I'm mostly against downvoting without explanation, so here it is: expressing this sentiment in this community without a really solid explanation of why you think it would actually help seems like trolling.
A quick web search for third-party coverage information tells me that Wanaque has good coverage from Verizon and poor coverage from T-Mobile. It's easy to guess why T-Mobile might be motivated to change that situation.
Federated systems are one option for this. On one of my sites, the only way people can leave comments is with ActivityPub. They must have a (probably pseudonymous) account on a server to use that, and I hope that most servers have moderation I find acceptable. I can block those that do not.
More sophisticated options for sharing reputation between servers would help here. If, for example five servers I trust block another server as a source of harassment, I'd like to block it as well, automatically.
Subsidized devices blur the line between a fee for terminating service early, and paying off the cost of the device. Perhaps the former should be banned to encourage competition, and the cost of the device and the service clearly separated. That way it's clear when the device is paid off and (in my imagined ideal regulatory scenario) must be unlocked.
a poor person would have to pay BOTH. An early termination fee AND then go buy a new phone
They probably don't have to pay the fee. They might owe it legally, but the likely consequences for not paying are some impact on their credit score and inability to get service from that carrier under their own name for a while.
I suppose it depends on whether you think regulation should be used to dissuade poor people from buying expensive phones. That seems like a reasonable enough goal, though I don't believe that's the proper role of government.
I've always bought phones outright, used when finances so dictated. I agree that's the wiser approach.
It seems to me that a carrier should be able to lock a subsidized/financed device until it's paid off. That makes it possible for people who would otherwise not qualify for financing to have relatively up-to-date devices.
A carrier should not be able to lock a device that's paid off for any length of time.
Google had the chance to make its Hangouts messaging app dominant when it was, briefly the default SMS client on Android devices. They threw that away following pushback from carriers.
I'm glad Google doesn't have the dominant messaging service, but I find it bizarre anybody still uses SMS when there are so many internet-based options. I have six, and if somebody really wants to use another, I'll probably add it.
I’m sure Apple shares a lot of the blame, but holy shit how is this not solved in 2024. I shouldn’t have to resort to spam filled shitware from Meta to get remotely modern messaging cross platform
There's no shortage of options; the problem is getting the people you're talking to to agree on one you like. I find Signal strikes a good balance between goodness and ease of use, and many people I know who aren't tech or privacy nerds use it.
My (self-hosted) Mastodon server seems unable to view profiles on Threads. As far as I can tell, there's nobody to talk to about that.
I don't have high hopes about Meta having good intentions here, but I am eager to see platforms that would have previously been walled gardens open up to the federated model. I do think we have some work to do on the open source side to manage the potential massive increase in exposure once Threads users can follow users of other software.
Of course you can pick a server that blocks Threads if you just don't want to deal with that.
The Dutch system is open list proportional representation, with the twist that lists may overlap between districts.
I think Condorcet methods are better suited to voting for individual candidates. It's certainly possible to have multi-member districts (and I think that's a good idea), but probably doesn't pair well with proportional representation.
This is a ranked method that's different from instant runoff, with its defining characteristic being that the winner would beat every other candidate in a two-way race. The biggest downside is that determining the result is more mathematically complex than other methods, which makes it harder to explain and might lead people to mistrust the result.
Condorcet methods benefit candidates few voters hate, which is the inverse of the current and past two US presidential elections. Given a situation where two dominant parties run widely unpopular candidates, a Condorcet method would create a very strong probability that any palatable third-party candidate wins, though over the long term a system using such a method probably wouldn't have two dominant parties.
