Local officials. Got ticketed.

What kind of trick would it be?

Update 2: So they can dox people all they want but at the same time are paranoid about members doxxing people when other places are aware there is no harm in something? Double standard much?

Lucky.

It’s not “everywhere”, it’s the public service part of society. Never have I complained about, for instance, how well my food comes out at a restaurant, or how good the car mechanics here are (imagine a society where cars have overall better doctors than people and where this can be compared). It’s always the everyday “mandatory” people in society. So I can say it’s not a problem with myself.

I’m pretty sure public sector performability is objectively measurable as opposed to assholery. I’m not strictly talking about that, I mean people literally doing what their contract or job description promises.

I wasn’t wondering about that though.

That’s considered a soap opera?

Yeah, just free love.

A hypothetical question.

Your friend refers to LGBTQIA as referring to “aspects of non-cisgendered life” and it makes me doubt their understanding of the community because there are plenty of cisgendered people within the community

Her comment doesn’t do it justice, no. Neither does the screenshot, there was a whole conversation involved which added context to her phrasing it like that.

It’s not as if, when a group gets too big, it’s not natural for sectarianism to develop.

That’s the argument though, they’re already being pit against each other, with people already fighting over who is worthy to say “I have autism”.

A few reasons.

1. The internet is taken for granted and this would be like a social cap. In theory, something could take its place in limited form in private settings.

2. The internet travels around the world through undersea cables (long enough to encircle the Earth 180 times) which then go into servers which then go into cables which then reach your residence, and that’s a lot of service strain we add onto by putting the internet wherever we can.

3. Knowledgeability isn’t as appreciated as it used to be, and having a hub for it would un-devalue it.

4. It would help maintain the right flow of interaction and information and combat things like misinformation.

5. So that people don’t pose a hassle to administration.

6. To bring people together.

7. Some countries want to ban it entirely, and it would serve as a good middle ground to pacify the urge to do this without eliminating the internet.

It’s no different in my opinion from proposing something such as us all living in communal housing.

Once upon a time, I took a Communist Manifesto out of my local library, which I later discovered was a fake, and one of the tenets called for communal hooking-up.

But where does the communal part come in? Are people sharing their clothes?

But does the transport cost money?

If I may ask, why do they require you to be a resident of your city? I work at a library and we allow universal access. We don’t even ask for library cards anymore.

In such a system, people would still have their own devices that can connect wirelessly to a library, even from outside the building (people who live immediately near the library I work at get free wireless internet, at least from 10 to 8), it’s only the signal that would come mainly from the library.

Another factor that comes to mind that I forgot to mention in my other replies is that the internet comes from undersea cables that are long enough to wrap around the Earth 180 times, which then enters into servers which then enters into cable lines which then reaches peoples’ houses, and these are all an absolute hassle to maintain, both because of wildlife attacking them (yeah, a single fish can take out a country’s internet) as well as bad actors, and on the cable side, bad weather can take them out. The service strain would be a lot less if we didn’t try to put too much on our plates, allowing more maintenance to be maintained.

That much is true, but if it’s done strictly like that, it would ruin the point.