"Admitted" as the verb in a statement like this is blatant editorialization. Did they just finally "admit" what they had been reluctant to reveal? No doubt with their heads hung in shame?
The only problem I can actually name with vigilante justice is that it can be error-prone. Otherwise it's only an encroachment upon the state's monopoly on the dispensation of justice, and I'm not seeing a moral objection to that. And the state's approach to justice is also quite error-prone.
I can't even count the number of ISPs I can choose from, because my city, county and state have no "franchise agreements" i.e. licensing programs i.e. monopoly grants for ISPs. Cable, DSL, fiber... I have multiple choices for each. A few years back I lived in a very rural area and the situation was less enviable but qualitatively similar: At least one national rural broadband provider, and at least half a dozen smaller local providers, had microwave antennas on the local (private, as it happens) water tower.
Regulation isn't needed to prevent or break up monopolies in this space, it just needs to stop actively creating and protecting them.
This was a subsidy paid to participating providers in high-cost areas to support the discount. Charter, a participating provider, said it lost customers when the discount ended. That is not the same as saying those customers lost access to the internet.
I have often been described as oblivious (I prefer "focused") and I have yet to encounter someone with a worse sense of direction/orientation than mine. I could tell endless funny stories about how bad it is.
OP mentions a study involving navigating within a game, and I have the same problem in games. I simply cannot learn my way around a "map", as far back as Doom and still today. I can eventually learn specific routes, and eventually enough of these that I can perform reasonably well, but I don't form a mental model of the map even if I've played it hundreds of times and even if it's relatively small.
But I can follow directions, and I did passably well at military "land navigation" using a map, a compass and a protractor.
I would love to better understand why this is. My best guess currently is that "oblivious" is quite important - I've tried, many times, to start noticing landmarks so that I could use them later to get to a place without GPS or directions, but I always find myself having missed everything, or having "forgotten to notice" anything. My mind wanders, I guess.
So it's defined as policies expected to produce affordable housing, whether or not housing turns out to be affordable under those policies. And it's not affordable without those policies in place, regardless of price.
It seems to me every licensing regime begins with incumbents lobbying for protection from competition, then goes down in history as absolutely necessary consumer protection programs.
This change doesn't prohibit hearing-impaired patients from seeing an audiologist to get set up with a hearing aid. It's just no longer compulsory. I can't imagine understanding that this requirement is an encumbrance, and being "against the philosophy" of unencumbering access to hearing aids.
I think #1 is more attributable to the rising minimum wage. I read the other day that the one job that automation did successfully eliminate was the elevator operator, but I'm quite certain that - like the gas station attendant in states that don't mandate it - it fell victim to the rising minimum wage. It simply became illegal to pay people what these jobs are worth.
Production happens over time. Businesses pay for their inputs at one price level, do production things, then sell their final outputs at a higher price level, resulting in higher margins than would be possible under stable prices.
> This credit line is funded by 3rd-party capital (and not Brex directly), who are working with Brex to minimize the impact of this event to the startup ecosystem.
> It's about a couple of small groups getting to choose what content you do or don't see
See I think this is a big part of why this died out. The boogeyman NN was to save us from was corporate censorship, which is now widely regarded - in particular by formerly energetic NN advocates - as a good thing.
Trump was a stopped clock on this. I don't think that's paren't point. The point, to me, is that the entire establishment treated the lab leak hypothesis as misinformation for no better reason than that Trump had endorsed it. That is, on no better evidence. And then aggressively censored it.
Maybe this bothers me more than it should.