Downvoted for advocating taking men’s children away.

Either everyone but you is stupid, or you’re missing something.

My feelings aren’t hurt by the presence of people who hate me.

But I will call a spade a spade. A person too lazy to add the word “some” to their statement does hate all men. Can’t be bothered with a syllable to honor them, and that’s hate.

20 years from now is current when you’re older

He looks exactly like he sounds.

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!

what?

I’m an uber driver. I get to be outside in the daylight all day. Work whatever hours I want. It’s nice.

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.

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.

That’s basically how medicine is run these days, and that’s a result of the artificial supply restriction government places on medical facilities and staff.

All doctors are forced through a narrow gauntlet which is basically designed by government regulations. The result of that process is doctors that have reduced empathy (it’s been documented, look it up), sleep deprivation, enormous debt, and a huge workload.

As a result, the third leading cause of death is medical malpractice, and people go into financial ruin to get medical care.

Medicine is one of those things we deemed “too important for a free market”, and so we’ve created a horrible hybrid of profit and government regulation that consistently produces horrible outcomes.

We need to be careful with this notion that something vitally important will be made safer, or more reliable, or less damaging by getting government involved.

If we aren’t careful (and let’s face it: government cannot be careful because it operates on a feedback loop of years, not days like private enterprise does), regulating the fuck out of a growing nuclear sector could lead to error and burnout rates similar to our medical sector, with similarly disastrous results.

Subsidies seriously distort the market.

IMO the only kind of subsidy should he “If you’re a human, you get some money on a regular basis”. That’s the only way to subsidize economic activity without distorting market signals, because humanity’s choices is exactly the signal source that the market should be responding to.