He looks exactly like he sounds.

The US is just as fucked as everything and everyone else, which is 100%

Do you have evidence of this mass banning wave you’re referring to?

Any day now, Elon Musk’s X, formerly Twitter, will go down in flames. This will prove once and for all that Elon Musk is worthy of derision!

About six to twelve more months then people will call it X

To whom could it be offensive?

• freaky flotsam
• oceanic oddity
• vermicelli tentacles
• longer than dog

They live

Did Trump “target” entities for cancellation during his first presidency?

Steve Jobs roided

Because population is increasing faster than new housing is being built. There is a supply problem and demand is in elastic. The supply problem is the result of government’s continual suppression of new construction, via permitting red tape and overeager density zoning.

I mean why think it won’t work.

It doesn’t make any difference what got us here in the first place. What matters now is what options are the best from now moving forward.

These scientists seem to say that trying to reverse climate change isn’t the right path forward. I wonder why.

edit: I wonder what makes them think that reversing climate change won’t work.

Someone was so offended by their misreading of my comment that they went through and downvote-bombed every comment in my history.

Notice how it’s the guy in the jacket saying everything.

The one person who doesn’t just hang out, but gives a little micro sermon on how hanging out is wonderful, is the one who wants the group to be a cult.

What exactly is “good faith commerce”?

That doesn’t seem to register as a coherent concept, considering good faith has to do with considering the whole of the interaction instead of one’s own side, and business is when each person handles only their own side of the equation.

Seems like an empty phrase to me, unless you can enlighten me.

You know what the difference between a near monopoly and an actual monopoly is?

In one scenario there’s competition and in the other one there’s not. Basically one’s a monopoly and the other isn’t.

Accounting is a relationship. When the government prevents a specific type of relationship — one consenting adults are regularly choosing to enter — the result is a change in relationships.

What are you saying is a lie? What claim exactly?

Yes you signed a contract. That contract has a certain value to it, and that value offsets the cost to them of the phone.

On your side, the fact that this contract came with a subsidized phone made it worth it to you.

What the carriers are saying is that this set of interrelated contracts won’t be available, and so these terms won’t be worthwhile to the parties involved, leading to a change in future contracts. Namely, the service contracts will have to be more expensive to them, which will make them less valuable to you, which will make them less likely to happen.

Are you suggesting that there are some lies involved in this? If so, you shouid be specific about which lies you’re referring to. Without the specifics this just seems like FUD.

The FCC is the one taking away people’s freedom here, by preventing users from entering the kind of contract that T-Mobile and AT&T are offering.

Consenting adults are happy to sign up on those terms, and the FCC is proposing to prevent that arrangement.

The carriers make an excellent point that without that lock-in, the sale of the phone is less valuable to them. This means they won’t be able to offer the heavy subsidies on phones any longer.

This is the government preventing contracts between consenting adults. The government is reducing freedom here.