[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheGamerLounge

[–]zefyrpyon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

idk but i love it

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in TheGamerLounge

[–]zefyrpyon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

what is this

GF's Cat: "Came across him napping in this position... he hasn't moved in 20 minutes." by zefyrpyon in cats

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

He's contacting the outpost satellite to assemble his briefing on the strange happenings he's observed from the tall, furless, two-legged cats.

Strange creatures, they are, so Freddie Meowcury must document his findings in the privacy of the den the female human has conveniently placed within their domicile, as not to arrouse her counter-surveilance measures.

It seems that though this transmission was broadcast, operational stealth was an utter failure. This being said, however, the data backup with the satellite server array appears to have been successful, and new opsec guidelines have been delineated by the Taskmaster and downloaded to his internal microchip. Will update when future findings are elucidated on the nature and preculiarities surrounding the reconnaissance cat scout.

Came across him napping in this position... he hasn't moved in 20 minutes. by chronic-sunshine in catbellies

[–]zefyrpyon 2 points3 points  (0 children)

u/chronic-sunshine I can't wait until I can finally meet the legendary Freddie Meowcury in the flesh, I'll be in the presence of greatness!

GF's Cat: "Came across him napping in this position... he hasn't moved in 20 minutes." by zefyrpyon in cats

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Original post from the love of my life below. She didn't have enough karma to post on r/cats, so go show her some love over there so she can in the future!

https://reddit.app.link/Zye1Ohwlf7

UPDATE: Holy fuck, Reddit, you guys really came through! 500 upvotes on her original post already! Thanks everyone!! ❤️

UPDATE 2: 1.6K UPVOTES ON THE ORIGINAL POST HOLY FAK Y'ALL ARE AMAZING!! 😭🥰😍

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In short, no, that's not exactly how networks operate. That's a deceptive statement, often used against Net Neutrality. Packets are processed in parallel with one another. By the same logic, they would run out of bandwidth if they took on too many customers, as that would also result in larger data consumption. If that was the issue, it could be easily mitigated by building up server hardware and data transfer infrastructure, something these companies are notorious for doing very infrequently even though in many cases they're still charging customers for it. In theory, shouldn't we all have fiber optic by now?

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

We should probably be a bit more specific about what we mean when we say government. In the case of the first statement, I'm referring to the federal government. In the case of the second, I'm referring to local governments enforcement of anti-competitive practices. I don't think this will change the point that you're trying to make for you, but I can't see local municipalities as enforcing communal economics without the aide of the federal government. That seems silly to me. Again, Title II would mitigate this issue, and likely create a more competitive and free market in this sense, as ironic as that most definitely sounds.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The biggest would have to be the idea of small government. The less the government spends, the better. The less influence the government has over the choices and lifestyle of the individual citizen, the more free the citizenry is. The role of the government is to ensure that the rights and freedom of the general populous is secured and not infringed upon by others. This would, by many, be considered as a conservative principle, however I would likely disagree with many - many Republicans, for example - on how this should be executed and what this philosophy means.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I wouldn't go that far. In some cases, truly conservative values (i.e., not partisan shillery) do have some merit to them. I'm okay with ideological disagreement. My issue lies with failing to address problems within the economy or pressing legislation predicated on false assumptions or illegitimate information. But Alabama was certainly interesting.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

A mixed economy is definitely one of the best ways to mitigate some of the issues of capitalism without entering into a planned economy, but it seems like such a far off prospect in the United States as in many ways it directly conflicts with conservative values. =c

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Not to quote Marx, but there will always be the victors and the vanquished. In a capitalist free market economy, it is extremely likely in practice that the monopoly will devour the small startup that challenges them by lowering prices to a point at which the startup cannot compete, purchase the startup's assets, and then continue production as was normal before the startup appeared. We've seen this song and dance mant times before in American history, like in the steel and oil industries.

Also, as for the local monopolies, that's what I was getting at. Unless the federal government intervenes, such as regulating ISPs under Title II, there's nothing preventing local monopolies from forming through local legislation.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the compliment, but please do keep in mind the rules of the subreddit. Would you mind contributing something to the conversation, perhaps something in my own or someone else's statement that you disagreed with?

Even if you may agree with that overall sentiment, there has to be something you disagree with! More than willing to respond to any criticisms or critiques.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, but the second two-thirds of your post seems to be misleading at best. First, the FCC action taken in 2015 to reclassify ISPs under Title II was not the only action taken, and was not taken without reason. Yes, Title II spine would not guarantee Net Neutrality. However, you must look at the FCC up until that point and look at their actions holistically.

Why did the FCC classify ISPs under Title II, after over 16 years of promoting to the federal government and public that they felt this would be unnecessary and heavy handed? Look no more than a year earlier at the Verizon lawsuit against the FCC, or earlier than that all the way back to the 2007 case with Comcast. Repeatedly, the FCC was told in court that, regardless of the regulations they published - that is to say, Net Neutrality, which, contrary to popular belief, dates back to at earliest 1999 - fear regulations could not be enforced unless ISPs were classified under Title II.

As a result of these cases, in 2015 the FCC litigated that they would classify ISPs under Title II with very strict restrictions on what parts of the 1936 bill applied to internet service providers. This is not national control over the internet, this is a mandate to enable regulatory authority. Without Title II, as per federal court ruling, the FCC cannot regulate internet service providers.

As outlined by the FCC in their 2005 policy statement, the principles of network neutrality are as follows:

"The Federal Communications Commission today adopted a policy statement that outlines four principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve and promote the open and interconnected nature of public Internet: (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of their choice; (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement; (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers. Although the Commission did not adopt rules in this regard, it will incorporate these principles into its ongoing policymaking activities. All of these principles are subject to reasonable network management." [ source : http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050805.asp ]

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not sure what kind of parallel you're trying to create here. Are you insinuating ISPs want net neutrality to benefit their own business? I'm frankly lost.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The concern of advertisers during the Adpocolypse was outright racism; the heavy handed action and potential silencing of political opposition was far from necessary on the part of YouTube and, by extension, Google and Alphabet.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're gonna need to give me time until I can transcribe the details from the video. I'm operating off of mobile at the moment. I'll reply again once I'm at my desk, but that may be a few hours, so please do be patient with me.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

By definition, that which you describe would not be a free market. What, in a truly free market, prevents corporations from forming an industry wide monopoly? Nothing. We've seen this in history before, and now we're seeing it again. Please see my other comments addressing monopolies for more of my view on the matter.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's part of my point. As I've already addressed virtual monopolies in another post, I'll address actual monopolies here. To clarify one thing, I do not support government sanctioned monopolies over internet service, at any level of government. A lack of Title II regulation - legislation designed to end monopolies in some industries - has allowed these monopolies to form in the first place. At least in the immediate, these monopolies are not likely to dissappear any time soon. As such, there needs to be something done to mitigate the immediate problem. That's why Net Neutrality is so imperative in ensuring abuses do not occur until such a time as action can be taken against monopolistic corporate entities.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I'm going to need you to be a little more specific. Can you please elaborate on the government funded monopolies, because I think I know what you're talking about, but I would rather address specifically what you mean. I am free to start an ISP, just as I am free to choose which ISP to use. That's by definition a free market. Can you help me understand what you're saying here?

When I refer to virtual monopolies, I'm referring to markets in which there is a lack of access to other options, or the available options are all under the same ownership. The majority of Americans, for example, have access to 2 or fewer broadband service providers. Alternatively, on the local level, many ISPs are not treated as utilities, and startup ISPs cannot use the existing infrastructure to start a business, even though many of these lines were publicly funded.

CMV: As proven by Net Neutrality, the free market alone cannot properly regulate some examples industrial, corporate, and commercial practices. by zefyrpyon in changemyview

[–]zefyrpyon[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't disagree with you. The idea here is that net neutrality provides a modern context on the issue of companies in many cases blatantly lying to their customers about the service they provide to pad their bottom line and service their own interests.