why would they fight each other when all the power they need is in one nice place called the government?

one win there means a win across so much more territory that a small no nothing town

why buy a PMC when the government extorts money out of its citizens to pay for the police?

if all the power they need was in governemnt they would try to be the governemnt rather than rely on it

which is the case

they are trying to be the government, did you not notice the that a lot of tech companies like google backed NN?

but in our democracy we try to fight against that as a society

because it meant their competition, ISP companies, wouldn't be able to fight them by blocking their traffic

you notice a lot of companys backed ending NN too

its because they arnt a monolith

yes, they are fighting out their fights in the government, rather than the market.

because its cheaper

and that means we suffer as well as their competition

they fight in the market CONSTANTLY

yeah, and regulation means they don't HAVE to fight on that front anymore

regulation means they can fight with regulation

but thats actually slower

if we had no regulation we would have monoploy

Well, Grenade. In London the police claim they no longer have the resources to fight many crimes (like simple robbery and muggings) [maybe in part because they have all those hate social media crimes to eradicate). So now some people have had to resort to this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5346699/First-private-police-force-caught-400-criminals.html

the united states has been through this shit before my nigga

@Arch-Fiend ISPs have regulations and are monopolies BECAUSE of that

they have all kinds of laws they backed in place to make it so they can basically kick anyone out of any town.

isp's arnt monopolys because of regulation

not even google could compete

@Arch-Fiend i have 1, maybe two choices in ISPs where i live. how is that NOT a monoploy?

google isint in the same market as isps

google fiber

try again

they are monopolys, but its not because of regulation

well true, its also in part because the government gave them free money to "upgrade"

and google backs NN

yet arnt part of the monopoly that NN effects

yeah, after they stopped expanding google fiber

hMmMmMm

also nn is not the regulation that even touches upon that

the regulations that do touch upon that end up being down in state or local governments.

what regulations is it that facilitates monopoly in your mind?

much like car dealerships

also mind you, you have to pick regulations which dont prevent existing companys from having even more power to stomp out compatition

@Arch-Fiend you'll have to wait for me to get home before i dig up all the state and local ordinances that do just that

since i don't keep them saved 24/7

i think most of the regulations that stand in the way of people starting their own bussinesses to compete with the larger businesses are regulations that protect the consumer such as "to start a bussiness you need these expessive things otherwise alternitives would be putting the consumer at risk" which i think you could make an argument that insted we could go with buyer beware and require bussinesses to always explain to their consumers exactly how they are different from their competitors including "we use alternitives that the governemnt thinks is putting you at risk"

although the car dealership example is pretty easy, since i know laws that exist in some of the states around me that state it is illegal for a car manufacturer to sell directly to customers, they must go through a dealership that is not owned by them.

its why Tesla doesn't sell their cars in some states and had to jump through 18 hoops in another

@Arch-Fiend I can confirm that in the US ISPs/cable tv/phone provider services are highly regulated, often at the city or county level. Most often franchises to provide those services in a locality are limited to 2-3 companies at the most. As in only those 2-3 approved franchisess will be allowed to dig and install the wiring for those services. Sometimes they will allow other ISPs to piggy back off those providers though

But the local government is the one that approves those franchisees.

see personally any regulation beyond "minimum for the safty of the consumer and employee" i think should only apply as a gradiant for the ammount of an industry a bussiness is a part of. like the larger your bussiness and the larger a fraction of a service you provide to society the greater responcability you have in order to be ethical and thus in my mind regulations should apply stronger based on that

also dont agree with company buyouts either

https://www.wired.com/2013/07/we-need-to-stop-focusing-on-just-cable-companies-and-blame-local-government-for-dismal-broadband-competition/

THat is exactly what I was referring to Grenade. Local governments control that--the "local right of ways" that are needed to install that infrastructure.

you realize that if it was like half the price to put cables underground or on poles youd have double the cables? thats not an actual 1-1 comparison but still https://marinasjland.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/telephone_pole_crop.jpg

@Arch-Fiend but who even sets the price of putting those cables down?

who gives the rights to even do it?

though it would probably be better to regulate poles in a different less expensive way

dont you mean (((who)))?

jokes aside i cant tell if your asking a rhetorical or not

there is pretty much limitless ground you could put cables in (and you don't have nearly as much problems when bad weather is about) and after enough cables are run through it would probably have a big enough enough hole that you could put in a lot for just the cost of running the physical cable, not even need to dig.

sure, its not the cheapest option, but that isn't even an option

you dont have limitless ground

for cables?

the fact you see poles completely wraped in hundreds of cables is evidence you dont have limitless ground

actually no, the poles are just cheap

sure, and they are on everyones property weather they are using the service or not

just like pipes, just like roads

yeah, now imagine if the local government decided only 2 car companies got to drive on your local road. and for you to drive your own care it would be 20k now, and 1.8k a month

If you have an already established community (say a subdivision in the US), you have a limited area that you can dig those cables (typically the stretch of lawn/grass between the sidewalk and street. And if you have ever increasing numbers of companiies wanting to come in and dig to install additional cable lines then sooner or later those homeowners are going to get fed up with that

*

Eventiually the next installer is going to "accidentally" cut another company's cable while they are in the process of installing their owb

@Chijohnaok as my previous point, imagine how many cables could fit in something like a city storm drain. Those big ones that people can easily stand in

that probably already happens

that is what i meant by "have enough companies"

but it would be more frequent

but the alternative is only like there be 1 or 2?

you want CABLES in stormdrains?

you ancaps really are crazy

*facepalm*

@Arch-Fiend more like something the size of a storm drain, but a whole different system.

Well, in the commuiity that I live ( a subdivision suburb of Tampa) those storm drains are prbablt about 18 inches in circumference. Now I grew up in Chicago and I realize that some underground utility tunnels there are man sized but that is not the rule everywhere

well youd need a second stormdrain then

we are not even allowed to have that option

all im saying is this seems to be an infastructural problem

Arch...those storm drains in Chicago can sometimes be man sized in height so the utlilities are run through a smaller pipe within the larger underground storm drain tunnels

all of this is just possibilities but are barred by local governments leaving your only option to basically by your space FROM a huge ISP.

this is how they get a monopoly

all of these options are expensive

they are not even options

thats my point

because they are expesive and public nusances

how are ISPs not already a public nuisance?

name a single ISP who's customer service is steller

none, because they don't need to be

they are, your talking about making them bigger nuisances without any payoff

A competing company can't even worry about expense if they can't even explore the option due to regulation

you install a new large storm-drain like pipe line once, then get a lot of space to had lots of new lines for a while, any that is a nuisance?

these pipes which could be used to put power lines in so that you don't lose power every time a tree falls or a drunk driver takes out a light pole

yeah customer service may increase by 10% now that theres 3 competing isps and not just 2 but then you also have a 30% increase in infastructural problems which will effect the overall service of all 3 that rely on that infastructure

you realize that stormdrain either falls on the ips or the taxpayer right?

idk, how much more does it cost to maintain a concrete pipe in the ground over time verse the always falling over telephone poles?

how much does it cost to built it?

were talking about building a 5-10 foot tall wall underground that runs beside every road in the united states

basicly probably costs as much as the road does

That is never going to happen---cost prohibitive

over who knows how many years. idk, if i have the money, i seems like it might be worth while building it in a city or two and then letting other isps rent space in it for cheaper than the current cost to get on a pole.

maintenance would start to pay for itself

make money off my competition

if i lose the war for the actually internet piece, i still make money off the pipe

I don't know for all EU but things unraveled here like this: companies built their infrastructure then lease it to other companies... if you are internet operator you compete for costumers all over but you pay the lease for infrastructure to some .... Speed is unaffected since they are under "lease agreement)

the alternitive is what were doing right now creating ever complex systems of cables ontop of artifical trees or under the ground with the added problem of it being easier to forget where they are underground because they arnt inside the extremely expensive pipe your preposing

and all of thise expense falls onto either the tax payer or the isp

And whoever is going to do that will need to get the local community's permission to do so...pay an annual fee to the government, etc. in other words they are given a monopoly on that. 😉

local government doesn't even approve it to start with, i mean why would they? whatever company is the current ISP can just pay the town not to

the monopoly exists simply because its hard to do this and anyone who trys eventually gets eated up by the larger isps and their cables become comcast's cables

consumers wants competition

"hey, don't undo this regulation and i'll pay you uhhhh.... late fees for missed dues, yeah"

even if the right of way cost is exorberent, its still preventing more taxation on the united states infastructure

because keeping that infrastructure funded by only the government has been working out real well.

actually it sounds like its funded by isps taking up pole realistate

though taxepayer money probably does eventually go into that

fuck, i wish they would privatize roads here just so that there would be real roads, rather than the state government raiding the transportation funds to pay some ex governor 100k a year in pension for retiring at 50

@Arch-Fiend i wasn't talking about just the internet infrastructure, otherwise your comment on "preventing more taxation on the united states infrastructure" would make no sense

"its taxing the infrastructure....by building new and better ones.... yeah..."

also who owns poles is really random and different from place to place

your suggesting a pole for every isp?

we once looked like this https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4066/4329783566_8e1420ea07.jpg

it would probably end up being easier and cheaper to start going the underground route at some point

there is several different ways to solve this problem but the government is not one of them

Underground tends to work better in many areas (I know in FLorida it would be better as it would minimize damages and speed up recovery after hurricanes. That is unless you are in a low lying area that is prone to flooding...in which case your underground wiring/cable/electric will get fried when you have alot of rain/hurricanes/storm surges

it does nothing but fuck it up

@Chijohnaok and not on limestone that likes to vanish

the giant alka seltzer that is Florida

i think i agree with you that even if the goal to making right of way exorberently expensive just to prevent cable bloat on poles, its not seemingly a calculated expense, it probably does have more to do with kickbacks, however at some point compatention will have to be curbed by realistic limitation on infastructure. so i think yes this right of way cost is protectionist for existing ips and should be delt with, but at the same time we should decide how far we will go. even then this doesent solve the problem in the marketplace that corporations will have where they simply outcompete with eachother by already having so much wealth they can choose to take a loss over a number of years just to kill out any compatition that arises and intimidate any others for a time

@Arch-Fiend as with everything, there is balance.

however, talking about the cost of digging holes, maybe Elon's boring company would be helping to fix that

In my subdivision all the utilities are buried but as soon as you step outside you have large utility poles (some wooden which tend to come down easier in storms and some massive concrete poles which tend to stay up better during storms). A storm related fail will result as soon as it comes to that wooden pole.. aka the weakest link in the chain

maybe you don't need to dig a hole along every house, just a main one under the street or through some main drag, then towns or homeowners pay for the line going from the house to the hookup

so the cost of that is on the owner/town

and the ISP is just the cable running to the hookup

As it is now the two two primary cable/internet/phone providers in my area have their own buried lines in the right of way (grass between the sidewalk and street). One provider uses the coax wiring to carry signals while the other provider (FIOS) uses fiber optics.

Those lines I think are no more than 1-2 feet underground.

Perhaps a better solution is for some communities to just start kicking out ISPs completely and just putting down the 20k to set up their own internet node and pay the 1800 a month collectively

That could be the cost of like 18-20 people paying for high speed internet right now

Well, if you have ever sat in on a Homeowners Association meeting, getting a group of people to agree on assessing the members more money is not an east thing to do.

easy

A few years ago the county offered our subdibvision the chance to have a "gray water" system installed so that your water for sprinking/irrigation was reclaimed water. The per month charge on your water bill would be significantly lower but the per home initial installation costs were like $5,000. It was put to a vote of the homeowners and did not pass. The county would not do it unless a certain % of the homeowners had approved it.

"reclaimed" water is basically water from storm/sewage returns that undergoes some treatment but not the same level of treatment as drinking water.

Normally we have sprinkling restrictions (you get to water laws 1 or 2 days a week) but if you have gray water you can sprinkle unlimmited with no restrictions

People view money lost now as somehow more than the money you will lose in the future

But this is more like "hey, the town can put funding to this this year and we can kick out the ISPs and save everyone money or get better internet for the same cost

Some may not have the $5k to pay now. Some are elderly and figure they will not be alive long enough to recoup their investment. Some don't plan on holding the home long enough to recoup their money. A variety of objections wre enough for the effort to fail.

Well, if you have seen how some towns deliver on their promises/utilities/infrastructure then you might not vote for the effort either. 😉

https://amp.businessinsider.com/twitter-ceo-apology-chick-fil-a-gay-pride-month-2018-6

Lol

They just keep fighting their own side. It’s great.

its one of those things that makes you question reality

Politicized food

kind of hypocricy though,

Its forbidden to eat food from a 'bigot'

But its also forbidden for a 'bigot' to not serve people

cant help but think something is about to happen

trump and kim in the same place

like what?

Peace? Winning?

2020 victory?

attempted assassinations

Nah, itll be fine

North Korea is probably at the end of their rope

no one is gonna try and kill donald

that'll make Pence the president

Nobody wants that

like not even he himself

lemme put my tin foil hat on for a sec... what if the dems try to take out kimmie

how

why

that thought crossed my mind

well to say its trumps fault for ruining NK deal

by lettin him getk illed

Breaking 8 years old news

https://www.nextnature.net/2010/05/norwegian-boy-saves-sister-from-moose-attack-with-world-of-warcraft-skills/

that one is so old the link itself even says 2010

why? .. why would they sabotage trumps biggest success story in the worst way possible?

There has to be a tangible benefit for the conspirators

the benefit is they wont ruin their election chances

If trump makes peace in Korea, he wins

not like a tangential may happen benefit, something that they can be assured of

nah, Dems wont try it

If Kim goes, NK will blow up California, killing like 60% of the democrats voting base, forever

ok tin foil hat off... I wouldnt find it surprising if they did something... some back deals or something to tank the deal in a way that makes Kimmie side with dems.. like if they promise him cash or something... or deals.. reduction of sanctions whatever

that sounds like something Trump would offer

😛

yeah but trump will need somthing for it.. like reduction of nukes

removal

whereas dems might just do it for political reasons

to get in power

even they aren't THAT dumb,

People would fear it

any "plot" they could have, if any would involve ruining the NK deal, not changing it for their benefit

if its ruined, they can blame trump

like they do constantly

but ima go sleep, its 1:40 here, so i'll leave the talk to where it goes

it will be interesting to see how the media spins it if nothing in particular bad happens

prolly like how they spun the start "Why Trump actually had nothing to do with NK and SK peace talks"

peace out

that would require them to have influence or people in position who will listen to them

people that would have to be willing to commit career suicide for the dems benefit

now i understand why trump only appoints those loyal to him

hmm

Now that I think about it, loyalty in a democracy may be more important than in a dictatorship

Starting in about 20min https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjmTXxNuH1M

NK thing.

Wish this channel had embedding.

North Korea summit happens in 20 minutes

E3 Sony presentation happens in 20 minutes

Lol

Decisions, decisions!

I have two monitors.

^ he knows

the coverage from this news channel is fantastic https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OH50Rv_GSSM

Kim is there.

Nk commits to complete denuke with trump

Yeee boi

https://twitter.com/cjf39/status/1006423577371873280?s=19

You can read the pic

has he confirmed despacito 2 yet?

reality: historic summit! USA and NK!
lib media: yea but usb fans tho

y'know new scientist keeps posting this like every few hours... https://twitter.com/newscientist/status/1006472381454606337?s=20

imagine how many apologies they would have to issue if you named any other demograph when "researching racism"

How in the fuck do they call that drivel science ?

newscientist has been on a strange path recently

Frankly just this one article would make me ignore it

I dont mind the topic

But i expect some base data

And not just authors feels

Current culture war is fascinating and could use somebody aproaching it scientificaly

yeah if you did it properly you would get data from asian countries to get asian supremacists, and black supremacists in other countries... not just "why is white people so racist #amIrite?"

But that means using scientific methodology

I am quite interested how will the historians tackle this era in the future.

If they will just use legacy media like they do for 50s it will be quite different view then if they use internet sources

Maybe Tim could make some larger documentary about all this

Starting with gamergate and going over all the important happenings since then

Otherwise ppl will not realy understand what went down in the future

anyone have a source for jordan peterson explaining when the right goes to far?

Ive seen him say that we know when they do

but has he defined when they do?

he generally just asks the question

he talked about it in that munk debate

he tells that the right goes to far when it goes after people for things other members of their race/cathegory did

does anyone have any links to stories about evergreen giving activists jobs

it is meantioned in this debate

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ST6kj9OEYf0

the JBP question

where in the debate however i am unsure

https://youtu.be/ST6kj9OEYf0?t=40m10s

there found the exact time where he mentiones it

should save you around 30 minutes lmao

Tim, ask Benjamin Boyce he manages to get insider information because he used to go there

One thing to keep in mind with JBP and the right wing is that he's a Canadian, and Canada has an extremely weak right wing.

old tweet https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/516382177798680576?s=20

Him having to comment on the right 'going too far' is probably not something that happens often in Canada, simply because there isn't much of a right wing to begin with, and the overton window in Canada is so far to the left that they can't say or do anything that would seem 'too far' from an American perspective.