Technology

59589 readers

2891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

531

Another US state repeals law that protected ISPs from municipal competition (arstechnica.com)

submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by Brkdncr@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

With Minnesota repeal, number of states restricting public broadband falls to 16.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Agrivar@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Case in point... I think we are having a discussion, but wont be surprised if you think we are arguing over pedantry.

As an outside observer, I feel like I can confidently say that you are wrong. YOU are being needlessly pedantic and derailing the conversation.

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Okay fair enough and thank you for responding. Im not arguing the pedantry of it, but i do believe its useful and not needless. Meaning i think its worth discussing and debating.

Because if im wrong, then theres no difference between;

Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity. With no stipulations on how or why you're using it.

And

Ideally the internet would be provided with the same indifference as water and electricity.

So if im wrong as i understand thats what you mean, i would genuinely like to understand what/why ”with no stupulations on how or why you're using it" it is worth including.

Again if im wrong i literally cant see the difference and will go a long way to help me not respond to these kinds of things in the future and you would have done a service by helping me not derail other conversations. Which i will be very grateful for your help

[–] Agrivar@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Really? Are you on the spectrum?

You're not wrong, as far as the logical expansion of the statements in question. The 'with no stipulations' part is, technically, unnecessary. But we don't live in a Platonic ideal. You are free to add reinforcing/qualifying statements to a basic idea being posited. If you're being sincere in your request for clarity, and not just being a snark, my advice would be to ignore everything I say and just do as you want! LOL

[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No snark. I dont understand the point of adding that second line if its not accurate or indicative of the previous statement. If it isnt clarifying conditions of the previous statement, it just adding confusion. So how does it "reinforce". Like literally how is that a statement that supports the previous one?

Edit. Im starting to think maybe i am on the spectrum...