You could always exploit the review system of airbnb to force a change.

Whenever their guests are quiet you can flip the tables and go knock on their door at midnight. Tell them "[landlord's name] said you've have shit ready for me". Once they get a few reviews of "Strange people show up in the middle of the night maybe trying to buy drugs" it should in theory sort itself out :)

There are plenty of subreddits that tolerate sexist and racist remarks and plenty that don't allow them. I'm not sure of the exact blend, but it seems like there's something for everyone

I believe Reddit has the advantage that small groups run the individual subreddits and few people associate the garbage in a reddit like /theredpill with the site as a whole. Controversial topics are effectively discussed far away from the main page.

Drew (and to a lesser extent me, as primary admin of a fark off-shoot) is faced with a nearly impossible task of keeping a coherent standard of moderation across all topics. Someone who trolls political threads might be a positive contributor when discussing cars or beer - reddit's model facilitates that better.

The other problem is that the user base changes over time. Misogyny in paticular has probably driven away thousands of fark users, but adding the rule now is too little too late - those users are unlikely to return and the users that are left are (on average) going to be far more resistant to the new rule.

I think you've hit the nail on the head.

The other problem is that sites like fark (believe me, I know) generate a lot of clique-like behavior. Moderators can and will read a comment like "shut you you trollop" as misogyny when it comes from someone they don't like and consider it funny it other contexts.

I don't really know what the answer is but I'm pretty opposed to drawing rules that aren't clear and unambiguous.

More likely that your insurance company would enforce the settings on your car and require that you pay them extra if you'd like the car to value your life over other lives.

With fast networks it's even possible that the insurance companies could bid on outcomes as the accident was happening. Theoretically my insurer could throw my car into a ditch to avoid damage to a bmw coming the other way.

I'm inclined to agree. People rarely forget their smartphones

I've been looking at DuoSecurity. Rather than SMS they send a push notification to your phone before clearing your login. No screwing around typing codes, just a "was that you logging in from 1.2.3.4?" popup on the phone that I can use to authorize the connection.

Anyone actually used them? Is it as good as their demos?

When have consumer ISPs ever been equal peering partners? Most of them offer asynchronous service and actively discourage the running of servers and peer to peer applications. They've always received far more data than they've sent.

Presumably netflix have a boatload of available inbound bandwidth. Maybe they could set verizon users so they streamed all the data back to them. That'd make verizon happy with their untimely claim about traffic ratios

But what Verizon aren't really saying is whether the bottleneck on that path is on their side or netflix' side.

I recognize that Neflix hold the power here, they have the popular service, they deliver most of the internet's traffic (in the US at least) and when they say "jump" my ISP should say "how high?". They are the primary reason a lot of us have broadband.

That annoys me too. I usually pay to check my bag specifically so I can feel entitled putting my camera/laptop bag in the overhead bin and getting a little more legroom for myself. Having to cram stuff at my feet because others are too cheap to check cases (or even gate check them when it's free) is frustrating.

My understanding is that the license would cost at most 1.064% of their gross revenues, and potentially less as there are preferential rates for cable companies with smaller revenue amounts (and I'm unclear if it's done on a per-market basis)

Netflix could certainly roll out a p2p model like Spotify does. I'd be quite surprised if they haven't already developed a prototype just in case. I'm any event I doubt Verizon will really push the "balanced traffic ratio" argument because there are many ways it could end badly for them

Yeah that could have been more clear. I'm suggesting sending a constant stream of packets until the target asks you to stop. No need for windowing or flow control, but pretty computationally expensive

Netflix almost certainly has done tests on actual residential connections where they control for poor Lan setup.

They can also probably reach a statistical conclusion just fine because those customers with bad wifi setups likely exist on well performing isps as well

Surely Verizon can't expect balanced peering when they sell asymmetrical service to their customers. Suggesting they should get paid by Netflix because of the imbalance doesn't seem fair.

And really, if Netflix offered cloud backup service they could probably right a whole lot of that balance while causing even more headaches for isps

I can't wrap my head around exactly how, but it seems that the block chain is the closest thing we have to a cryptographic timestamp