Notices by Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz), page 171

US economist Stephanie Kelton explains her role in the Sanders campaign, the Federal Jobs Guarantee proposal, and Modern Monetary Theory, on the #GetUp podcast AcFuture to Fight For: #MMT
https://audioboom.com/posts/6916359-4-stephanie-kelton

@natecull I'm struggling a bit too follow your thought process here, but could it be summed up as something like 'databases Vs files'? As a user and family tech guy, I get really annoyed by applications that store use data as anything other than files in folders in /home (or equivalent), in common formats. Files in folders are easy to find, backup, import into another application etc. Databases are a f#&@ing nightmare for mere mortals to do anything like that.

Such a space could also be a good way to help us identify persistent skills gaps among #Digital Commons projects, and set up skill-sharing projects to help fill them.

@Alonealastalovedalongthe @codesections BTW there are plenty of assholes in the fediverse and have been for ages, it's just a lot easier to avoid them ;-)

@Alonealastalovedalongthe @codesections also, be aware that starting from scratch on a new site isn't the end of the world (I'm a quitter.se refugee). If you make the relationship between your old account and new account clear and start refollowing your fediverse buddies, from the new one (and especially if you can import your 'followed' list), most of the people who followed your old account will eventually catch up.

@Alonealastalovedalongthe @codesections what I've done, since I started using the fediverse, is post and interact here, but use crossposting tools that also allow my primary posts to be seen on the birdsite. What users could do is use a nomadic-aware site like a Hubzilla hub, that also has the plugins enabled to crosspost to the AP networks.

@jeremiah voting has nothing to do with it. When politicians see what looks like a massive public groundswell for or against something, they tend to sail with the wind. This power can be used to serve the public good, when we base public debate on primary sources, or manipulated to serve elite interests, when we let it be based on confirmation bias and partisan loyalties.

@jeremiah @moonman oh and yeah, guilty as charged, I didn't read the linked article before posting some idle speculation on the topic. But I suspect you didn't either, or this would have been your first response when asked for citations. I think there's something we can all learn from that ...

@jeremiah cool, I'll have a read :-)

@jeremiah @moonman you don't want to see the results of my afternoon trawl of the peer-reviewed literature on the efficacy or non-efficacy of therapy dogs? Ok :-(

@jeremiah @moonman I agree, but the precautionary principle has to be balanced against other considerations. It's an approach to situations where policy decisions must be made now, but evidence is absent or just not conclusive. If there is evidence for therapy dogs bringing medical benefits (as I said I'll have a look), and no evidence of harm, the PP isn't relevant.

@jeremiah let's untag Kelly eh? She just started a link, she didn't sign up for this ;-)

@jeremiah @Kelly_NAproducR that's a copout. Public policy is influenced by public opinion, and public debate, sometimes more than it ought to be. Ergo, increasing the quality of public debate, and making some attempt to cite evidence when making claims of fact in a public forum, is likely to increase the quality of public policy, and the evidence it's based on.

@jeremiah @Kelly_NAproducR also, that goes both ways. People demand ironclad physical evidence published in peer-reviewed papers, except where it comes to something they think is icky, then suddenly no evidence is a fine basis for public policy decisions?

@moonman ok, well, opinions are like arseholes, everyone has one. But they're not the best basis for public health policy.

@jeremiah @Kelly_NAproducR you got a link to said CDC investigation? Climate change obfuscators often cite peer-reviewed papers and it's only when you read the primary source (or at least the abstract) that you see their claims are the opposite of what the paper actually concludes, or just unrelated.

@moonman is that a scientific opinion based on having done some research, or did someone just pop a con in your slot? :-P

@jeremiah @Kelly_NAproducR ok, you got me, I don't. But if you look back you'll see I was asking a question, not making a claim. You've got me interested now though, so I'll have a look after lunch and share what I find. Probably more scientific if you look for evidence they are effective, and I look for evidence they're not. Null hypothesis and all that.

@jeremiah @Kelly_NAproducR did you read the abstract, or just the title? Evidence of bacteria being present in dog anuses (duh) not of infection spreading to patients:
> "Further information is needed before the full implications of these findings for infection control can be assessed properly."
So I'm guessing you have been mistaking news for science, but feel free to try again.

@lightweight I've got an account at #CloudAtCost for testing, and a voucher for #CatalystCloud I got at an event and haven't used yet. Video tutorials would be great! Love to see them on a #PeerTube site, for sure.