If they are short of an exabyte, I would be astonished.

collecting terabytes of data

Also, fwiw, this is probably off by about 7 or 8 orders of magnitude.

deleted by creator

Lmfao gottem

As a long time Charter/Spectrum customer (yay local monopolies) who’s toyed with my network a bit, I have heard about some of their network shenanigans, but they don’t seem to have hit my area. Guess I’m surprised it’d be defeated by something a simple as dns servers, and the MITM of it all if they’re redirecting traffic is terrifying, what with https and all.

I don’t think I can manage my IP settings on the phone as one would on Windows.

Certainly you can change your dns server on nearly any phone.

Hm yeah this one makes sense.

Guess I’m the asshole this time.

Charter customers experienced horrible download speeds using Charter’s DNS servers.

How did that work? Are you saying that charters dns servers were sending traffic to completely different places?

Tried to google for this but found nothing so hard to understand the problem.

Why not just switch dns servers instead of getting a vpn?

Tell me you’re a dickhead without telling me you’re a dickhead.

Yeah fair. Got me there.

EDIT: other guy mentioned throttling, which is interesting. But changing dns servers doesn’t fix that.

And how does this affect bandwidth, again?

Tell me you don’t know how dns works without telling me.

Was on Reddit

The definition of fascism is trivial

made up definition

You’ll own nothing and be happy.

To what end?

They pulled the article. What more are you hoping for?

This is not just pseudo-science.

This was a quote from internal memos you dolt.

That they thought this way, and treated it this way, and leaned into it, is the problem.

Terrible take. Thanks for playing.

It’s actually impressive the level of downvotes you’ve gathered in what is generally a pretty anti-ai crowd.

discriminatory equity ideology

… are they trying to change what DEI even means in the process here? Incredible.

generally don’t chitchat with strangers.

Except on the internet.

It doesn’t cost anything in that situation not to talk, there’s no negative to it.

There is opportunity cost.

But just to be clear, your position is “don’t be the first one talking if talking to strangers, unless absolutely necessary, it’s too risky.”?

If this is not your position, please state it again, because this is how I read the comment I’m replying to.

In either case, please state what you think “the negative” that you are risking, or risking for a person on their behalf.

Your position seems to be that there is no risk so small that it wouldn’t override a potential win.

I am trying to point out the absurdity of this position.

If you can’t see the absurdity of this position, even with the silly parameters on it, then I’ll just ask this direct question:

How do you justify ever talking to a stranger? Surely the risk of a negative outcome is just too great, because there will always be some risk.

If this is not your position; state your position in similar terms.

Ok then how about it’s no money, but they have to hear about how they didn’t get the money, and so they feel kinda bummed out, if they don’t win.