That’s debatable

Let’s find out

I understood 2 of those phrases but the rest sounds like commie bullshit.

• Republican voters

It’s not just manufacturers or the government. There are opportunities for encouraging EV adoption, and even making money while doing so, all over the place. Companies are just mostly choosing not to implement them.

For example, on a recent road trip I went inside a shopping mall for the first time in a decade because they had a fast charging station in the parking lot and I had some some time to kill while my car charged. They made money off me in multiple ways because of the decision to build out EV infrastructure.

I’ve also booked hotels and eaten at restaurants specifically because they had charging stations on site. Even a cheap level 2 charger will do a lot to convince me to come check out your business.

Even ignoring all that, charging my car at home is about 1/4 the cost of a tank of gas, which doesn’t take my solar panels into account at all and those come with a whole host of additional benefits unrelated to EVs. The government can’t override basic math.

Don’t frame it like it won’t turn out to be a big deal. That’s a bad idea, intentional or not. Deploying military assets against American citizens should be considered a serious escalation every single time it happens.

I guarantee there is a way to login without using a smartphone app. It may be easier but that’s not the same as required.

Every bank in the country has a website. Just use your browser like a regular desktop user. Not everything needs to be an app ffs.

Yep, the only thing I’m 100% confident about in this whole mess is that Trump will find some heretofore unimagined way to make it worse.

#synergy

Just another rich old fuck who should have been dragged out of his penthouse and beaten to death by his exploited employees years ago.

What’s with the switching back and forth between “you” and “u”? Either one is fine but pick one and go with it.

This headline is a really roundabout way to say “kicked out”. He was kicked out of parliament.

Lumen and Verizon both have subsea cable connections to Europe. EXA Infrastructure is in the process of acquiring Aqua Comms, both of which own subsea cables. Google, MS, and Meta have all invested in subsea infrastructure to varying degrees as well. These are not monopolies in the classic sense of the word but they’re not exactly owned by benevolent interests either.

That said, the point is that a malicious government with sufficient pull, for example the current Trump administration, wouldn’t have to bully very many people to severely limit the flow of information between North America and Europe. So much of the internet depends on US infrastructure that this wouldn’t be terribly far off from censoring the entire internet. In that scenario there isn’t much that can be done about it. Europe can control their own information flow to Asia and Africa but at minimum this would be a severe disruption for a significant amount of time. Other entities might take such an opportunity to impose their own restrictions and make the situation even worse.

They do wade into the IP / transport territory a bit but those are not the 6 companies I was referring to. I was thinking of Verizon / AT&T / Lumen / Zayo / etc.

Except that never happens. They get millions and then go bankrupt some other company.

Your last sentence is spot on but it doesn’t capture the full weight of the impact rich people vibes have on the world. The perceived value of every stock, and by extension the economy as a whole, is almost exclusively a vibe check of rich guys. There is no objective information about a company that is more indicative of that company’s success than how rich people feel about it.

While there are interesting projects in that list, everything that I see is either only useful in a local setting, like wireless mesh networks and their derivative protocols, or assumes that no one is actively restricting what can be transmitted over the privately owned long haul fiber networks that make up the backbone of the internet. How would someone in Seattle transmit more data than can be sent via a ham radio equivalent signal to someone in New York without the use of those fiber networks?

Perhaps you misunderstood my point in your haste to make a complicated problem seem simple but no, my argument has not changed.

No it isn’t. Either traffic is allowed to flow freely or it isn’t. Once you start down the “isn’t” path there’s not much that can be done to get around the fact that a few people control a huge chunk of the infrastructure.

Please explain how you can bypass carrier enforced traffic shaping policy.

From geti2p.net:

I2P’s protocols are efficient on most platforms, including cell phones, and secure for most threat models. However, there are several areas which require further improvement to meet the needs of those facing powerful state-sponsored adversaries, and to meet the threats of continued cryptographic advances and ever-increasing computing power.

The people involved in the project you’re referring to acknowledge that governments can, by influencing carrier policy, disrupt and subvert the project’s intended function. Why then are you implying they are incorrect?