You know you didn’t have to commit modemacide. You could have actually just asked for new hardware.

The majority of users can’t get anywhere near advertised speeds because the are using cheap devices to connect to their cheap wifi and WIFI in general isn’t expected to provide plan speeds in the first place. Also bandwidth is oversold. An ISP that serves 1,000,000 people with Gbps doesn’t actually have 1 Pbps bandwidth available to it. Most people should be able to get within 95% WHEN CONNECTED BY A WIRE TO MODEM most of the time and 90% of plan speed near all the time.

Did you know your phone doesn’t work if too many people in the same area try to use them at once because they don’t actually have enough capacity to serve everyone at once?

I don’t know why the ISP would initiate an upgrade you never asked for especially when they provide both faster speeds and better hardware as an up sell. If you want to live in 2009 it is indeed your problem. I made a fair bit of commission upgrading people to much much better hardware and speed for not much more money. Hi would you like your internet to be 20x faster and be able to use it upstairs for 15% more. Yes of course you do.

You should wire

• Your home office if you work from home.

This is where your money comes from it should work as fast and as consistently as possible. Being 10% less reliable isn’t acceptable.

• Things that are literally right next to one another.

If your console, cable box, and TV are all on the same shelf as the modem/router why are they competing for bandwidth with your laptop?

• The connection between routers/access points if your space warrants more than one.

The speed the second or subsequent devices are able to provide to all of its clients put together is limited by the speed of its connection to the first device and if its too far for a 5Ghz connection this wont be that fast. EG your upstairs router might support in theory a 600Mbps connection but if its connection is 80Mbps and 4 devices are connected an individual client may get as little as 20Mbps even if its connection to the router/AP is 600Mbps

I worked for an ISP. These problems are rarely ever ISP problems. It goes like this. ISP offers 50Mbps–1.2Gbps. If you are a cheap bastard and opt for the lowest tier plan you get a cheap hardware and if you don’t ask for an upgrade you’ll run that box until it doesn’t work. So you have people rocking hardware that was manufactured in 2009 and installed in 2014 wondering why their cheap ass WIFI4 box installed in their basement doesn’t work so well in half their house in 2024.

What’s more they have a download speed that would have been good in 2009 only instead of 2 computers they now have 20 connected devices and stream in 4K.

What’s worse is the rental on that shit WIFI4 box is about $20 a month or $2400 over 10 years so your paying for a BMW and getting a Pinto.

Smart people buy their own access points preferably wifi 7. Get one per story of your house and connect them with a physical Ethernet cable. Arrange them so that they overlap but not that much so that you don’t have dead zones. If you work from home get a proper desk and run a physical Ethernet cable to your device. Also if you have devices that are literally 2.5 feet from each other and they support physical network cables just plug them in. Don’t be that guy spending an hour trying to figure out why his router and his printer/tv aren’t friends when they are almost touching each other.

It’s an act of public goodwill to rich corporations who could get the same privilege by paying for a separate license.

Musk should be arrested for trying to influence our government with threats.

Why would open source code be released with the intention of helping people who wont or can’t give back?

You could use an app

If 50% of firefox users donated 2 dollars per year mozilla could work for people instead of Google or at least people AND google

Why is that a gap worth filling? There is no benefit to users as long as its free of a EULA they don’t have to care either way. For those wanting to produce open source software based on same they already have all the rights they could need. The only party clamoring for permissively licensed software are companies intending to close off the source and sell other people’s work.

I understand why they would want to do that I don’t understand why anyone would feel the need to work for free for something someone else closes off.

How about just firewall France and discover if legislators find cause to pass new laws.

If your hardware isn’t supported what are people supposed to say? Gosh I’m sorry volunteers didn’t donate more free work to make that shitty laptop work let me now assemble a strike force of expert programs to crack that problem by next week? Labor is a finite resource especially free labor.

This is complicated. Firstly outside of Wayland Nvidia works pretty great and has worked great for me 21 years on the other hand the amount spent is kinda irrelevant using different hardware is often actually the correct advice. Often though the logical move is use Windows on your effectively Windows only laptop and if you want to run Linux buy something compatible next go round.

Some hardware just isn’t supported and given hostile to indifferent oems it will always be so

So they are a bigot basically.

There are dangerous people out there but try to remember that most people are just like yourself. I remember having to walk home several miles at an inhuman hour after work do to transportation challenges and for the most parts the streets were empty but there were some folks out and I remember feeling paranoid at the sort of people who are out at 3AM.

Then I realized how ridiculous my thoughts were I was out here after all so why was I judging them. They were most likely coming home from work or going to work, or out for some cool air or any number of things. They were people not caricatures. Objectively the level of danger was actually no much different than driving in busy traffic and probably less than the folks commuting by bike given how people drive.

I’m not engaging further with what I think is a bad analogy.

I guess all these “not me though” or “but a bear will kill you” types don’t get that they are outing themselves as being of questionable trustworthiness.

Maybe outing themselves as pedants who don’t like shitty analogies. How do you get from disagreeing with labeling all men predators to … must be a predator. That just seems like you glued two concepts together and expected it to make a coherent thought. If A in some universe and B in some universe then if A thus B.

I don’t believe such a high amount of men who aren’t predators are bothered by it

I’m not a predator. I’m bothered by it

They might not be sexual predators

So because I disagree I might be a rapist. Super real there.

but I have no doubt they would gladly vote away women’s rights because its their party or its the christian way or some other shit like that.

I’m an Atheist who votes Democrat and supports women’s rights

Truly innocent men would just leave women scared of them alone

This is a discussion forum. The poster started a thread to discuss the topic. I’m discussing the topic. Nobody is attacking anyone with their words.

There is no reason to convince them

This is a many to many discussion forum people aren’t just engaging with the poster they are engaging with other readers interested in the same topic. Notice how our discussion is a sub-thread to each other and merely about the topic broached by the original poster.

doing so only makes them more afraid.

You are infantalizing the poster by imagining that she creates a topic but is rendered afraid by the mere fact that some people don’t agree with her. I don’t think that is even slightly reasonable.

This post could be a subject of an entire paper on how to write dishonestly and for emotional impact instead of honest argument. Please stop doing this.

The poster brought up the man vs bear debate it was the entire topic of discussion. This is the last sentence in my post.

It’s not shocking that the 99.9% of men who aren’t predators waiting in the bush feel justified in feeling unfairly vilified.

Please explain how I told them they deserve it. Use small words.

Of course I’m not. I just think the analogy is just incredibly overstated. Bears are in fact all fairly dangerous. Most men just aren’t

It is legal ethical moral and reasonable to call the cops because it is the only practical way to make people stop breaking the law. If the cops don’t want to be prosecuted or hated they can stop overreacting and hurting people. If the people want to avoid the risk of excess harm they can stop committing crimes or vote for politicians who hold cops accountable. None of this is my problem.

Regarding Man v Bear I think the topic is rather silly. Most bears aren’t looking to have a meet and greet if you do come across a bear one of three things are true. It’s here to eat you, it didn’t leave because its a she-bear and it has cubs its protecting, or you just startled it. If any of the above is true you are at best in serious danger. If it is actually trying to prey upon you then you are probably fucked. Whereas 100% of the bears you surprise in the woods are extremely dangerous 99.99% of people you meet man or woman are just people like yourself not looking for trouble.

It’s not shocking that the 99.9% of men who aren’t predators waiting in the bush feel justified in feeling unfairly vilified.