volkris @volkris@social.cleverlibre.org

@brinnbelyea No that's not the argument.

Bitcoin provides value that is greater than the value of the energy that people are trading to get it.

That bitcoin can run on less electricity isn't some sort of excuse but rather it is highlighting how valuable bitcoin is to the people that put skin in the game and trade energy for Bitcoin.

YOU or I might not personally think bitcoin is that valuable, and that's fine, but other people do think it's that valuable, so they do trade for it.

@HeavenlyPossum @josemurilo

@brinnbelyea No that's not the case at all.

It has nothing to do with owning everything on earth. It only has to do with buying energy to trade for something they value.

@HeavenlyPossum @josemurilo

@HeavenlyPossum but it's not wasted in the sense that the people putting their own resources on the line do so because they value what they get in return.

It's like, people pay a whole lot of money for super bowl tickets. Is that money wasted? I wouldn't say so, because those people value super bowl tickets.

I don't, and that's fine, it's their money to spend the way they want.

Same thing here. People value bitcoin and so they trade their own energy for bitcoin.

Because they value it, regardless of whether you and I might.

@josemurilo

@HeavenlyPossum it's not wasted, it's traded.

The people trading it value what they get in exchange.

Otherwise they wouldn't.

@josemurilo

@brinnbelyea

You almost had it. The people willingly trading energy for crypto do so because they value the crypto.

Same as people turning trees into lumber. Those people value the lumber, and the people trading energy for crypto value the crypto.

@HeavenlyPossum @josemurilo

@HeavenlyPossum not at all.

Bitcoin could be run from a solar panel and a car battery. It doesn't take that much energy to run the Bitcoin system.

However, people do decide that they would like to pay more in energy as they bid for new bitcoin. That is their choice, and It reflects the value of Bitcoin to each person exchanging extra energy for the Bitcoin.

Mining bitcoin doesn't have to be expensive. But people have decided it's worth more energy, so they trade more energy for it.

@josemurilo

@enmodo No, you have it backwards.

The 2000 decision if anything emphasized different states applying the same standards to counting of votes. In fact, consistent standards was key to the ruling then.

Y'all are reaching really hard to try to justify a supreme court ruling that is simply not in the cards based on the arguments before the court.

Sometimes one side loses the case because it's simply not the side with the winning argument.

@TCatInReality @Stinson_108 @ManyRoads

@hulavikih but those claims are simply not factually true

@StephenRamirez I mean he didn't tell the nation to inject bleach into their veins at all.

That was a lie that went viral without enough people stopping to check on whether it ever actually happened.

@dalfen Well there are examples like when he said his advisors didn't give him alternatives for the Afghanistan pull out, when the advisors later said they did, that provide exactly that sort of evidence

@kern really?

"My memory is so bad I let you speak" doesn't come across as particularly, well, coherent.

@Free_Press I mean, right. That's how the democratic process works.

No one is in charge, there is no authoritarian at the top of the GOP caucus, rather the independent representatives are accountable to their voters.

@josemurilo the energy is being spent to buy bitcoin.

It's not that bitcoin consumes it but that people are willing to trade it for the value they get for Bitcoin.

@HeavenlyPossum

@ianhecht I mean, it just goes to prove that Florida's GOP did not ban those books.

The solution debunks the claimed problem.

@dalfen again, they didn't say they didn't find a crime.

And they also didn't say there wasn't enough evidence to warrant the conviction of any crime.

That's just not what document said, even your own highlighted parts.

All they said was that they didn't believe they were in a position to present it at trial, which is an entirely different matter.

@katrinakatrinka in the US system the president is held accountable by Congress and through the election process.

That sounds to me like you are suggesting the unelected attorney general is somehow easier to hold accountable, but how would that be?

@dalfen the post above said there was no crime.

So that's what I'm addressing.

As far as I can tell there was a crime, but at least we can say that the report doesn't say otherwise.

The report says it's not strategically advantageous to charge a crime, but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.

@lauren I really don't care about Trump.

Trump is awful. But Biden is as well. But let's hold Biden accountable for his own missteps regardless of Trump.

Maybe if we recognize how awful Biden is the Democrats might propose a candidate who's better.

I see no benefit in indulging the morons that Biden has surrounded himself with. It's not like that somehow makes Trump better or worse, it just means we are kidding ourselves about this group of idiots.

@mjf_pro @TerryHancock

@katrinakatrinka

Of course it is. And we can tell because we can quote the rulebook that very very plainly and simply states that the executive power is vested in the president.

It is simple for a very very good reason, because that allows for accountability that is so important, which is exactly why it is made so simple.

You bring up power but you get it exactly backwards: It is because we need to fight against power that it is made so simple, so that there isn't room for complication through which an authoritarian would try to escape the checks on power.

It is BECAUSE we need to restrain power that it is made simple that the executive power is in the hands of the president who stands to be impeached the moment the executive branch does wrong.

No complication. No room for the president to claim innocence or ignorance or independence. It is his responsibility to obey the law, and if he doesn't, boom, he's out.

To make up this idea of an independent agency is to relieve the president of accountability, it is to promote exactly the authoritarianism that it sounds like you and I are both worried about.

It is exactly why it is simple, and exactly why we need to emphasize that simplicity, that is core to the design of the US government

The president must be held accountable for his branch of government, including the DOJ. That is how the US government is designed, simply and unquestionably, to avoid the chaos of an unaccountable department.