Please wait...
If i had not just 'done it' and moved our house number to VoIP a few years ago when we finally were able to get fiber ( and ditch comcast ), we would still have it i think.
Tue Jul 18 2023 06:08:37 PM EDT from IGnatius T FoobarIt might also have to do with the fact that a mobile number can receive text messages, and a landline can't. If the developer of a service is lazy and insists on relying on text messages for number verification, that disqualifies landlines.
Does anyone under 70 years old even *have* a landline anymore?
Does anyone under 70 years old even *have* a landline anymore?
Yes, I know a few gen Xers who still have landlines. One of them, I don't know why. I think he gets it as part of a bundle, so he considers it so cheap as to be near negligible, and he thinks one day it might save him in a pinch. The other guy still has a landline because he actually refuses to own a mobile phone. No, I would not consider him normal
Tue Jul 18 2023 18:08:37 EDT from IGnatius T FoobarDoes anyone under 70 years old even *have* a landline anymore?
I (age 59) do.
But I think I would be just fine with no phone at all.
Tue Jul 18 2023 09:33:13 PM EDT from zelgomerDoes anyone under 70 years old even *have* a landline anymore?
Yes, I know a few gen Xers who still have landlines. One of them, I don't know why. I think he gets it as part of a bundle, so he considers it so cheap as to be near negligible, and he thinks one day it might save him in a pinch. The other guy still has a landline because he actually refuses to own a mobile phone. No, I would not consider him normal
Guilty as charged and quite pleased about it. Hell, I remember how pissed a buddy of mine was when Ameritech finally tricksied him out of his grandfathered dedicated DSL. He'd hung onto it for years in addition to his cable line just so he could have all his heavy downloads on the fatter pipe, and because he liked having a real dedicated line. But of course all it took was the equivalent of one misplaced comma and down the memory hole it went.
For the purpose of this conversation, dedicated digital voice still counts
as a "landline" -- it doesn't have to be POTS. And it's definitely true that
a lot of people still have them because it comes in a bundle. Sometimes it's
actually more expensive *not* to have it. But I think that's changing. I'll
talk about that more in the broadband room; this is more of a conversation
about the cultural implications.
Most people find themselves asking, why do I have that number in the first place? It's because you've had it ever since you moved into that home, or at least into that area code, decades ago. Someone is probably still calling it. But if you are a household of more than one person, most people are going to call your mobile number because it belongs to a specific person rather than a household.
Most people find themselves asking, why do I have that number in the first place? It's because you've had it ever since you moved into that home, or at least into that area code, decades ago. Someone is probably still calling it. But if you are a household of more than one person, most people are going to call your mobile number because it belongs to a specific person rather than a household.
Around the time i was talking about cutting ours off, "we have cell phones.. " ( i had 3rd party VoIP anyway ) one of our relatives decided he needed an extended stay in a local prison. So, moving our line to fiber VoIP got rid of the extra bill. ( and was far cheaper ) .
Reason being: At the time, they were not allowed to call cell phones from prison. Unsure if that is true now. its been a while.
Wed Jul 19 2023 09:18:55 AM EDT from IGnatius T FoobarFor the purpose of this conversation, dedicated digital voice still counts as a "landline" -- it doesn't have to be POTS. And it's definitely true that a lot of people still have them because it comes in a bundle. Sometimes it's actually more expensive *not* to have it. But I think that's changing. I'll talk about that more in the broadband room; this is more of a conversation about the cultural implications.
Most people find themselves asking, why do I have that number in the first place? It's because you've had it ever since you moved into that home, or at least into that area code, decades ago. Someone is probably still calling it. But if you are a household of more than one person, most people are going to call your mobile number because it belongs to a specific person rather than a household.
2023-07-18 18:08 from IGnatius T Foobar
It might also have to do with the fact that a mobile number can receive
text messages, and a landline can't. If the developer of a service is
lazy and insists on relying on text messages for number verification,
that disqualifies landlines.
Does anyone under 70 years old even *have* a landline anymore?
There are landlines that accept SMS. A machine will phone your landline number and recite the contents of the SMS to you when your number receives one XD
And yes, people still uses them.
Try using a cell network in a deep rural area. You need a fallback phone that you know has an average quality of service.
Most people find themselves asking, why do I have that number in the
first place? It's because you've had it ever since you moved into that
home, or at least into that area code, decades ago. Someone is
probably still calling it. But if you are a household of more than one
person, most people are going to call your mobile number because it
belongs to a specific person rather than a household.
If I expect parcel delivery to home, I usually give my landline number to the delivery agency. THe reason is that I might not be at home when they call but some other family member will likely be.
Subject: Google wants to DRM the web
So somebody at Google filled a proposal for a protocol that could allow websites to only serve trusted web browsers.
In this context, "trusted" means it is backed by Google Play or an equivalent service. With the decline of ad revenue this past years I can imagine they would use this to disallow browsers that support adblockers.
So somebody at Google filled a proposal for a protocol that could allow websites to only serve trusted web browsers.
In this context, "trusted" means it is backed by Google Play or an equivalent service. With the decline of ad revenue this past years I can imagine they would use this to disallow browsers that support adblockers.
Its just a matter of time. And expect more than one of those. Really they could do it now, anyone remember " only works with IE " messages we used to get? That precedent is set.
As far as blocking, their YT BU is already going after extensions.
Tue Jul 25 2023 06:41:34 AM EDT from darknetuserSubject: Google wants to DRM the web
So somebody at Google filled a proposal for a protocol that could allow websites to only serve trusted web browsers.
In this context, "trusted" means it is backed by Google Play or an equivalent service. With the decline of ad revenue this past years I can imagine they would use this to disallow browsers that support adblockers.
If I expect parcel delivery to home, I usually give my landline number
I still use my landline number for frequent-shopper cards and anything else that is keyed to a phone number.
And I don't have that number anymore.
So somebody at Google filled a proposal for a protocol that could
allow websites to only serve trusted web browsers.
Yeah, the whole manifest v3 thing.
It's pitiful how quickly Google has forgotten that you can't put the genie back into the bottle. I used to get upset about these things but the world has failed to end so many times that I'm desensitized to it now. The internet *will* work around irritants who try to lock it down.
If all of the "ad-supported, otherwise pay us" services go titsup tomorrow, I'd be happy. Make the Internet great again.
That first mozilla/browser FAQ comes to mind: "Oh no, please don't, whatever will we do without you."
As far as blocking, their YT BU is already going after extensions.Tue Jul 25 2023 06:41:34 AM EDT from darknetuser
And they are doing a bad job at it.
They are also trying to take Invidious down with a Cease and Desist letter. Invidious' response has been to challenge Google to come and grab it and to tell the users to make and distribute as many copies of the source code as they possibly can XD
I donno. like most things, if you can stop the 'unwashed masses' its considered a success.
Sat Jul 29 2023 10:22:33 AM EDT from darknetuserAs far as blocking, their YT BU is already going after extensions.
Tue Jul 25 2023 06:41:34 AM EDT from darknetuser
And they are doing a bad job at it.
2023-07-29 11:38 from Nurb432
I donno. like most things, if you can stop the 'unwashed masses' its
considered a success.
Maybe, but then there is the fact Youtube's business model seems to be crashing, so if you kick moar of your audience out I would not call it a success either.
Let me explain.
Youtube's main asset is being the goto platform to watch videos. If you visit Youtube with adblocking enabled or via a Youtube privacy proxy, it is still
win for them because you are watching videos in Youtube instead of somewhere else. It is the same principle why using Microsoft Office copies back in the day made Microsoft stronger even if you happened to use an illegal copy.
Many people still visit Youtube because they have the ability to keep ads controlled. If they had to pay or they could not keep blocking ads they would not be half as active. Maybe they are not a big big big number, but having them around is more important than kicking them out, IMO.
Is it really? Or is it just optics and a 'designed' loss leader of the upper level alphabet organization? ( having a tax write off BU to use is not to be underestimated in the larger picture )
Sun Jul 30 2023 06:00:42 AM EDT from darknetuserMaybe, but then there is the fact Youtube's business model seems to be crashing, so if you kick moar of your audience out I would not call it a success either.
Sounds like we smart people benefit one way or another.
* If they can only block ads for the unwashed masses, we get to continue enjoy watching it ad-free
* If they drive all the cool people away, it will halp other sites (probably Rumble) gain critical mass.
* If they can only block ads for the unwashed masses, we get to
continue enjoy watching it ad-free
Speaking of which, I still need to separate myself from the unwashed masses here. YouTube ads are getting to be unbearable. Very few of them are skippable anymore, and often 15 seconds or longer. I'm not going to spend 30 seconds watching an ad so that I can watch a 20 second video of somebody's funny cat.
And yes, I do use adblock. The problem is that the browser is not where I tend to watch YouTube videos. It's usually on my phone or on my TV (controlled from my phone).