I read a post from someone who got as far as showing up to view an apartment on reservation only to find there was no reservation or available apartment. "Oh, that's our chatbot!"
The GOP has gotten increasingly radical since throwing in with Evangelicals and segregationists[0]. It accelerated with the Tea Party[1] wave which dragged the party further to the right, and keeps getting worse. We always came back from the brink because a shrinking number of cooler heads prevailed. Coming back this time depends on there being enough cooler heads.
Under the US constitution, isn't money supposed to be spent only if both the House and Senate agree that it should be spent, and either the President also agrees or his veto is overridden? So if the House doesn't want to spend money, it doesn't get spent. It seems that some politicians just can't accept that. They think that for some reason the House is supposed to "compromise" and agree to spend money even though they don't think it should be spent. It seems that it's these politicians who are the radical ones taking the US to the brink of default.
I don't know the details of the bill, but doesn't it simultaneously increase the credit limit (avoiding default), while cutting future spending? I don't see any inconsistency.
The inconsistency is that they voted for the spending (and tax cuts) that caused us to reach the debt ceiling. If they wanted to not spend that money it should have been negotiated as part of _that_ process.
And that’s before pointing out that holding the nations credit hostage only happens by GOP legislators when there is a democrat president.
It’s political hypocrisy of the worst sort that has the most likelihood of hurting the most Americans of any decision the federal government can make.
The "holding hostage" phrasing implies that somehow the House needs to use the debt ceiling as leverage to cut spending. But to cut spending, the House just needs to not approve spending - no agreement by the Senate or President should be required. So there's something funny going on. I don't know what exactly - maybe they anticipate that the Senate will "hold hostage" spending on essential programs in order to get the House to approve spending on programs the House doesn't want to approve?
Anyway, the "holding hostage" phrasing would make more sense if the House were using the debt ceiling issue to try to force action on some unrelated issue (eg, abortion). Linking the debt ceiling increase with future spending cuts is not that sort of thing.
It is unrelated. They approved the budget that is causing the debt ceiling to be breached already. By tying it to future spending they are trying to conflate the issues when they are not related.
The place to discuss future spending is during the appropriations process, by requiring it to happen now because of the debt ceiling is precisely holding the credit of the US hostage.
So why have a debt ceiling at all? A ceiling makes no sense if whenever it is about to be reached, unconditionally increasing it is regarded as imperative, with any attempt to link an increase in the debt ceiling to measures that would limit future debt being denounced as "holding the credit of the US hostage". The only point of a debt ceiling would be encourage such a linkage.
Correct. It’s a flawed and hypocritical political tool, one used exclusively by one party when they don’t want to actually do the hard work of governance.
The American people would be much better off if there were no debt ceiling.
Both sides pledged to support and defend the constitution when they took the job. One side is refusing to do that. The compromise is they pay their debts and think about this the next time they want to give billionaires a tax cut.
>> "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."
lol please, as if one side is significantly better than the other. the establishment is exactly the same on both sides, and believe me, they do not work for you. stuff like "one side is refusing that" is just ridiculous partisanship, and anyone that believes it, on EITHER side, just lives in a bubble. and looking at things, the democrats are FAR more radical the the republicans. Both are borderline traitors though, and deserves not an iota of power
Only one side takes the other side hostage by threatening an economic catastrophe. 1995, 2011, 2013, and 2023 debt ceiling standoffs were all initiated by the GOP. [0]
It makes zero sense to pass a budget without providing the means to finance that budget.
But isn't the current situation one in which the House is authorizing borrowing to avoid default while also rolling back future spending? So it's not "vote to spend money, but then make it impossible"?
The constitution is, in the end, a piece of old paper in a climate controlled box. It's on humans to bring it to life. Humans don't always do the things they say they will on paper even if they put one hand on a different book of paper and swear to while everyone watches.
I don't disagree that it could happen without being constitutional. Of course, the debt ceiling is also a piece of paper, as are any laws restricting the printing of money, etc.
Losing a job, like any major life event, can cause a rethink on this sort of thing. The average age of a successful startup founder is 45 for a reason. Most of them spent some time employed in the industry of the startup. Before that, they probably bounce between a job and trying to make it on their own.
You'd think she would have been more sympathetic to trans people and understanding of the anger underlying a lot of the response, given all that.
It's true that not enough space is given to de-transitioners, but much of the discourse focuses on the very, very, very tiny number of people who did it because they didn't have dysphoria rather than the vast majority who did it because the social stigma and difficulty with employment turned out to be worse than the dysphoria. Detransition is turned into a weapon against trans people when it should be something that exists at peace with the majority who transition and are happy with it.
Sidekiq seems to be the culprit from what I've seen and read from people who've run into this issue. It gets overloaded fast if you don't have enough processing power in front of the queue. Lighter implementations apparently do something different, or are more efficient in handling their queues without whatever overhead Sidekiq adds.
AT and Bluesky are unfinished. Not ready for primetime. It's not fair to compare it to mature, well-developed stuff with W3C specs and millions of active users on thousands of servers with numerous popular forks.
But, also, everyone who hates Mastodon and spent the last months-years complaining about it is treating your project like the promised land that will lead them into the Twitterless future, somehow having gotten the impression that it's finished and ready to scale.
I think most critiques of Bluesky/AT are actually responding to this even if the authors don't realize it. They're frustrated at the discourse, the potshots, and the noise from these people.
> It's not fair to compare it to mature, well-developed stuff
Really? So rather than try to compare, contrast, and course-correct a project in its early stages by understanding the priors and alternatives, we should only do retrospectives after it has matured?
I would have thought this was the whole point of planning in early development: figuring out what you actually need to make? And that is usually a relative proposition, a project is rarely in a vacuum!
We should never just uncritically go ahead with the first draft in anything, especially not in the protocols we use, as they have this annoying habit of sticking around once adopted and being very hard to change after the fact.
