IQ is a useless data point anyway as even IQ point values have shifted over the past 100-ish years. An average IQ now used to be genius level IQ in the past and it mostly comes down to basic education and not starving.

I’m not in academia, but I’m pretty sure research papers are usually part of the job for many professors, and they are paid for those jobs. Research students get stipends (money) to live off of while doing research and publishing their work. So, money is supporting those efforts as well, right?

You don’t get paid for your research papers being published, it’s required in may fields but it isn’t something you get paid for. Stipends are not money to live off, in most cases you barely get by. So no, money is not supporting those efforts, it’s literally corporations taking the labor of researchers and making money off it.

I’m not in support of having to pay for quality information being the way, but it is the way right now. There are people that refuse to pay for journalism, some saying because it restricts access to quality information to those that can’t afford it, but I posit boycotting paying for journalism is having a net negative effect on quality information getting into anyone’s hands, including those that don’t have the means to pay for it.

Who are you shadowboxing here? I’m simply agreeing that information SHOULD be free and you clearly agree.

That doesn’t really address their point, that’s simply a motte and bailey. Limiting access to information (knowledge/education) on a basis of payment is a hindrance of lower classes not upper classes. We especially see this with academic publishing and the people writing those papers aren’t even paid for it usually.

You shouldn’t have to pay for the journalist or the transmission, similarly to education it is best for a society (especially a democracy) if information is freely accessible regardless of one’s finances.

You might. 🏴‍☠️

No, we miss abortions in this neighborhood, brother.

Not like coffee. Your average person simply can’t consume coffee beyond the average at any meaningful rate. We both know that internet usage can go from close to nothing to 100TB of data depending on the user.

Internet isn’t like coffee, it’s not that simple.

That simply isn’t true, the costs are small and arguably negligible but they do have increased costs on more data usage.

ISPs have real costs too

I completely disagree that it is a decent metaphor. Unlike coffee, internet data usage is entirely nebulous to mostly everyone outside of the tech sphere. The metaphor serves as a way of misrepresenting a widespread ignorance for a fundamental understanding.

If we wanted a decent metaphor we’d have to compare data usage to something like health insurance. Well you see, you pay for your rate of coverage at these visits per year but also have to pay your deductible that might or might not be used off routine…

In the end if we want to simplify internet expense it is this: ISPs charge way more than they need to and search for ways to charge more to maximize profits without improving service.

Pretty much everything does, even your car will and I would totally download a car if I could.

We miss out on so much from the rest of the world but we have so many pridefully ignorant people that will die on any hill that might improve our lives.

I’d personally love to have more than 0 weeks of government required paid time off, sick days, the top reason for bankruptcy not be medical bills, and no more mass shootings but I will most likely be dead before any of that happens.

You know you’re a POS when a piracy community cheers for copyright lawsuits

Many will recommend you use Stremio instead. You’ll probably want to use a VPN depending on your region though.

Never ask a company to pick between the right thing and profit. It was all a matter of time till Google needed to stop growing and start producing profit for investors.

To make it worse the Pixel 9 starts at $800 just like iPhone. So if you’re buying Android you don’t really save money over an iPhone like you used to.

only about a third that want one but another third would rather argue with you about whether it is or isn’t actually fascism.

Kinda. It might be 3rd parties using it but it is 100% an API designed by Google to keep apps on Google Play.

But would it not be just as weird, creepy, and taboo for one to do it with non-nude and therefore non-pornographic material? Would pictures of feet being passed around not be just as weird but also not covered under this law?

We cock things up sometimes.

I got news for you about almost every ISP

Tbf you’re paying for the college to provide you internet.