• 1 Post
  • 31 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 12th, 2023

help-circle
  • Edit: wait, you might be right. As I understand, net neutrality is for the last mile ISPs, not the L1/L2 providers. So uh… what I explained below isn’t relevant. Eh, I’ll leave it in case people wanna learn stuff.

    It was a bad explanation, assuming you had knowledge of network infrastructure things, but it does make sense. I’ll explain things if you’re interested.

    Net neutrality is the idea that ISPs must treat all content providers equally. Your phone is not a content provider (most likely. You could run a web server on your phone, but… no). YouTube, Netflix, Facebook, TikTok, and your weird uncle’s WordPress site are content providers. Without net neutrality, ISPs can say, “Hey YouTube, people request a ton of traffic from you on our network. Pay up or we’ll slow down people’s connections to you.” The “neutrality” part means that ISPs must be neutral towards content providers, not discriminating against them for being high demand by consumers.

    For the L1 and L2 part, that’s the networking infrastructure. The connection to your home is just tiny cables. I don’t recall how many layers there are, but it’s just “last mile” infrastructure. The network infrastructure between regions of the country or across the ocean are giant, giant cables managed by internet service providers you’ve never heard of. They’re the kind of providers that connect AT&T to Comcast. These are considered L1 or L2 providers. The data centers of giant companies, like Google for YouTube’s case, often pay these L1 or L2 providers to plug directly into their data centers. Why? Those providers are using the biggest, fastest cables to ferry bits and bytes across the planet. You might be pulling gigs from YouTube, but YouTube is putting out… shit, I don’t even know. Is there a terabyte connection? Maybe even petabyte? That sounds crazy. I dunno, I failed Google’s interview question where they asked me to estimate how much storage does Google Drive use globally. Anyway, I hope that gives you an idea of what L1 and L2 providers are.

    I’m not a network infrastructure guy, though. If someone who actually knows what they’re talking about has corrections, I’d love to learn where I’m wrong





  • I have zero idea what your angle is, but for the benefit of others…

    Nazi-ism is a chosen belief system with a core belief in depriving other groups of basic human rights. The depriving other people of basic human rights is the key part.

    Hate speech is directed towards people with attributes that they cannot change or religion. Religion gets added in there because changing religion is not a simple thing, and in major religions doesn’t hurt people. (Don’t start citing religious terrorists - that is fundamentalism within a religion and not a commonly shared belief among all followers.

    So hating on nazis is cool.








  • TheBeege@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mleat the rich
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    You incentivize the same way unions are growing now. Just show people the benefits and constantly shout it from the highest mountain tops.

    So bb, tell me more about those sweet, sweet employee-owned companies for other readers’ benefit.

    Tell me more about how employee owned companies are better at long term planning. Tell me more about how they’re concerned about balancing profit for survival’s sake with societal good. Tell me more about how they participate in the benefits of the free market via competition while not becoming all-consuming, profit-driven monsters. Tell me more about how they avoid stakeholder-chosen, sociopathic leadership in favor of leaders wanting the best for the company’s mission and its employees. Tell me more about the coffee shop branch that was shut down by its company and reopened as an employee-owned cafe. Tell me more about AAA. Tell me sweet nothings, bb

    (And yes, I’m explicitly not talking about communism because it’s an emotionally charged concept, and i want to focus on things maybe people don’t know so much about)



  • TheBeege@lemmy.worldtoMemes@lemmy.mleat the rich
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I understand the bitterness, but whoever said the commenter wanted to do what capitalists demand? They just wanted to avoid bloodshed.

    There are always options like general strikes, massive voting movements, etc. It’s just a matter of figuring out what will work and how to do it.

    If you’re arguing that capitalists will respond with violence, that’s fair, but then the blame is on them, not the workers


  • Like everything these days, it depends. I live in Seoul, where the density is arguably too high. If you get on the line 2 train, which encircles Gangnam and the business and tourist districts, you’re gonna be a sardine. If you hop on line 3 far enough east, it’s totally chill during rush hour in August. Literally. Air conditioning. Wifi and cell signal. It’s luxurious compared to LA.

    I think it’s just a matter of city planning. In Seoul’s case, I think they didn’t properly account for population growth and how much the inner-circle areas would boom. Outside of line 2 and some key transfer stations, public transit here absolutely is relaxing. I brag to my friends in the states about it all the time


  • Chicken and egg problem. Crime highly correlates with poverty. People perceive transit as being a poor people thing because it’s cheap. Only poor people take transit. You get the gist.

    Also, the incidence rate is probably lower than people’s perception. I lived in San Francisco for about 3 years and only experienced one incident while taking transit everyday. Of course, transit doesn’t have the problem mentioned above, so maybe it’s not the best example.

    I tried taking transit a couple of times in LA and in my hometown in a suburb in Florida. Transit is underutilized in these places (read as, people see it as a poor person thing). It was surprisingly… uninteresting. It was just getting from A-to-B. People mostly just sat on their phones or stared out the window or chatted. Was quite nice.

    So maybe grab a friend or two for safety, since you’re concerned about that, and give it a shot. I think you’ll be surprised.

    But if you’re in LA or New York, the trains are super dirty. So uh, i recommend not one of those. No idea where you’re located

    (Edit: I’m assuming you’re in the US because that kind of opinion is quite common there.)


  • I live in Seoul, which has superb public transit. It can work if designed well.

    Busses have their own lanes to ensure traffic minimally affects them. Bus-train transfers are well managed. High density means that mass transit ends up being faster due to traffic concerns. Speed limits are quite low, which also makes vehicle accidents less lethal.

    As for prohibitively expensive, that’s only if you don’t sufficiently tax your corporations ;)

    So basically, vote for local and national government that will create an environment where public transit works


  • Your reference to academic debate in a previous comment is hilarious. Academics know how to stay on topic.

    The original comment you replied to was referencing Israel’s behavior as terroristic. You provided a counter argument that nation states cannot conduct terrorism based on the definition of the term terrorism. When provided with evidence supporting the opposing claim, you say the evidence is not valid because it is not authoritative. You then say there is no authoritative source for such evidence. You then use a classic goal post argument method of saying, “even if your argument is invalid, that doesn’t work because x,” rather than focusing on the original argument. You also misuse appeal to authority. Appeal to authority as a fallacy is only a fallacy when the item in question isn’t explicitly defined by that authority. When you moved the goal post, you operated under the assumption of your continued argument that dictionaries are authoritative. However, your language is imprecise enough that you’re going to claim you didn’t make that assumption.

    That is not proper academic debate method. That is political debate method. This is the kind of shit that makes it difficult to make meaningful progress today. But hey, since we’re not doing proper academic debate anyway, I’ll indulge in some ad hominem. You’re a terrible person for trying to confound a serious issue with irrelevant pedantic arguments and arguments in bad faith. Fuck off. No one cares if “terrorism” - as defined by you as some authority on words - can be applied to nation states. A nation state committed an act meant to cause terror in civilians (in order to take their land). People understood that as the intent, which is the purpose of words anyway.