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.

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

Already compressed files like video don’t meaningfully compress more. Compression isn’t magic.

It doesn’t matter for practical purposes you can’t make people pay attention as if driving without the actual engagement of driving. There is going to be a delay in taking over and in a lot of cases it wont matter by the time the human is effectively in control.

Autopilot isn’t being marketed to aviation enthusiasts nor is it a plane so it doesn’t matter how autopilot in planes works it matters what the perception is. They could have used a more appropriate term like advanced cruise control

FSD is just a lie because its a description of a product they intend to develop not something that exists on the car you are buying now

I would instantly discount it based purely on not having third party verification or enough details for a third party to replicate.

Why didn’t he get banned from using the internet?

This isn’t useful or sufficient. You have to consider how many bots get banned and cost to determine efficacy. If you want 10,000 fake people to manipulate real people $10,000 doesn’t seem a high price if you make the fake people act organic enough that they largely aren’t banned.

It would be more useful if a singular service verified sufficient credentials to prove you were an authentic human and allowed you to auth to various sites. This in turn creates the problem that verifiers now know a LOT about your online life.

If the verification involved site -> verifier -> government held public key I think you could arrange so that none of the parties had enough info to identify users.

It’s really not. A pair of shoes has one owner by its nature we can’t both wear it. If I take yours you can no longer wear it. Because valuables are locked up the only way to take it is usually to commit some other crime like breaking into your house or your locker or assaulting your person.

Copyright isn’t something I agreed to or even had any meaningful say in its something lawmakers promised they wouldn’t let happen on my behalf without any input from me before I was born. Rather than enforcing the safety of my person and home against removal of my property it says that you own certain combinations of words and even if I use my paper and ink to write them as soon as I write enough similar words it becomes your property. Moreso than just not being an enforcement of the inherently exclusive nature of physical property it is a violation of it because it assigns my physical property to you.