Brainlet mistake thread

>When people do not agree with my subjective ideology and or morality.

Times change

Whilst they are moderately retarded because they mean oligopoly, ISPs have a regional monopoly in many places.

the jews are behind so there is in fact a monopoly

I disagree. While in some areas consumers only have one option this doesn't mean there's no competition. There is always a threat of companies moving in should that one company raise the prices enough which raises the potential for profits to be made. Monopoly isn't just a name given to a company that has a 100% market share, a monopoly is a company that controls the market and that is usually done with government regulation which keeps out this potential competition. I'm not aware of any legislation that locks a region to one ISP, are you? If there isn't any then there's no way a company could enforce a monopoly.

>Monopoly isn't just a name given to a company that has a 100% market share, a monopoly is a company that controls the market and that is usually done with government regulation which keeps out this potential competition.

Not really what a monopoly is, natural monopolies are the most common form of monopoly and don't need government regulation to exclude competition. In the UK any firm with over 40% market share is classified as a monopoly. Even if the market is contestable as you suggest, barriers to entry still exist - large firms have massive economies of scale over entrants and can use these to block competition.

>If there isn't any then there's no way a company could enforce a monopoly.

Nice idea but there are more ways than legal region locking to erect barriers.

Cable licences have to be granted by local authorities and there are massive political and financial barriers to entry into the market. Firms can come to a tacit agreement to stay out of markets given the lack of competitors in the market. Starting a price war isn't in the interest of any of these firms. Municipal broadband is banned in 20 states. If you don't want to hire the lines of existing ISPs you have to lay your own, which is more cost than almost any potential entrant could bear.

Suppose a single company made all of the worlds weedwackers. This doesn't necessarily mean that company has a monopoly on weedwackers because there is a potential that somebody else could begin making weedwackers. This company has to price its products accordingly if they want to continue having a 100% market share because if they raise prices enough it would encourage other people to begin making weedwackers.

The only way this company could be said to have a monopoly is if they controlled the market by blocking potential competition. One way they might do this is by petitioning the government to introduce legislation that would make it hard for people to begin making weedwackers. Another way they might do this is by undercutting potential competition by lowering prices which would make starting a new weed wacker factory nonviable. It may sound ridiculous to suggest that a single company having a 100% market can lead to lower prices but this is surprisingly common, and it's evidenced by reviewing anti-trust case law. Most "anti-monopoly" actions taken by the government against companies is because those "monopolies" were lowering the prices of their products too much.

As far as ISP's go, I would agree with you that it's too difficult for new companies to start up and compete with others. This is because of government regulation limiting the amount of companies that can operate in a given area. I don't think the solution to problems created by government regulation can be solved by more regulation.

I'm the same. It's quite embarrassing sometimes. I've taken to also checking the pronunciation whenever I don't know a word and look it up because of this.

the word anyways.
when I was in 7th grade we all said anyways, and it pissed off our teacher and we all rolled our eyes. Now, I think about how fucking puerile it sounds when a person tries to write something serious and then drops a fucking anyways.

>when people say that things are subjective so they don't have to justify themselves

>In the UK any firm with over 40% market share is classified as a monopoly

What a great way to punish the most efficient companies. If your products are too cheap and your companies grows too much the government will forcibly limit your growth to an arbitrary 49%.

Art. Just art in general. Talking to fucking plebs about art is beyond aggravating and I can't deal with it anymore. Everyone always ends up dropping some uninformed smug opinion about how modern art isn't art, or "I could do that" or "if anything can be art than what about this dog turd, huh?"

As far as I'm concerned, art requires a certain innate ability, emotional or otherwise to understand it. NOT that a person either knows art immediately or don't, but the fact is, is that there are people who can look at art they don't like or understand and say "I don't understand it, but I can appreciate that it's art." and people who can't. If you can't be fucked to put even a minimum amount of effort into understanding art, then don't fucking talk about it. Anybody who cares wants to kick you in your smug fucking face.

Do you believe all art should be appreciated regardless of merit or skill?

Native English speakers who can't see the difference between "your" and "you're".

How bad is your education system?

Using the plural "their" instead of the singular "his" or "her" to remain gender neutral.

Expresso.

You could speak of multiple companies having monopolies in their specific field, within the world market.

That's a complicated question.
Merit and skill are two completely different things. Some things can be said without skill, for example.

Personally, I believe a fundamental requirement of art is wanting to share something- doesn't matter what: A memory, an emotion, a political idea- And that kind of thing tends to transcend a learned skill. Does learning to paint help? Sure. But if you really want to say something, you'll find a way to say it.

This is going to sound cliche as fuck, but you feel art. If you stand in front of a painting, maybe you feel like, a spark in your chest. It's gone too fast to actually describe, but it's there, and it's real, and you feel it.

This happens in front of art you like, or art you hate, or art you don't understand, but understanding that it made you feel something, regardless of what it was, or how coherent, that makes it art to some degree.

It's one of the reasons I really love this new "aesthetics" trend. You get to see weird shit, that nobody ever thought to consider art, because it was never intended to be art, but it still connects with people on that artistic level. And hell, if you have, say some random pic of some burly irish dude digging a ditch in woman's pink galoshes, you can totally and unironically apply art theory to it.

So, yes and no. Not liking something is not the same as not appreciating something, and that's important to recognize when talking about art.

That is not how monopoly is used, the potential for other companies does not mean they exist. A company can have a monopoly without it being an eternal monopoly.

that's been a thing for a long, long time and arguing against it is stupid

Ok, what is wrong with this in cases where the gender is unknown?

When I was in high school I had to give a presentation for English class about "The Crying of Lot 49". Throughout the presentation I kept calling the book "The Crying Lot of 49" as my colleagues guffawed and smirked at me.

way to show your power level.
people have been using "they" as a non gender specific singular since the english language as she is today, came into existence.
You petty fucking moral issues are completely irrelevant, and that's entirely the fault of the language itself. It wouldn't even be a fucking issue if english just had a gender neutral singular pronoun like every other fucking language.

I wonder how that would work for a brand new or unique products. Like if somebody in Britain were to invent something new and start selling it, they would initially have 100% market share of that product. Are they required by law to give away their product design so other can start making the thing they invented? What if nobody else wanted to make that product, would they be forced to stop selling the thing they invented? The whole thing just seems so absurd. It's no wonder Britain's economy has been on the decline for so long.

>the gender is unknown
The plurality is not.

>since the English language came into existence
Wrong. People have been using "he" when the gender is unknown since the English language came into existence.

>Your petty fucking moral issues
It's not a moral issue.

>"illicit" when they mean "elicit"
>"an historical fact"
>"could care less"

>Gender neutral singular pronoun like every other fucking language.

Do you speak any other languages? If so, you'd see that Spanish doesn't really escape the binary. They only use male and female. I'm also sure that Welsh has the same issue.

What's wrong with this though? But why does causality even have to apply to the noumenal world

>not using xir

>being this much of a snowflake
I bet female Ghostbusters made you cry. Alt-right vaginas are worse than liberals.

I'll have you know that it baffles me beyond words when Americans refer to their "car" instead of a jolly old motorized rollingham like any normal Brittainian.

>Proper grammar is alt-right now.
Mm kay.

>female Ghostbusters made you cry.
Pardon me, but what the fuck are you talking about?

The best, smartest, most well-read teacher I ever had, who taught me AP Language and Literature, pronounces "indefatigable" as "in-duh-fa-TEEG-able". The current AP Lit teacher at my alma mater, also a former student of his, pronounces it the same way. I tried to gently inform her of the mistake by pointing it out when we both heard him say it during a faculty meeting (he had become the Assistant Principal of Curriculum by then) and she adamantly defended his pronunciation.

Things that are annoying generally:

>Not understanding that authority to speak on a subject is a matter of how much you know and how much those you're speaking with know
>not shutting the fuck up when you know vastly less than others who are talking
>thinking you have a valid opinion because its your opinion: "but that's just like what you think user, I have every right to believe what I believe" and related defenses
>namedropping
>namedropping
>namedropping (gets 3 mentions for frequency)
>using an extremely basic association of thinker to thoughts as a substitution for familiarity (Nietzsche: god is dead. Freud: id ego superego. Hegel: thesis antithesis synthesis)
>peppering your speech with "high vocabulary" words when you feel threatened
>using words that you know the definition of without having a familiarity for how its actually deployed or any respect for etymology
>refusing to admit you're wrong ever
>making use of a poorly defined "subjective/objective" distinction such as "liberalism is more about subjectivity"
>unironically considering your opinions facts and other people's opinions opinions.
>pointing out the "Logical fallacy" of a person's argument, as if such an abstract venture will shed light on the matter at hand and as if such an accusation doesn't merely name your ability to bag-and-bin claims wholesale without further ado.
>Critiquing people for "ad hominem" or "correlation/causation" or "generalization" without any indication that you've explored the nuances of these categories and the enormous gray area they encapsulate (such as the fact that modern science to quite a large extent makes use of correlation causation arguments in ascertaining the validity of laws by observing many instances of phenomena behaving within them)
>oscillating between serious arguments and trolling
>feeling the need to raise one's voice or talk over another person
>trying to disagree before you try to understand
>trying to disagree before you try to understand
>trying to disagree before you try to understand

>unironically considering your opinions facts and other people's opinions opinions.
That's how life works though. You have to keep it believable, but in the end it's just who pushes their opinions hard enough for them to become fact, even in STEM. Quantum mechanics, chaos theory, machine learning, etc. just exist on their own, it was the opinion of a select group of people who pushed really hard to get their terminology accepted.

Your post indicates that you have an appreciation for how problematic the "fact/opinion" dichotomy is in the first place. This is what's missing from the frustrating conversations I've had with people who make use of it.

I'm willing to admit that kind of distinction for, say "two plus two is four" or "blue is a lovely color." But basically everything interesting in the world is somewhere between these, occurring in a complex arena where whole systems of truth and falsehood, in addition to infinite particular statements, are wrestling for dominion (uniform truth status?).

Statements seem to have truth/falsehood not only in and of themselves, but also within the larger systems of thought that give them life and meaning: "Economic value is created through labor" is perfectly true when two Marxists are talking. It becomes something else entirely in a mixed crowd. It would be stupid to pretend that such a claim can be "objectively" evaluated as if it were under a microscope.

Kill yourself, kike. Modern art is an abomination and should never have occurred and will never be art.

>says modern
>means contemporary

this is false. Even though formal contracts are mostly illegal, the isps do have government backed monopolies. Regions only allow one or two isps and then refuse to give public access to other plants.

t. formal Charter contractor

>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE FUCKING KIKES DESTROYING WHITE CIVILIZATIONR EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERTWGAEOSHT

this is pure pseudo elitism.

Can a dog turd express a political idea?

>people who aren't willing to put in a minimum effort to understand a subject need to shut up about that subject
>pseudo-elitism
amazing

>art requires a certain innate ability
Yeah, I stand by my previous statement

>>penultimate as most ultimate

you what?

>>droll as boring

I feel you

>Implying that all the blank canvas shit we see in art today is art
I think the brainlet here is you

Not the user you're responding too, but I think he's referring to how people think penultimate means "ULTIMATE ultimate" rather than "second most ultimate/second to last"

>Artis a diverse range ofhuman activitiesin creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author'simaginativeor technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power

Am I missing something here because your definition of art is different.

Piecemeal as hackneyed/trite/ineffective