volkris @volkris@social.cleverlibre.org

@nurglerider nope, but the fact that all the people I know using Bitcoin does mean that non-rich people do use it, so even if you don't care what the rich people think, maybe you'd care that we little people derive value from it.

If you don't care what rich people think, why are you so obsessed with them instead of considering the little guy?

@Ronial

@Ronial Bitcoin doesn't rely on polluting the world, though.

Yes, there have been many sensational stories describing it that way, but they're based on misunderstandings (or misrepresentations) of how Bitcoin works.

That narrative is false.

@quatrezoneilles if you check the Senate records you'd see that the Senate failed to approve many nominees that Trump sent over.

Those stories were always just sensationalism.

https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/executive_calendar/2020/Final_2020.pdf

@ech @mattmcirvin

@mk firstly, he failed to live up to his promise to end your vast conspiracy when he was in power.

Secondly, after that broken promise he made rude comments that gave the conspiracy extra fodder to work with. All his mean tweets. They confirmed the story being told by the conspiracy.

Thirdly, his losing efforts to challenge election proceedings in courts earned him no benefit but did play into the conspiracy's hands, giving them even more to say, "Look, we're right!"

I could go on and on, but the guy basically supported the conspiracy.

Wait, maybe Trump didn't actually do wrong, and his appearance as being such a loser and failure was actually an act because HE'S PART OF THE CONSPIRACY!

Woah.

@edvin scientifically (which is what I'm talking about) I wouldn't say any claim should be taken as any sort of hypothesis merely because we've come so far.

No, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm emphasizing here. That strikes me as unhealthy pseudoscience.

Scientifically I want to see a theory before a hypothesis that might test the theory. I would only credit something as the null hypothesis in the context of a specifically stated theory.

Rhetorically or politically, fine, call it whatever you'd like, but I'd be clear that it's not scientific.

The line "my non-scientific null hypothesis" doesn't carry quite the same authority, but that's exactly my point, if we're clear about what is and isn't scientific then we stop people from claiming scientific authority for pseudoscience.
@mattmcirvin

@ReedsDad right, the justice department acting on behalf of the president.

It's SO critical that we don't let presidents scapegoat their deputies.

Holding presidents accountable for the actions of their branch is core to the US system.

@NewsDesk

@CStamp yep, I agree, but the problem is that the way the system is set up, it's mainly up to the people we elect to Congress, and we keep reelecting the same jerks.

WE need to stop reelecting them. That's where the accountability starts. But we let congresspeople escape accountability for authorizing these programs, and we re-elect them, so

::shrug::

Yes, we should hold them accountable. But we don't.

We get the government we vote for.

@actualham

@HistoPol I really think Fediverse presents huge technical and managerial challenges to the centralized systems, and it takes time to sort all of it out, to sort out if it's even possible to integrate.

Technically, ActivityPub is not a lightweight protocol. It takes a lot of resources to manage all the streams going left and right without the computational efficiency of just operating in-house.

Managerially, I don't think any centralized service has really figured out how to integrate the Wild West into the more controlled environment their users expect, not even getting into moderation issues.

I think they're moving slowly because there are real challenges and problems that have to be solved, and it takes time to solve them.

@tchambers @ploum

@Free_Press block a border deal? No, that's not how the US system works.

It's up to the proposers of a deal to gain support, not for our representatives to deny it.

If the proposal isn't compelling to the ones we elect, that doesn't mean they blocked it, it means the proposal didn't measure up.

@lauren well, it's more that even the threat of a short sentence does tend to disrupt one's lifestyle.

Even if the sentence is dropped on appeal for a shoddy legal case, the guy will have already faced enormous costs even though he was on the right side of the law.

Such is this current divisive environment.

@hulavikih only if Biden moves to impose such a penalty.

It's all up to the president.

@NewsDesk *by the Biden administration

It's worth highlighting that.

@thisismissem well I wouldn't phrase it that way as "recommended" brings in the subjective.

it would be fair to warn people that, "This instance is included in blocklists so be aware that its reach is to some extent limited" or "be aware that its feeds may not reach as much of the fediverse"

Sure, inform people, but a recommendation for someone who cares about such reach will be different from someone who doesn't.

Some people may even prefer a less-integrated experience.

@Ronial rich people?

I don't know a single rich person participating in Bitcoin. I think they probably have better things to do with their time. Lounging by the pool or whatever.

The people I know participating in Bitcoin are the ones who don't have it all, who can use the system to scrape by a little better.

It seems there ISN'T a better way to do things, or else people would be doing that other thing.

Bitcoin simply provides more value to its users, or else they wouldn't use it.

@6G but that's not how Congress works.

Firstly, the rules of the Senate don't give any senator, including McConnell, the power to unilaterally stop anything. At any point the rest of the chamber could overrule him if they wanted to.

The fingerpointing at McConnell was always a way of scapegoating that allowed senators to escape accountability for their inaction.

Well, that and a way for reporters to publish clickbait headlines.

But the idea of Congress blocking legislation overall? No. If legislation isn't compelling then it's not Congress blocking it, but Congress simply saying it's not something they're interested in passing.

@drrjv

@fonecokid well, it's more that the job of SCOTUS is to serve the law, not justice.

They are generally a court of appeal, and that many levels up the judicial system it's by design more about making sure laws were followed than judging justice itself.

In fact, that's part of the protection against evil justices being on the bench. They don't have so much authority to judge justice.

@Ronial you're overlooking the people participating in Bitcoin because they see it as providing such value and reason that they're willing to trade significantly larger amounts of energy to trade for it.

Those folks--and there are a ton of them--certainly find reason for being outside of destroying the planet.

@stig exactly.

Corporations are the wrong place to look for morality or compassion.

This sort of thing is a job for other parts of society, charities, governments, etc.

Otherwise it's a conflict of interest looming.

@shac

@actualham it's worth highlighting that according to the story the US will be enforcing non-competition based on falsified patent applications.

The US will be actively blocking others from competing on price.

That's the part that I think more need to consider.

@CStamp I mean, are you sure there WASN'T such a contract? I didn't see mention of it in the article.

I would be 0% surprised to hear that this is exactly what all parties expected and intended.

@actualham