111–120 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on. There was plenty of media attention around Project 2025 before the election. This is exactly what people voted for.
And a lot of it surrounded how Trump denied it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fov7Mq75gYE
You're absolutely right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically Tesla was the first major company globally starting a trend. Aka leading.
> Technically Tesla was the first major company globally starting a trend And China’s dominance in LFP is based on its acquisition of A123’s IP out of bankruptcy [1]. [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20130131031501/http://www.reuter...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technically Tesla was the first major company globally starting a trend. Aka leading.
Yeah agreed, Tesla showed the world it was possible, but they seem to be failing to maintain their leadership position.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Interesting that there is a significant price disparity between locations for what is ostensibly a global service. … is it? Why wouldn't a corporation use any and all data available to them to price discriminate as hard and as much as they possibly can? > my corner of Ohio either. We have 3 fiber providers in the area I … am not sure I believe that. Everywhere I think I have ever lived, broadband is a local monopol…
In Kitsap county the municipality owned lines can be used via a service contract with any number of service providers. Kinda a monopoly and kinda not.
You can always tell how tech savvy someone is, buy how much bandwidth they don't buy. They don't fall for the marketing/lobbying of the big incumbent ISPs. Anyone I've known worth their salt in networking cares about latency far more than speed. Historically upload speeds on asymmetrical plans were a problem too, but since people have started to work from home, most cable/fiber/wireless internet providers' lowest pla…
What had made you suppose fast means laggy? I upgraded to 10Gbit Internet because their fiber is cheaper than the 1Gbit connection. I get 3ms pings to Google, or 5ms on older IPv4. Fast, low-latency, and cheap is a pretty great combo.
Which is to say, every major telco offers faster speeds than the majority of their subscribers will ever use, often even on their bottom-teir plans, but a significant portion of ISPs have enough lag to affect their users, even on their top-tier plans.
If you're trying to push telcos toward offering a more useful product, don't set a goal for them to offer higher speeds, which are already high enough for the vast majority of customers, but instead push for low latency, which most telcos cannot provide even between the customer's equipment and the telco's equipment.
Fiber providers have excellent latency, and of course that's what you should get if it's an option, but many subscribers are stuck with telcos that use DOCSIS over a cable network or LTE over a cellular network, and nothing can be done to reduce the latency for current generations of those protocols, but there's no technical reason the protocols couldn't have lower latency, so pushing telcos toward offering lower latency could make it happen, creating an actual useful improvement.
Maybe this will force sites to stop wasting bandwidth and stem the bloat. You should not need a gigabit connection (which I do not even have in all of my home LAN) to browse the Internet. Edit: downvoters, please explain why I need 125MB/s (that's 3 full installations of Windows 95 every second) for normal browsing.
You don't need gigabit but resource constraints have never reined in bloat in the past and they won't now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100/20 is barely enough for a household of 3-5 "light" users. What the hell are you doing that 100/20 is "barely enough"?
Work from home? Copy large files?
To be the devil's advocate, the previous admin also squandered a lot of broadband money away in a pattern that seems common to all Democratic infra projects. See https://reason.com/2024/06/27/why-has-joe-bidens-42-billion-... . Neither party is good at this. The FCC broadband map and the b/w labels (previous admin) are nice though.
To be the devil's advocate, the previous admin also squandered a lot of broadband money away in a pattern that seems common to all Democratic infra projects. See https://reason.com/2024/06/27/why-has-joe-bidens-42-billion-... . Neither party is good at this. The FCC broadband map and the b/w labels (previous admin) are nice though.
Why do you feel the need to be the devils advocate? What do you get from defending this crap?
To prevent this level of monopolar partisanship.
Is this action a net-negative for ISP subscribers (i.e. everyone)? Yes.
However, this doesn't give any leeway at all in ignoring the past failures of the other side when it comes to this space either. The only (legally advisable) path left is vocal advocacy for its restoration. Doesn't matter who it is, only that this goal is to be achieved.
---
Also: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
> When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.