cannonedhamster

I think that the issue is less to do with the family and more to do with the fact that as an adult most of your adult interaction comes from your profession. Your friends as a child and young adult come from school, as an adult they only come from social groups that form around things such as sports, hobbies, and social groups such as a church.

With a move to first world status there is usually an associated decrease in religious adherence. People then naturally define themselves as what they do first. Getting friends as an adult is very hard as competing schedules and interests can conspire to push people apart, so the default is to make friends with those with whom your work. As a stay at home parent that requires actually seeking out the parental groups.

tl;dr making friends as an adult is difficult and can lead to loneliness.

Having worked at companies that do this crap, nope. It does not sound crazy, especially if the company self insures.

That's literally almost all you'll find on either of the islands, to the point that it sticks out if there's a POC there. I'm a white upper middle class guy myself, but let's call a spade a spade. They tried to build this in the rich white guy's back yard and they didn't like it.

Edit: These are also the same people that claim to be progressives and for the POC(I'm liberal) in politics but when it comes to actually doing something that would have cleaner air, their first reaction is to NIMBY it. These are exactly what these people are. It's a definition.

Sounds eerily similar to the company I work for which was founded because the company tried to build something internally and failed. Our engineers ship a ton of code, most of it good, but unfortunately we've had quite a few problems since we effectively don't do any real testing of the software before releasing to production.

This has nothing to do with the landscape. I've driven by the pilot windmills. You can barely see them. This is about filthy rich white hypocrites throwing a tantrum over nothing. Most people in Massachusetts (or America for that matter) would probably have a hard time affording to vacation anywhere near these things.

To be fair, he only showed where the $200 Billion number came from and claimed that it's not an accurate way to evaluate whether or not the number.

I'd be curious if he still feels that US infrastructure is really swell seeing as US speed placement appears to have dropped.

I can say from my personal and work experience that U.S. connections are far and away better than large portions of the world. Peering agreements between companies are significantly saner than in some parts of the world, and the differences between wireline and wireless connectivity is pretty dramatic in terms of stability and speed. For US ISPs to be using wireless as a comparable service to broadband deployment is flat out fallacious.

ISPs have done fantastic work on backbone and datacenter speed and availability, but last mile consumer connectivity just isn't worth it to them financially. No amount of regulation or deregulation will make that worthwhile. This is why municipal ownership of the last mile is most likely going to be the long term solution if the US wants to increase speed and availability for anywhere but the most densely packed areas.

Not to mention the companies that specifically write the ads so that they can claim their person doesn't exist and bring in an H1-B holder for half the rate. The fact that these shysters ruined it for the companies that actually need good people at good pay is a major problem.

Depends where you live. My wife and I lived on less than $50k. I know some families that live on $40k. We live well above that now, but our standard of living is drastically higher.

It's part of this whole thing which is a rabbit hole unto itself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c5e97/e...

tldr version: There were very large subsidies paid to expand broadband as well as the Universal Service Fund. The companies actually built out broadband lines to a lot of areas with minimal coverage and then didn't build the last mile because it was expensive and provided "separate but equal" services such as WiMax, UVerse, or other less equitable services.

I'm in an area with competition. Comcast doesn't offer a 55mb/s plan. They offer a 25mb/s plan starting at $75/mo which is their only plan that doesn't force you into buying television as well. That's right, the internet only plan forces you into buying television and all the fees that come with it.

There's also the reality that there's miles and miles of taxpayer funded black fiber that they choose not to light up so that they can claim a bandwidth shortage.

1. Where is the incentive to keep growing?

Probably the huge tax payouts that they get to keep growing and then keep the same fiber rolled out with tax money dark to falsely create a narrative that there isn't enough pipe.

2. What if they forbid some traffic?

Yeah, enshrining that they can't is the WHOLE POINT of enforcing net neutrality.

3. Unlimited is not warranted unless it's being paid for.

It is being paid for. The US of A has some of the highest cost of internet for the lowest level of service in the developed world. You know that there are services in small farming towns in Romania (fantastic country, great food, great people) that have better access to internet than some cities in the US?

4. Prior to the rule change did we have this problem?

YES, it's why net neutrality was put in place in the first place. It's like you willfully chose to not do any research into the topic.

This whole idea that the market in any way helps the consumer is fallacious. The market helps businesses, which can, on the whole, help consumers when regulated by a sane government that has the interests of the people at heart. We're so far into regulatory capture at this point that we should be rioting. You cannot have a market with a natural barrier to entry or high startup costs that can in any way can be competitive without government intervention.

Somewhere that Comcast doesn't have competition. I'm guessing you're on Charter or Time Warner.

They are literally the only provider for a large number of Americans. Many Americans only have 1 provider. It's been proven numerous times that they raise rates if competition doesn't exist and lower them when it does. You'd literally have to be willfully ignorant of the facts to say that Comcast won't just add fees because they can. They've done it numerous times already.

How to win friends and influence people - Dale Carnegie

This book starts off as a business book but it is the single most useful book I have ever read. For some people they will find that it's second nature, for those of us on the less socially aware side of the spectrum it's like an instruction manual for communicating effectively without coming off as a creep.

I've read both books. I personally didn't find them to be well written, however they convey what they are trying to convey well enough. If anything, people should read them to better understand how libertarians of the Objectivist streak view the world. It would be eye-opening to say the least.

Or Boston which has all the same things except it has seasons.

GNU/linux usage has been growing along with MacOS. If you include just kernel variants or anything other than desktop computing GNU/linux has been the market leader for a bit now comprising most supercomputers, servers, ChromeOS(variant not GNU), and Android (variant not GNU).

I use Ubuntu for everyday work and have no more problems (sometimes less) than my Mac and Windows co-workers.

Let me know when any real modern OS becomes "unstable". Aside from literal testing and beta releases modern platforms for Windows, MacOS, and linux based platforms are all relatively stable and show significant improvements over 10 years ago.

The only reason I can see for using a Microsoft based platform over any other platform is if you're heavily invested in VBA and macros. If you're not then there is no reason a company cannot use a GNU/linux based platform such as Ubuntu. LibreOffice, Google Apps, Zoho, Collabora/Nextcloud all provide platform agnostic tools that allow for easy use no matter what you're using.

You're working from a very old mindset of operating systems.

The article said the "study" was specific to physical threats versus other threats. Conservatives were more likely to sway towards liberal positions if their physical safety was secure.

SCOTUS has routinely smacked down the notion of unlimited free speech without consequence. Hate speech is legal and generally allowed on public property as with any speech. Speech that incites violence against others is not.

So for instance it's legal in the US to say "Group X is subhuman and shouldn't be allowed to marry" but it's not oka to say "We should go murder Group X now.", especially when you have the means and motivation to do it. For instance while it is very common to make threats against the US president regardless of party, it's often seriously reviewed for obvious reasons and is not considered protected speech.

If fact checking were a thing CNN wouldn't have been used as an example of "left-leaning" media. CNN is fairly mainstream, which isn't to say their reporting lately isn't garbage.

The reputable polar opposites are Fox News and MSNBC with everyone else somewhere in the middle. You can legitimately tell that someone listens to conservative media if they consider CNN left wing.

This is the general problem. You've got good, honest people who already have biases and the echo chamber is so loud if you're not vociferously fighting side X you're obviously side Y.

I highly agree that most news nowadays has become clickbait focused in an effort to both drive revenue and stir up loyalty by making people pick sides.

https://beerbrarian.blogspot.com/2016/12/librarians-in-age-o...

NPR Isn't a "state" funded organization. The vast majority of funding comes from listeners like you and corporations (not CPB). Republicans cut most of that funding remember?

The one written by Ajit Pai? It's paywalled, just like the every page on the internet once this guy is done screwing it up.

Why on Earth would Netflix have to pay for content served from inside their network. Netflix literally has red cache boxes inside all the ISP networks. If people stop streaming they won't go back to cable. The ISPs will all just move to metered internet.

I've made no leaps about you personally. You're probably a pretty cool person.

Yup, you're right. I chose a poor choice of words that didn't convey what I had meant to say clearly.

Yes, your points are all valid and correct. My statement was meant about what they are meant to protect not made to protect. Was a bad word choice on my part and I deserve the criticism of my comment I received.

* Flint, Michigan * The Gulf Coast * Anywhere in coal country * Wall Street * TARP

If you really think regulations are made to protect someone other than the poor or middle classes I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you. The whole point of regulations is that the collective power of the masses protects itself against the wealth of the elite and business interests who don't generally have to live with the results of their actions. Are there stupid regulations? Of course, lots of them. Are there some that just don't plain work? Of course, lots of them. That's why you don't make regulations based on feelings and instead look at what the evidence says.

Oh definitely manic.

Can we first define what winning a war and losing a war mean?

If we're talking about politically, yes we've lost the politic wars. The reasons for that are straightforward. We don't care what the local populace wants or realistically needs.

Militarily, we destroy the people we designate as enemies easily and without a problem. Most wars of attrition are easy to win when you've got the bigger gun and more people.

We need to stop thinking of wars as chess matches and start thinking of them as 4x games where the populace actually matters and gaining hearts and minds is actually important.