Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm guessing you've bought into the meme that Tumblr is literally nothing but left-wing politics.
Are you saying that meme is inaccurate?
Are you implying it's not?
Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
161–170 of 178 posts
Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#162Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
This assumes there is commentary on Tumblr worth saving.
I'm guessing you've bought into the meme that Tumblr is literally nothing but left-wing politics.
No, the comment section on an average tumblr page:
X has shared this Y has shared this Z has shared this ....
Actual commentary? Not so much.
On a side note I tried going back there to see if the situation has improved and somehow the interface is even worse now. The blog I was trying to read would only appear as a slide in on the side and would disappear at the drop of a hat. I don't even understand how you are supposed to use it now.
Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to downvote you because of how intensely I disagree with everything you're saying, but you're saying it nicely so I won't. Instead - The major concern about losing NN is that instead of just paying for volume of data, I'll also be required to pay based on type and/or source of that data, and that the entities providing the data will also be required to pay based on type and/or destination. Do you think this co…
> Finally, I just straight up don't understand what you mean by "defend it using... force". Can you explain? It's a common refrain from some types of libertarians. The basic logic is that all laws are morally equivalent to holding a gun to someone's head, therefore it's immoral to pass laws regarding anything that's not worth killing over.
It isn't that the law is morally equivalent to holding a gun to someone's head, but that the law has penalties that are enforced on pain of greater penalties, which will eventually lead back to violence being used.
Say you get a fine over some law. Doesn't matter what, but let's say it is a minor fine over a law you disagree with. So you refuse to pay it. Now perhaps it ends there, with the law not being fully enforced (with sometimes does happen). But what else could happen is that you are summoned to court concerning the fine. Now the punishment for the fine includes a court summon. So in protest of the fine being wrong, you choose to not go to court or go to court and refuse to court order to pay the fine. Either way, the court will either drop it (unlikely at this point) or you could be arrested for refusing a court order (you don't go to prison for a debt, you go to prison for refusing a court order to pay a debt, which seems to be an important distinction for some reason I can't see). Now you either submit to being arrested, or violence will be used against you.
Under this reasoning, that original law is backed by violence. Either a law ends up not being enforced or being enforced with an eventual threat of violence. There are cases where there is little chance of it ever having someone protest it.
One example people use to counter with that seems to work at first is government restrictions on limiting licensing. For example, take a law that says government has to approve a license for some activity if it doesn't given a definite disapproval within a week of application. In this case, breaking the law would be done by someone at the government either refusing to give approval at all or giving a no after the deadline to give a no has passed. One likely result is someone who didn't follow the law getting fired, but in this case it is the government overriding itself and eventually following the law. But assuming that every manager approved of violating the law such that no one was fired and the office in question maintained its stance, then the party that requested approval will have cause to sue the government. At which point the court will make specific orders (such as demanding testimony or demanding certain actions be performed), and any person directly disobeying those will now face possibly being arrested, which is when violence comes into play. Or the court could choose to not make any demands, at which point the government is choosing to not enforce the law. A practical example of this is to look at the individuals who refused to give marriage license to same sex couples. Either someone higher overrode them and someone else (representing the government) gave out the license or they were sent to jail (with the threat of violence if they did not obey).
Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#165If you're a founder and looking to sell your company, is there anything you can do to guard yourself against these kinds of situations? I imagine it might be some particular part of a golden handcuff / golden parachute deal, but making it work for everyone involved sounds super hard...
Everyone is saying no. I'm going to speculate in opposite in case someone qualified reads the comment to tell us if it makes any sense. :) My idea is to, either as terms of the sale or in a contract with a 3rd party, guarantee the company will continue doing a specific thing. If it's a contract, the company should be able to do with without much cost and get benefit in return for consideration. After the sale, they'r…
Yes, you can put all kinds of encumbering conditions on your sale. However, the hard part is getting the buyers/investors to agree to that - especially if they are VCs with an explicit goal of getting an exit, i.e., re-selling the company somehow.
At best, adding such conditions will mean you getting less money for more dilution in every funding round. At worst, at some point near the end of a runway you'll get an ultimatum to drop the condition or not get the next funding round at all.
Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
Step 0: Acquire at least ~1PB of storage to store all the data.
It's in the supercomputing center. How aboug I modify it where a filterimg step is run deleting everything that doesn't match on desired image festures?
> Step 3: Move it off of there when traffic is low or overnight if system doesn't go offline overnight.
Where are you moving it to? You think that even if you manage to hack into a "supercomputing center" that nobody's going to notice 1PB of storage filled with GIFs?
Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's in the supercomputing center. How aboug I modify it where a filterimg step is run deleting everything that doesn't match on desired image festures?
> Step 3: Move it off of there when traffic is low or overnight if system doesn't go offline overnight. Where are you moving it to? You think that even if you manage to hack into a "supercomputing center" that nobody's going to notice 1PB of storage filled with GIFs?
Having worked in a supercomputing center for a detector at the LHC, yeah, you could probably get away with storing a few hundred TBs for a short period of time without anyone noticing or caring. A whole petabyte might be pushing it.
Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very good point and even better pointed question! Part of the value of the network is how much bandwidth one can use in a month. The other part is simply the convenience of being able to send/receive lots of data in short bursts. I'd argue most people don't need to consume lots of data to appreciate 1 Gb connection when it's available. I think you'll find most people are willing to pay a premium for convenie…
> I think you'll find most people are willing to pay a premium for convenience and optionality, even when they don't use it. Not much of a premium. CenturyLink offers 1gbps in my area. I only know one person who's subscribed to that level of service. Cost has been cited as the deciding factor every time.
> Not much of a premium.
Good point. I think I overstated it.
Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no basis for your contention that "internet" would be cheaper without NN.
Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs, and that regulation typically increases downstream costs, I think the onus is on NN-proponents to prove why the reverse is true.
>Given that reduced upstream costs typically translate into reduced downstream costs
Can you go into a little more detail about "given" here? I'm not under the impression that it's true.
Re: Verizon is killing Tumblr’s fight for net neutrality
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone is saying no. I'm going to speculate in opposite in case someone qualified reads the comment to tell us if it makes any sense. :) My idea is to, either as terms of the sale or in a contract with a 3rd party, guarantee the company will continue doing a specific thing. If it's a contract, the company should be able to do with without much cost and get benefit in return for consideration. After the sale, they'r…
Yes, you can put all kinds of encumbering conditions on your sale. However, the hard part is getting the buyers/investors to agree to that - especially if they are VCs with an explicit goal of getting an exit, i.e., re-selling the company somehow. At best, adding such conditions will mean you getting less money for more dilution in every funding round. At worst, at some point near the end of a runway you'll get an ul…
This is true. One would have to convince them the restriction would have minimal to no impact on their bottom line. An example of selling open software is Red Hat or SUSE where they continue to make lots of money off enterprise sales despite distros like CentOS.