I definitely understand how women would be afraid of encountering a random man in the forest. I also understand that the advantage of encountering a bear is that they would know to immediately run the fuck away. And I can understand how that scenario makes them feel.
Just because I can see the other side does not mean I endorse the other side. Broaden your mind
It's a fallacy to put one vs many in an argument like this.
Individual men were hurt by feeling classified as more dangerous to a random woman than a bear in the woods when their lived experiences place them well below that threat, even though they are aware that there is a portion of men who are more dangerous to random women in the woods than the average bear, but their responses were taken as an attack on women rather than an expression of personal indignation and further proof that men are dangerous.
Individual women got to express their experiences and opinions in a way that got through to a lot of men and other women what they felt as a whole, but since groups are unable to address individual responses eloquently and on an even level, they trampled over a lot of innocent men.
There are no winners in scenarios like these, and anything you add or subtract from the argument paints you in a bad light.
I wonder if that's not cherry picking because the man v bear argument was literally designed to initiate controversy and discussion, it's a very polarizing question.
Every once in awhile it crosses my mind that if I just gave up my morals I could make so much fucking money.
The difference between me being a middle-class American and me being filthy fucking rich is every day I wake up and I choose not to defraud every single person I possibly can of their money.
I feel like I should get a little thank you now and again, because I could be the greatest monster you've ever seen but instead I'm just a nobody and I don't think I get nearly enough appreciation for my service.
You're thinking like you are the customer and the customer is always right, so if you pay for a service it should provide you what you want, right?
This is not that scenario.
You are not the customer. You are a product that is being sold to advertisers. It does not matter if you also pay them money, you are still the product. If you pay them money on top of being sold then you are just an especially profitable product.
Paying them money will not cause you to cease being a product, no matter how much money you are willing to pay.
If you use a different company's product that starts off with you being the customer, eventually, they will learn that they can make more money by selling you to other people, and they will.
I don't know if you're from the states but if you are purchasing mega millions or Powerball tickets, they stop sales at about 6:45 p.m. Pacific time and then do the drawing sometime after 7:00 of the same day.
I interpreted it as you would repeat the exact same day 365 times, not that you would repeat the exact same year over and over again.
I would take the +3 charm and groundhog Day for a year. It would be really awesome to have 3 charm instead of 0, and if I could repeat Tuesday for an entire year then I could learn skills and practice things and read a bunch of books and memorize and establish a plan to purchase a winning lottery ticket, not excessive but maybe like the mega millions I don't know, and come out of the year into Wednesday with nine figures in my bank account and a clear plan of action.
The only use or reason for having a static IP is to have a domain name that resolves to that IP and knowing that the domain register can set the IP address and it's good until everything falls apart for lack of payment.
The other use of having a static IP is for a VPN, to remote back into your home network. Technically you can use both of these services with non-static vpns because most people's home internet does not change their IP addresses that often and there are services called dynamic DNS resolvers that you can get to constantly update your rotating IP address to a specific domain name.
You will not see any speed increases or throughput increases from having a set ip, it just simplifies running a home domain or home network because then you don't have to worry about ddns.
Yeah, I didn't mind an ad on the side of the screen when all of the content was front and center. But the problem is is that when you make it so that a company's livelihood depends on forcing users to do things they don't want to do, and there's no regulation on that whatsoever, it's just going to go downhill very quickly and if you think this is bad it can get much much worse.
I'm kind of surprised that isps are not injecting ads into your browsing and forcing you to watch ads just to use the internet that you paid for.
They could even charge you like a $10 a month up charge fee for ad-free internet and say that we're not going to block the ads on the rest of the internet you just won't get additional ads from us.
That would definitely be fair. Like even limit the ratio between tears just give me the option to have the internet that I want at my house without paying for business internet prices.
I'm not asking for symmetrical gigabit with a static ipv4 address on a fiber line with unlimited bandwidth. I just want a decent amount of bandwidth, 50-100mb up, a static IP address that is IPv6, and I'm okay with a ipv4 address that changes.
They've had a really long time to simply flip the switch in the routers that they use to also transmit IPv6 addresses and they are not doing it.
Their hardware is not old enough in most cases to not have IPv6 available by default in the hardware and firmware, they are just intentionally choosing not to activate it.