Spoilers: Third world war will start at October, to go through clueless and senseless deaths all around the world, for uhhhhhh…6 years’ish.
Then (not really sure beyond that tbh) we will have a worldwide apparition of Our Lady of Garanbandal… something something “folks will die of shame by witnessing their sins being committed”, etcetc. The antichrist will come, christians will be hunted like animals.
Demons will manifestate, wander around. Everyone will accept em as saviors, praise em, etc. Lucifer will claim victory, etc.
Then, 2nd cometh of Christ, etc, judge everyone, etc. Hell will close, etcetc. New Jerusalem, etc.
We? No. We’ll just be uncomfortable. Our kids? They’re going to slowly cook to death as they’re running out of food/water/oxygen. Or, y’know, get blown up in one of the wars fighting over scraps of food/water/oxygen.
But look on the bright side: we’re on track to beat last fiscal year’s profit margin! If we do that, we’ll get a free company branded pencil and one ticket to use some leave-without-pay at you manager’s discretion – and the regional manager gets another vacation home!!
We will not just be uncomofrtable. There is going to be much more people dying to disasters than before and we are going to witness terrible wars in the next two decades
Mass famines and heat that kills without AC coming summer of 2024 or 2025. Won’t kill the global north too much yet, but it will be one of the biggest deadly events in history for the rest of the world.
Military journalist Gwyn Dyer reported on this almost 2 decades ago.
The global militaries have been planning for this for years. You see those ships with refugees from northern Africa? That volume is going to ramp up plus Mediterranean countries are going to exodus north to the Nordic states and immigration is going to lock the fuck down. People are going to die by the millions. Maybe not in 2 years but this is our future.
On the plus side, and I am fucking saying this sarcastically, at least it’s the “right people” dying which is to say those not white and those not rich.
No. We have a long ways away before the human population will be wiped out due to climate change. Most likely around 100 or so years. The issue is what happens before then. Increasing temperatures will mean less water for crops creating food crisis. It will mean rising water level which means people living in low coastal cities will have to move. There is going to be mass migration which people do not like (Conservative fearmongering and look at how the homeless are treated). The food shortages and migration will cause unprecedented poverty. Poverty is correlated to crime so there is going to be an uptick of it. If we don’t cut our carbon emission by 2030, we are going to see water wars and food wars by 2050.
What do these food and water wars mean? It can mean a lot. The rich will most likely be fine and continue with their yachts and private jets which are the biggest contributors carbon emissions. There will be more and more wars breaking out and even 1st world countries will be affected. This can lead to use of nuclear weapons which will continue to cut the human population and make things less inhabitable. Over time the human population will be cut and climate change acceleration will most likely slow down but not fully stop. There’s also a feedback loop to the planet heating up. As polar ice caps melt and the planet heats up, it may naturally continue on its own until it equalizes. It can go up to like 10 degrees which, well, I hope i am not on the planet at that time.
Not everything is hopeless. We have a lot of bright scientists and we are in an era of unprecedented wealth. I do believe when it comes down to it, the world will unite and we will be able to mitigate enough of it and create solutions. Mass solar panels is a good one. Building nuclear reactors for the future use is another. Some solutions have been suggested like turning the sky white and other stuff. Public transit is another thing picking up and will greatly reduce carbon emissions. Just remember, a majority of the pollution comes from the use of private jets, yachts, and cruise ships. People will get hungry. There is one group of people who are at fault and I think the French found the solution to it.
No. We have a long ways away before the human population will be wiped out due to climate change…Not everything is hopeless. We have a lot of bright scientists…
I said something similar in a thread yesterday and got savagely shat on by everyone. The thread was about people literally not having children because they’re worried about climate change. I said have kids if you want, don’t if you don’t, but it’s insane to make such a major life decision based on some nebulous calamity that may or may not happen in your lifetime, or at all. I’m extremely concerned about climate change but goddamn some people are nuts.
I think they are correct. We are living in a time with the greatest wealth gap. As climate change continues we are going to have food shortages and water wars. That is not en environment to bring a kid into.
People are already dying to the effects. We know climate change can cause more and higher intensity hurricanes, more droughts, fires, famines, wilder weather swings, floods, and wars and refugee crises, etc. We know these things are increasing and we know people are already dying to them now.
So while you can’t pin any individual disaster to climate change, we already know it’s causing deaths.
As for if we’re all going to die? Probably not all of us, so if you’re lucky and don’t mind you or your kids living in a Mad Max world, you can relax a little.
There are 4 people in the FCC that get to vote on policy, 2 democrats and 2 republican. The republican ones are just Comcast and att lobbyist. The democrats don’t suck but can’t do anything without a third vote. The president gets to appointment someone to be a tie breaker, but Biden didn’t do it until after midterm so they no longer had the votes to get her approved, and by the time the current one gets through the next election will be happening so nothing will get done. If Biden wins another FCC voter will have to step down and wait for Biden to pick a replacement and Congress gets to approve or Biden losses and the republican appoints another lobbyist.
I hope this news gets in the head of all child murderers going about their lives out there, unpunished. Your time can’t come soon enough, you’ll never be safe, you sick fucks!
They’ve been stealing taxpayer dollars for 30 years, constantly stalling and delaying and then saying the plans are now outdated and we need more money for the new plans. Repeat every decade. Everyone knows it’s a monopoly with speed/price fixing yet somehow it never improves.
Can’t speak to Comcast’s evils, but I call my ISP once a year to ask about my speeds and bill. Just got bumped from 200/20 to 1000/?, with a $10 discount. I’m on the edge of town, not technically rural, but close enough.
Not sure the answer to the monopoly thing, but I used to be an internet cable guy, so I can speak to the complexity of having 2 providers where there was only one. The costs are staggering.
make it a publicly owned and operated municipal utility
make the “last mile” publicly owned infrastructure and private service providers can connect to the data center that connects the last mile
require that the company who owns and maintains the last mile can not also be a service provider over that last mile infrastructure
The last one is how Texas handles the power grid, so it would need a real regulatory body making sure the private last mile infrastructure is actually maintained, unlike the Texas power grid.
Currently in Utah with a city that offers municipal fiber. 1gb up, 1gb down for $60 per month. Luckily my city does that and many things right, I wish others would follow. My buddy who lives 10 min away in another city has comcast and whatever century link calls themselves these days.
That’s so unfortunate! If you scroll down and read about Utah, it talks a little bit about the formation of Utopia fiber. That’s what I have and it’s great. It’s kind of interesting because I pay 2 places for my internet service. $30 per month to Utopia Fiber, and then $30 to an isp (I utilize xmission). Not sure if situations like that are normal for municipal internet service or if it’s a loophole to get around the restrictions somehow? No idea.
@Foggyfroggy@BrikoX I really wish someone in the FCC /FTC/Federal government in general would put their foot down and say to the industry, "You WILL build broadband everywhere, you WILL make it 100 Mbps at minimum, and you WILL pay for it out of your own pocket." Nothing less is acceptable.
Absolutely not. It depends more on what you're doing, rather than number of people, anyways. One person uploading a video is going to use 99% of the available upload bandwidth.
That’s a traffic shaping problem, not really on the person or service. Streaming would be a better example because that’s immediate and you care about uploading in a timely fashion and best quality, but if you limit your upload bandwidth you can manage it better…
But then again we’re talking about upload, in general, upload only matters in a few situations, latency will be more important, and download is always more noticeable than upload speeds.
Even doing making youtube videos the only reason you need instant fast video upload is if you’re trying to push drama videos, and even then, I’m probably fine with them being slightly limited by that. But ultimately uploading videos is only slightly inconvenient for modern broadband, if it’s that bad, look into how to limit how much bandwidth it takes up, there’s good ways.
It doesn’t matter what they are. That’s how TCP is designed to ramp up until it fills the pipe. Upload a large continuous file and you will fill the upload until it’s done.
Yes. The point is how long it cripples a network, due to the extremely poor upload rates allowed by service providers, is unacceptable. I'm not sure what's confusing here. It should be barely noticable by other users because it should be FAST.
That's due to the shit queuing most ISPs implement. You can limit your bandwidth below your actual limit on your router and do your own queueing that prioritizes TCP acknowledgements and you won't destroy your connection when you hit max upload.
Exactly. I had to implement QOS on my network otherwise my backups would kill my Internet connection. Now at least I can leave everything at 100% upload rate and let the network devices handle my traffic.
There is multiple tipping points, as counterintuitive as that sounds. Just means there are certain things that cannot be repaired once they are destroyed.
Yes. We need the numbers to be minimum bitrates and we need at least a 90% uptime for that minimum. If you could rely on your bandwidth to be a specific rate all the time you could pay for less and everyone could get more without more infrastructure upgrades.
It’s been 20 years since broadband became fairly ubiquitous, there is 0 excuse for telcos to milk us like this, bandwidth gets so much cheaper for them every year.
The 25/3 bar was specifically lowered to that so that 4G LTE would meet this bar and they could claim that 99% of Americans now have access to high-speed Internet for political points.
Realistically, if it were up to me, I’d say anything 25/3 and lower is “low-speed”, between 25/3 and 100/10 is “standard speed”, and set the bar for “high-speed” to mean 100/10 or better. Companies should not be allowed to advertise “blazing-fast high-speed Internet” and then it turns out to be 30/3 ADSL for $50 a month
You might be right, I thought it was actually for adsl, because otherwise post-bells had to roll out fiber or comcast were the only high-speed isp.
The problem is most people can live on 25/3 or less, stick to youtube sd, email, web, etc, it’ll be slow but not ludicrously so, and they won’t complain much.
Not a lot we can do, the limit on bandwidth means we are stopped from creating services that need more bandwidth, which means they’re no reason to get that bandwidth.
HD video is nice, but not a requirement for most people, and ISPs desperately want to keep their customers limited so they can either upsell traditional tv/voice or otherwise keep their customers from adventuring too far outside their walled gardens. AOL both helped deploy and was destroyed by the internet, modern ISPs don’t want to see the same thing happen to them, and honestly most customers use a handful of common sites.
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.