
@npub1aar…a0ap @npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-06 00:59:25

- reply

@npub1dgq…7aev Oh it happens often.
Heck there are even court cases brought about because EC voters go against state vote results.
I’m sorry you’re listening to some sources that are misleading you, misinforming you, but yeah, you need to find some better sources.
@npub1aar…a0ap

2024-01-06 00:16:35

- reply

@npub1dgq…7aev that the EC votes were backed by state returns doesn’t mean the EC doesn’t matter, it shows that there’s even more reason to accept the EC result.
No the EC is not some mere formality. The electors can vote for anyone they want to. And they voted against Trump because he was just that much of a loser, the guy who made decisions that ruined him in the eyes of the electors.
None of this other stuff, 40,000 votes or whatever else you want to throw at the wall matters in the US election system.
Presidents are selected by the EC vote, and that’s the long and short of it. Everything else is a distraction.
It really is too bad that Trump doesn’t seem to have understood how the US government functions, so he lost.
@npub1aar…a0ap

2024-01-06 00:13:36

- reply

@npub1dhn…t4q2 The session was allowed to review before counting the EC votes.
And this is what it came up with during that review.
“They” are fabricating insurrection based on political strategy, because they think they get ahead by doing it, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the vote itself.
Trump lost the EC vote regardless of any of the political nonsense that has happened before or since.
@npub1aar…a0ap @npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-06 00:11:11

- reply

@npub1aar…a0ap what goal post did I move?
My stance is the same as ever, just pointing out the rules as they are.
@npub1fzl…u422 @npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-05 22:30:58

- reply

@npub1fzl…u422 again, just because some government puts some law on the books doesn’t mean that law is enforceable, and states have no authority to bind their electors, no matter what they might write in their statutes.
Electers remain free to vote however they want, even if in some cases they face penalties for voting differently from how the statute would direct them to vote.
Just because a state says something is true doesn’t mean it actually is true. Binding of electors is unconstitutional.
@npub1aar…a0ap @npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-05 22:19:36

- reply

@npub1fzl…u422 No, states don’t have legal authority to bound their electors to the candidate that want.
Yes, there is permission on the books for states to punish electors that vote differently, but the electors are still free to vote differently, to accept that punishment if they want, they are still unbound to the state election result.
And even that idea is a bit questionable with a lot of people arguing that states have no authority to exact such punishments, even if that is currently the state of the rules.
@npub1aar…a0ap @npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-05 22:17:18

- reply

@npub1aar…a0ap in the US system the president is chosen by the EC. There was no fraud in the EC vote. Every single vote can be verified, with each elector confirming that they did in fact vote the way it has been recorded.
You can talk all you want about other elections, but they don’t matter. It all comes down to the EC in the US system of choosing a president.
Talk fraud all you want. Talk space aliens. Whatever you want. But at the end of the day, the EC voted against Trump so he lost fair and square.
In the US system of choosing presidents ONLY the EC matters.
@npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-04 21:45:47

- reply

@npub1aar…a0ap the EC chooses the president.
Fraud or not, it’s pretty damn significant what president they choose!
@npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-03 15:55:13

- reply

@npub1aar…a0ap
What about them? Well they don’t matter.
The president is elected by a few hundred Electoral College votes, and a huge part of why the US has the EC system is specifically to avoid involving thousands of questionable ballots.
We know and can verify every single elector’s ballot. Trump lost by 74, and we can verify each of those 74 votes.
The thousands of ballots you have questions about just don’t matter either way.
@npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-02 14:09:54

- reply

@npub1aar…a0ap
Each of the 74 votes that Trump lost by were cast in public for all to see.
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2020
@npub1dgq…7aev

2024-01-01 01:54:51

- reply

@npub1dgq…7aev not a care in the world that he was a loser in the last election?
Wins again would hold a lot more stake if he didn’t lose last time, and probably will again, which is why he really shouldn’t be running.

2023-12-30 01:24:33

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 right?
I often think, "No, I wasn't calling YOU an idiot, I was saying you're ACTING like an idiot. And, in fact, I think you're better than that, so you might want to change course."
When an actual idiot has idiotic ideas, well, there's not much point calling them out on it.
It's almost a positive thing to point out that someone's ideas are idiotic, as that suggests maybe they'll be smart enough to understand why.

2023-12-30 01:16:46

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 right, and there wouldn't be any violation of 1A since the judge would be merely ensuring an orderly trial, no different from preventing someone from making a disturbance when someone is being questioned on the stand.
To put it a different way, it's not a restriction on speech but on the ability to interfere with the orderly judicial process.
The judge wouldn't at all be punishing someone for speech. The judge would be merely preventing someone from interfering with the goings on in court.

2023-12-29 19:35:05

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Yeah, so the judge oversees the entire trial, including everything from discovery motions through depositions that happen outside the courtroom.
If you think the behavior might have been managed by the judge inside the actual courtroom then it also applies outside the courtroom.
Of course, a judge can't go overboard and address behavior that has nothing to do with the trial, but that's why they have the appeals process to check the power of the judge to address stuff outside of their trial jurisdiction.
Here it sounds like Trump's been losing, though, with other courts agreeing that yes, these judgments were properly working to make sure the trial functions smoothly.

2023-12-29 17:47:16

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 The idea is that this isn't a judge restraining free speech as much as maintaining order in his court, including the parts of court proceedings that happen outside the literal courtroom.
If a person was in the courtroom during the trial and wouldn't sit down and shut up when it wasn't their turn to speak, the judge could respond to that, right? It wouldn't be seen as a free speech violation, but rather just the judge giving others their chance to do their jobs?
Same thing here.
It wouldn't be punishment over speech--it would be jailing as a way to prevent interference with the court proceedings.

2023-12-21 23:40:10

- reply

@npub1yem…3tdu “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

2023-12-21 22:06:34

- reply

@npub1v8y…s6vc Yes I intentionally chose my phrasing of sources LIKE Alex Jones 🙂
He’s clearly wrong. And we know the statement is wrong because we’ve seen for ourselves that we vote and we exercise that regardless of anybody paying us.
So Alex and whoever he is interviewing are welcome to be wrong together, but we can easily debunk those conspiracy theories just based on our personal experiences.

2023-12-21 22:01:08

- reply

@npub1v8y…s6vc and that kind of gaslighting is why nobody should ever fall for anything coming out of the likes of Alex Jones.

2023-12-19 19:21:32

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p The reason I don’t think that’s the case is because there’s nothing particularly new about questionable sources of information and questionable ideas being floated around socially.
I don’t think it’s harder than ever because it’s really not that different.
It’s just that all too many have normalized faulty reasoning and acceptance of bias confirmation instead of legitimate examination and consideration of claims put before us.
For example, @npub1kpw…xzz4 asked about solid evidence here, and that’s something I see far too few people doing.
I don’t think it’s hard to figure out how to think about what’s true.
It’s just that so many people don’t.

2023-12-19 19:04:35

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p when you’re uncertain about one claim that doesn’t mean the opposite claim is definitely true, and this is a really important concept.
Right now we have broad swaths of the public marching forward with an assumption of guilt that is far from proven, and it’s pretty important that we recognize that because otherwise we end up with the same old situation where two different people can’t communicate because they can’t agree on what is and isn’t basic truth.
If there isn’t evidence showing that Trump is guilty, as @npub1kpw…xzz4 requested, that doesn’t mean he or OJ are definitely innocent.
However, it does mean that the assumptions about guilt are really overblown and hysterical.
This is pretty important right now as serious legal matters are weighing heavily on the public.

2023-12-19 17:42:14

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p so no?
@npub1kpw…xzz4

2023-12-19 16:06:33

- reply

@npub1dl0…49nf it just always needs to be emphasized that Fediverse is not built around privacy. Quite the opposite: it’s basically a public broadcast system.
An ax I grind is that a lot of users here don’t realize how little privacy they actually have.
If privacy matters maybe don’t use Fediverse.
@npub1p2n…nsfk

2023-12-17 02:38:29

- reply

@npub15th…6nvx I literally listen to people on the right saying every single day that the immigration laws are bad.
If you don’t hear them saying that then I think that you might be living in a bit of a bubble.

2023-12-17 02:30:36

- reply

@npub15th…6nvx Well it’s what I said above: the image said that nobody is illegal but that focuses on people being illegal rather than laws being bad.
The issue isn’t that nobody is illegal. The issue is that we have some bad laws that need to be changed.
I think a huge number of people in the country are all on the side of these laws being bad and needing reform. People on both the left and the right agree that the laws need to be reformed.
But all of the rhetoric focusing on weather or not people are illegal End up distracting from the positive thing that we can actually all agree on, that the laws need to be fixed.
@npub1pjv…masz

2023-12-17 02:22:09

- reply

@npub15th…6nvx Right, so let’s call out the bad laws not focus on the rhetoric around the people.
@npub1pjv…masz

2023-12-17 01:08:06

- reply

@npub1pjv…masz I mean, it’s not that people are illegal but that people break laws
If we want to fix the laws the first thing is to appreciate that the laws are what they are, and they need to be fixed.
We get nowhere by denying them.

2023-12-15 16:40:21

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p you’re overlooking the on-the-ground realities and practicalities of doing that, though.
It’s one thing to talk in the abstract about orgs needing to respond to changes in the online environment, but when it comes down to actually going through the act of setting those facilities up, there are other considerations.
From budget and resource constraints through legalities through marketing decisions, there are a lot of factors you’re not considering here, ones that reasonably delay adoption.

2023-12-12 00:46:11

- reply

@npub1grx…uxfe Oh it’s very often true.
You can look at rules and standards from everyone from OSHA through UL through various national electric codes to see just how micromanaging they are.
It’s the kind of thing I personally deal with everyday, that if I build one way then I only have to deal with one set of codes, but if I do something like have a detachable cord then I have to deal with two different sets of codes, getting them both certified separately, and that adds a whole lot of hassle and expense.
@npub1cu4…mcxv

2023-12-12 00:25:55

- reply

@npub1grx…uxfe Well often enough things like this come down to governmental or industrial regulation.
The per-unit expense might be minimal, but the compliance costs of an additional detachable cord might just not be worth it.
@npub1cu4…mcxv

2023-11-27 05:59:16

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 Oh but to be clear, a person who's guilty of something with $1,000 fine might be given 20 bucks for their time but they still have to pay the $1,000 fine!

2023-11-27 05:54:06

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 That's only true, legally speaking, if that's what the law says!
Yes, there would have to be a law saying cops owe people compensation for their time. And there's no particular reason that the law can't explicitly say that the compensation takes priority over pay. It might even be implicitly true even if it's not made explicit that way.
Police departments do run out of money in the real world, and they even have to close down and fire all the cops occasionally. I know if at least one instance of exactly that happening, when some officers really screwed up and the costs of dealing with their screw up broke the budget of the department, so they had to fold, firing everybody.
If the department has to give up conveniences and then has salaries at risk because officers are detaining people without justifiable reason, they're going to feel that pain.

2023-11-27 05:49:10

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I don't know how you expect to pay people out of a $0 budget!

2023-11-27 05:29:07

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 firstly, hey free pay for the people that get stopped!
Honestly the part of my plan I worry about the most is people intentionally looking guilty trying to be stopped to make a quick buck.
But the cops don't get to just raise taxes on their own.
The department would have to stand in front of city councils, legislatures, etc, to explain why money needs to be diverted from schools and other popular programs, or why taxes need to be raised, because some jerks of officers keep harassing citizens without showing results.
When the department sees its budget trashed to the point where it needs to start firing people, they're going to fire the offenders first, which is a pretty good reason not to be an offender.

2023-11-27 05:22:45

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 I've always thought that any time somebody has to stop and deal with a cop they should be compensated for their time, out of the agency's budget.
If you're stopped for a traffic stop for 10 minutes, even if you are guilty, they pay you for your time. If you get brought in for questioning, again whether you are guilty or not, paid for your time.
If police departments have to give up their budgets to pay people for the inconvenience they impose on them, maybe they would be more careful about who they detain and how efficiently they do what they need to do.
I'm not even on board with ACAB. I just think this would be a fair way to align interests more positively.
But it does mean that any officer that is stopping too many people without good reasons would probably be held accountable by the police department that's losing too much money on him.

2023-11-27 02:09:21

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 the thing is, we live in a time where two people can see the exact same thing, read the exact same words, and come away with exactly opposite ideas about what they just saw or read.
So in that sort of environment... the answer to your question depends on who you ask.
It's just the state of society, that we can look at the same weather report and disagree about whether it's raining or not.

2023-11-25 22:28:55

- reply

@npub1xr8…3q0g The thing to keep in mind is that the public voted for the representation behind this stuff, so this stuff is addressing what the voters were concerned about.
It’s always key to remember the roles of voters in these instances because they are the ones that we really need to engage with.
A lot of voters had questions about the election, and we would have been better to engage with their questions from the beginning rather than facing these cleanup jobs later.

2023-11-25 20:53:37

- reply

@npub15pz…kwvl The Supreme Court isn’t an expert in biology, though.
So that spinning of this doesn’t really hold water.
Might as well ask the guy at the end of the bar for his opinion.

2023-11-25 18:57:16

- reply

@npub1gha…ffp5 anybody who thinks this level of persecution of civilians appears to be genocide either doesn’t know what genocide is or is being seriously misinformed by sensationalized, or agenda pushing, reporting.
But it goes back to what you said before, where you were equating things that are not the same, occupation versus wiping from the map.
There is plenty to be critical of Israel over, but we can’t criticize what they’re actually doing if we’re too busy attacking strawman and confusing the facts on the ground.
Heck, that tends to actually stand in the way of accountability, distracting from actually countering what they’re actually doing.

2023-11-25 06:31:42

- reply

@npub1gha…ffp5 Well because even if we go with your premise, occupation without invitation is absolutely not the same thing as wiping them off the face of the earth.
Those histrionics don’t do anybody any good. It just means that anyone paying attention will ignore such a position as clearly sensationalized.

2023-11-25 06:19:19

- reply

@npub1gha…ffp5 Well that’s not true.
Israel’s goal is not to eliminate Palestine from the face of the earth, or else they would have done it. They have the ability to do it. If they wanted to they would have.
It’s just foolish to buy into that propaganda.

2023-11-25 05:58:59

- reply

@npub1ks4…x88p
Would you agree that buying a milling machine means that a worker would be able to operate that machine to make parts to earn a living?
And without that machine the worker would face poverty as he is unable to make the parts to earn the living?
Well, how do you buy the milling machine? You concentrate wealth to place the order for the machine.
In the real world wealth concentration is part of alleviating poverty.
@npub1kpw…xzz4

2023-11-20 22:06:57

- reply

@npub1kpw…xzz4 well I think it's worth saying that different people aren't excited about voting for him for different reasons, and for a lot of us that reason comes down to his poor performance in office.
I really don't care if the guy is senile or not, if he does a good job. But Biden has not.
He has really screwed up in just about every aspect of the role of president.
If his presidency meant that his handlers had taken charge and appointed capable people to do the work in the face of his senility, great! I'd keep him on no matter how his mental state is.
But that didn't happen.

2023-11-12 03:20:44

- reply

@npub1j8u…az5s and yet that doesn’t disclose the possibility that the country will fail.
Just because an eventuality is bad doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
It’s even more reason to recognize that truth and work hard to make sure it doesn’t happen. Even more reason to recognize the interface between institutions and humans because the worst case scenarios are pretty darn bad.
@npub106n…vfwa

2023-11-12 03:18:59

- reply

@npub1j8u…az5s what use of them comes down to the individual. Maybe they have no use. If the individual doesn’t find any usefulness in them than they are useless.
They have to provide usefulness to people or else they are irrelevant.
@npub106n…vfwa

2023-11-12 03:15:37

- reply

@npub1j8u…az5s but that’s still the nationalistic thinking.
I’m not convinced it applies to the new environment of today.
@npub106n…vfwa

2023-11-12 03:04:38

- reply

@npub1j8u…az5s but that pattern of thinking results in empowering organizations over individuals, institutions over the democratic process.
I don’t think it works.
@npub106n…vfwa

2023-11-12 02:49:31

- reply

@npub1j8u…az5s I would say that the focus on countries really overlooks the more important factor of individuals, making sure that people are able to get honest information if they care about the situation.
The focus on countries instead of people promotes nationalism that all too often buys into the propaganda. Either put out by or supporting those countries.
@npub106n…vfwa

2023-11-12 01:05:57

- reply

@npub106n…vfwa but it’s not clear what the solution is to this.
It’s hard to break through when propaganda has so infiltrated people who seek out bias confirmation.

2023-11-09 23:35:29

- reply

@npub1pu6…u9fd
Ok, so what’s your plan?
Because people have executed plans time and time again that haven’t lead to peace. It sounds like you’d be saying, “But this time is different,” which is what was always said before.
So what’s your plan that really will make this time different?
I’m especially interested in what your plan is for removing Hamas since that strikes me as particularly thorny.

2023-11-09 23:02:15

- reply

@npub1pu6…u9fd but an awful lot of people who talk actually can’t!
Again, this is the example of growing wings when jumping out of the airplane. Some things are flat out impossible, and it’s important not miss those.
But again, I think you’re wrong, but even IF you’re right, the Zionists you refer to won’t be removed. I’m personally pretty skeptical that Hamas will be removed either, no matter how much blood is shed in the attempt to get there.
So with those two in doubt, we’re 80% farther from peace than you’re imagining.
We need to respond to that reality and figure out what the best way forward is, given that.
Otherwise we’re talking about solutions that only apply to a fantasy world that doesn’t actually exist.
Where would we like to fly once we grow wings? Well, since we’re not going to grow wings it’s not a very useful question.

2023-11-09 21:01:08

- reply

@npub1zxx…u452 what? The evidence is pretty public, eyewitness accounts confirmed by multiple independent witnesses and lots of footage available from various independent sources.
It’s almost like this person is declaring that the evidence is not available as a way of convincing people not to go looking for it.

2023-11-09 19:08:31

- reply

@npub1pu6…u9fd yes, jumping out of a plant and hoping to grow wings is an impossibility, just like a two sided ceasefire and two state solution.
That’s my point :)
No, it’s not achievable. We have generations of history showing that to be true. It was tried over and over again. At this point it’s simply foolish to keep believing in the thing that failed every single time it was tried.
Sadly.
So, given that reality, what’s the best path forward? What’s the best out of only bad options?
Just clinging to the solution that we know doesn’t work is not going to serve anyone well, well except for those who benefit from selling that snake oil.

2023-11-09 18:54:37

- reply

@npub1pu6…u9fd but that’s not an option on the table in any realistic way.
So since ceasefire & two state solution is not an option, any call for a ceasefire ends up being, for all practical considerations, a call for maintaining the crap that’s going on now.
It’s like saying you’re calling for jumping out of the airplane without a parachute to grow wings and fly down to the earth. Well, since that’s not actually going to happen you’re just calling for jumping out to plummet to the ground.
And that’s what the quote above was pointing out.