A further thing to keep in mind: Spectre, the less serious but more widespread vulnerability, is most serious on Intel. In Google's tests using 3 proof-of-concept variants, one non-malicious and two non-malicious, only the non-malicious one worked universally while the malicious ones only worked problem free on Intel. One of the malicious ones did work on one of the two tested AMD parts, but only in a non-default configuration (while Intel was vulnerable in the default configuration as well).
The sale was scheduled in advance yes, but only in late October when Google informed Intel of their findings in very early June. In other words; The sale was scheduled months after they were informed of the problem.
When you factor in that "little" tidbit, this is about as clear as cases of insider trading get...
Holland, Ireland and Bermuda are not dumb, they're just facilitating this for legal kickbacks in the shape of these companies setting up offices in the country. The enabling countries themselves gain more than what they lose, but on the whole it's a loss for tax payers internationally.
In a way the financial crisis has become something of a blessing in disguise as governments and organisations like the EU are finally getting themselves into gear and fighting corporate tax avoidance. They are doing it mostly because they (the politicians) don't want to take any more political backlash from continued austerity measures and growing national debts so it's a bit self-serving, but at least they're doing it and starting to reign in corporate tax avoidance.
1: As you said, the people who have those weapons are army trained reservists so they've been trained in the safe operation and storage of the weapon (rather than just being some random person who bought an assault rifle at wallmart)
2: Storing ammunition for the weapon at the same location is illegal during peacetime. What this means is that while people have assault rifles at home legally, they're usable as clubs until wartime (in which case there's much bigger fish to fry) and offer no "home protection" apart from against Americans who try to use them to justify being able to buy assault rifles from wallmart.
3: The police will show up and take your weapon away rather easily. Be associated with organized crime, violent extremism or be diagnosed with mental problems (this country actually has a working public healthcare care system) and you're more or less guaranteed to have the authorities come over and take your issued weapon away from you.
Doesn't that describe mainstream media in general? The only exceptions I can think of are activist outlets, which are biased as all hell by definition, and tax or TV license funded organizations like the BBC (who have managed to become an activist outlet somehow).
You do know that none of those recorded cycles have seen temperature changes anywhere close to this rapid? The evidence is evidence of the effect of man's activity on the climate, not the opposite.
The only way you can claim that man made climate change isn't happening is by cherry picking a few studies on the subject.
Maybe this is the infamously out-of-date payment infrastructure in the U.S, but over here in Europe both NFC and Chip+PIN solutions are faster (considerably in the case of NFC-based payment methods) than paying cash even in the case you have exact change. Even with the slower Chip+PIN it's just a case of sticking the card in the machine, inputting your PIN and then waiting for 1-3 seconds for the transaction to go trough. At fast food places this happens as they're getting your food.
I'm fully aware of that, it's just that most of the people trying to make money on investing in it are located in North America and Europe. Hell, I wouldn't be that surprised if North America currently makes up over 50% of the market for the monopoly money. Thus the best time to dump a significant amount of Bitcoin, which isn't going to be exactly instant, is when people in the biggest market/markets are most likely to be catching z's.
No, but most of the people with the money to invest in it are sort of located in North America and Western Europe so the best time to dump your holdings, which isn't going to be instant if you're dumping a lot, is when people in those places are catching z's.
The way I see it, this looks like the smart money pulling out and doing so in the middle of the night as to avoid people seeing the drop, panic selling their bitcoin in response and thus triggering and even bigger drop in the average sell price.
Ummm... The only problem with this is that now that countries have had the time to process most of the mass that arrived in Europe during 2015, it's become clear that actual refugees only make up a minority of those masses. Massive amounts of people saw an opportunity for a better life in Europe and simply hitched a ride with the actual refugees. Even Sweden, having a reputation of being very welcoming to immigrants, has been rejecting about 70% of all asylum applications and the deportation of immigrants who have finally exhausted all of their options is becoming a bigger and bigger problem across Europe.
Not only is it becoming harder and harder to get the countries to take back all of their citizens, Iraq being particularly difficult, a lot of the immigrants have decided to simply not accept that their asylum application got denied. Instead they've either gone underground, thinking if they stay long enough they can eventually get permanent residence, or have started roving around Europe applying for asylum in multiple countries using false identities (as per the Dublin process if you have your asylum application denied in one country other EU countries will not even consider any further applications by you).
The thing about merely perceiving to be less well off, I can't recall seeing any populist (not all the parties are actually right wing) argumentation based on that and I live in Europe myself.
No, the usual arguments are about the additional strain on healthcare and social services, increased crime (specially rapes and other violent crime where immigrants from Africa and the middle East are already badly overrepresented), the cost of the unemployment and other benefits along with the rather retrograde views on things like religious and women's rights held by a large portion of the immigrants.
It's rather ironic how you respond to me talking about what older workers tend to be like, i.e I don't actually lump all of them together, by accusing me of lumping them together and then proceed to present a bunch of copypasted arguments that lump people together based on their rough age. As your arguments are pretty clearly just some copypasted and you refused to respond to my observations I'm just going to return the favor and ignore your copypasted arguments.
Seriously thou, with technology being in constant state of flux and better ways of doing things being added right into technologies and taught to students I question the idea that experience is as valuable as older workers make it out to be. Sure, with experience you may come up with better ways of doing things, but the technology itself isn't going to be stale and much of what you may come up with over time is probably going to be implemented trough standard and additional features to the technology that younger workers are then going to use thinking that it's the way it was always done or not even realizing it's being used as it's now part of the technology's standard features.
When you consider the fact that Facebook has long since been caught allowing advertisers target their ads with a long list of parameters, some of them being quite questionable and with occasionally startling accuracy (like showing people actively trying to hide being gay ads for gay events like cruises) this isn't really all that surprising. In all honesty, what would be surprising would be if they didn't allow age targeting of job ads seeing how they already allow the targeting of other ads based on almost exact location, race, income, sexual orientation, political views, interests, etc.
This is probably going to piss off a lot of the older folks here, but having worked with older workers I can actually understand why companies want to exclude them from job listings. Sure, older workers tend to be more experienced, but they demand more salary, are much less likely to do 40+ hour weeks, overtime when necessary, acquire new skills as they go along and have skills in new systems or technologies before the organization adopts them. Even the usual complaints from the gophers about how the "young-uns" just doodle all day on their cellphones, facebook and the like ring kind of hollow when older workers are just as likely to waste time at work, they just look at stuff like porn, listings of cars or houses for sale instead. A friend of mine caught his boss calling a sex hotline at work one time.
Uber has been "successful" mostly trough skirting/ignoring regulations meant to protect taxi customers, thus giving them an edge over more law abiding competitors, and exploiting people desperate to make ends meet. The reason why I'm using quote marks is that they're still making some pretty heavy losses and operating for the most part on venture capital money.
The only thing they've come up with that could be described as an innovation and just not an attempt at skirting customer protection regulations to gain an edge over competitors is the ordering system and that's easily adapted for the rest of the taxi industry. Uber could easily pivot the company and make a very profitable business out of cooperating with taxi companies, but they don't because they think they can be more profitable by being a taxi company that ignores anything that causes them extra costs.
Seriously, if you don't like regulation and think the wild west is the way to go, you're free to pack your bags and head for the closest thing you can find to your ideal society. However until you do, you're just going to have to play by the rules set up by the society you loathe so much.
Nah, after the containment of/pol/* completely broke it's just as toxic of a place as twitter is, if not worse. I decided to keep out everything except a couple of niche non-political boards after I encountered more than my fair share of people who thought there was nothing wrong in things like calling all Syrians rapists and all black people "nignogs" and similar genuinely racist terms.
* For those not familiar with the history of/pol/, back in 2010 the original/news/ board got so racist it really didn't provide any meaningful conversations anymore so moot (Christopher Poole) rather justifiably removed it. It's userbase then rebelled and spammed racist content on practically every other board for weeks on end demanding moot to reinstate/news/. Eventually after listening to complaints from people who didn't want their racist crap posted on their boards moot relented and created/pol/ as a place where they racists got to be racist among themselves and not bother other boards. Unfortunately with the rise of trump and the alt-right it's grown absolutely massively and it's userbase now seemingly spend more time on other boards than on the board itself.
The only problem is that they have history of enforcing rules against racists, crazies and trolls rather halfheartedly and the few times they've at least tried to enforce those rules properly those normally excluded racists, crazies and trolls have cried fowl.
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place. 140 characters and a massive potential audience is great for chanting slogans, both political and advertisement ones, mindless drivel and abuse (there's dozens of people who have regularly do what Milo Yiannopolis got banned for), but not much else. I don't think anything has caused as massive of a regression in public discourse as twitter has so the sooner they finally destroy their platform and run themselves into bankruptcy, which should have long since happened seeing how they've never come close to turning a profit, the better.
If you absolutely must know how old I am, I'm 28 and I have friends in the range from their late teens into their 40s, many of whom I've known since my teens. In my experience most people don't really change all that much in their political leanings. Sure, their priorities change as they age (the elderly for example care much more about elderly care than anyone else), but liberals tend to stay liberal rather than turning into conservatives. The only real exception to this are people who vote for candidates rather than parties and they swing back and forth depending on who's on the ballot.
As for the "flower children" of the 1960s, they were really just a minority of young people back then who got an unusually large amount of attention from the media due to being something that hadn't really been seen in any kind of significant numbers. Media attention really doesn't equate to actual numbers and that applies to both the "flower children" and the actual "alt right" (i.e not everyone who questions the far left, including actual liberals, as the far left tries to define it). Those "flower children" that are still alive today tend to keep voting for left leaning/liberal candidates.
Soon they’ll be ditching the Feel the Bern shirts and voting Republican.
My understanding is that this is mostly just a misconception based the republican supporter base being skewed towards old people because of to the way younger generations tend to be more progressive than their parents. People don't start voting republican when they get older, no, old people just vote republican more often because they're on the whole more conservative than their children are or will ever be.
I doubt anything will happen because of this except the 'burbs becoming more liberal and republican supporter bases being pushed even further away from urban centers (where democrats already reign supreme, thou with some exceptions).
I doubt the fires themselves will drive people out of the state on the whole. Sure, some people whose house burns down may not build a new house where the old one stood, but with their jobs and most social connections being in the state it's going to take much more to make any significant amount of people leave the state.
As for higher density housing, i.e apartment buildings, the reason so few have been built despite the demand has mostly to do with the NIMBY home owner's associations and the fires won't do much about them. Sure, land to build them may now be easier to come by when people sell their land in fire prone areas and actual burnt down neighborhoods, the home owner's associations and their deep dislike of the lower income people who will be living in those apartments will still be there to torpedo any and all attempts to build high density housing anywhere near a suburb.
Not sure about how exactly it was done, but that's pretty much what happened in 2011 and the EFF's investigation into the matter found that the ISPs Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West all took part in it.
The only problem with this is that the republicans are rather firmly in the pocket of telecom companies (and the democrats as well to a lesser, yet still significant extent) so any national level net neutrality laws have not only a Trump veto to contend with, they also have a snowball's chance in hell passing the necessary votes required to even end up on Trump's desk. For it to stand any kind of chance the republicans need to get absolutely murdered in the next elections, which I doubt seeing how the democrats have to get their act together after the disaster that was the 2016 presidential election, and Trump either being impeached and replaced or put in a position where he has to make a deal with the democrats where he refrains from using his veto on this.
Those got handled by the FCC stepping in, but they lost the power to do that in 2014 when Verizon successfully challenged their 2010 Open Internet order and got the courts to tell them that to be able to enforce net neutrality, they need to class ISPs under Title 2 and not Title 1 like they had previously done. The Obama era regulation that Pai just revoked was this Title 2 classification and it's what Pai means when he says that net neutrality hasn't technically gone anywhere. It's just become unenforceable.
In all seriousness, this is like removing the bans on asbestos and/or lead paint and expecting the companies who would start making these things to do so responsibly. Knowing what's happened in the past it's just bound to go badly wrong...
Man do you have a lot of holes in your knowledge on this subject...
First of all, other countries with similar population distributions with lower average GDP have been much more successful at building up internet infrastructure so the argument that the current state of affairs is explained by geography is provably wrong. Sure, more dense countries have it easier, but the sparcity isn't really an excuse for things to be anywhere near as bad as they are in more rural parts of the country. Even at that, it's not like companies can't charge more for connections in areas where the per-subscriber infrastructure costs are higher (they already do).
Secondly, ISPs are on the whole a very profitable industry and thus definitely have the money to spend of improving their infrastructure. However seeing how people need internet connections these days people will pay for substandard service. What this means is that in areas where companies have a monopoly, which covers a very large part of the U.S, there is little financial incentive to spend any money on new infrastructure. This is why they fight so hard against people when they decide to get together and build their own fiber, meaning that to compete they'd actually have to make the infrastructure investments they decided were unnecessary. Companies simply don't want the no competition gravy train to come to an end in these areas.
So what this all really boils down to is ISPs trying to maximise profits by minimising infrastructure investments (and ensuring that people can't get together and build their own competing infrastructure).
Likewise, except I've spent my resources on the William Connor foundation for the splendid work he did with Liberace back in the day, because we really need to make sure that famous people can't hide being gay.
Slashdot Mirror
A further thing to keep in mind: Spectre, the less serious but more widespread vulnerability, is most serious on Intel. In Google's tests using 3 proof-of-concept variants, one non-malicious and two non-malicious, only the non-malicious one worked universally while the malicious ones only worked problem free on Intel. One of the malicious ones did work on one of the two tested AMD parts, but only in a non-default configuration (while Intel was vulnerable in the default configuration as well).
The sale was scheduled in advance yes, but only in late October when Google informed Intel of their findings in very early June. In other words; The sale was scheduled months after they were informed of the problem.
When you factor in that "little" tidbit, this is about as clear as cases of insider trading get...
Holland, Ireland and Bermuda are not dumb, they're just facilitating this for legal kickbacks in the shape of these companies setting up offices in the country. The enabling countries themselves gain more than what they lose, but on the whole it's a loss for tax payers internationally.
In a way the financial crisis has become something of a blessing in disguise as governments and organisations like the EU are finally getting themselves into gear and fighting corporate tax avoidance. They are doing it mostly because they (the politicians) don't want to take any more political backlash from continued austerity measures and growing national debts so it's a bit self-serving, but at least they're doing it and starting to reign in corporate tax avoidance.
1: As you said, the people who have those weapons are army trained reservists so they've been trained in the safe operation and storage of the weapon (rather than just being some random person who bought an assault rifle at wallmart)
2: Storing ammunition for the weapon at the same location is illegal during peacetime. What this means is that while people have assault rifles at home legally, they're usable as clubs until wartime (in which case there's much bigger fish to fry) and offer no "home protection" apart from against Americans who try to use them to justify being able to buy assault rifles from wallmart.
3: The police will show up and take your weapon away rather easily. Be associated with organized crime, violent extremism or be diagnosed with mental problems (this country actually has a working public healthcare care system) and you're more or less guaranteed to have the authorities come over and take your issued weapon away from you.
the purpose of monetary gain
Doesn't that describe mainstream media in general? The only exceptions I can think of are activist outlets, which are biased as all hell by definition, and tax or TV license funded organizations like the BBC (who have managed to become an activist outlet somehow).
You do know that none of those recorded cycles have seen temperature changes anywhere close to this rapid? The evidence is evidence of the effect of man's activity on the climate, not the opposite.
The only way you can claim that man made climate change isn't happening is by cherry picking a few studies on the subject.
Maybe this is the infamously out-of-date payment infrastructure in the U.S, but over here in Europe both NFC and Chip+PIN solutions are faster (considerably in the case of NFC-based payment methods) than paying cash even in the case you have exact change. Even with the slower Chip+PIN it's just a case of sticking the card in the machine, inputting your PIN and then waiting for 1-3 seconds for the transaction to go trough. At fast food places this happens as they're getting your food.
I'm fully aware of that, it's just that most of the people trying to make money on investing in it are located in North America and Europe. Hell, I wouldn't be that surprised if North America currently makes up over 50% of the market for the monopoly money. Thus the best time to dump a significant amount of Bitcoin, which isn't going to be exactly instant, is when people in the biggest market/markets are most likely to be catching z's.
No, but most of the people with the money to invest in it are sort of located in North America and Western Europe so the best time to dump your holdings, which isn't going to be instant if you're dumping a lot, is when people in those places are catching z's.
The way I see it, this looks like the smart money pulling out and doing so in the middle of the night as to avoid people seeing the drop, panic selling their bitcoin in response and thus triggering and even bigger drop in the average sell price.
Ummm... The only problem with this is that now that countries have had the time to process most of the mass that arrived in Europe during 2015, it's become clear that actual refugees only make up a minority of those masses. Massive amounts of people saw an opportunity for a better life in Europe and simply hitched a ride with the actual refugees. Even Sweden, having a reputation of being very welcoming to immigrants, has been rejecting about 70% of all asylum applications and the deportation of immigrants who have finally exhausted all of their options is becoming a bigger and bigger problem across Europe.
Not only is it becoming harder and harder to get the countries to take back all of their citizens, Iraq being particularly difficult, a lot of the immigrants have decided to simply not accept that their asylum application got denied. Instead they've either gone underground, thinking if they stay long enough they can eventually get permanent residence, or have started roving around Europe applying for asylum in multiple countries using false identities (as per the Dublin process if you have your asylum application denied in one country other EU countries will not even consider any further applications by you).
The thing about merely perceiving to be less well off, I can't recall seeing any populist (not all the parties are actually right wing) argumentation based on that and I live in Europe myself.
No, the usual arguments are about the additional strain on healthcare and social services, increased crime (specially rapes and other violent crime where immigrants from Africa and the middle East are already badly overrepresented), the cost of the unemployment and other benefits along with the rather retrograde views on things like religious and women's rights held by a large portion of the immigrants.
It's rather ironic how you respond to me talking about what older workers tend to be like, i.e I don't actually lump all of them together, by accusing me of lumping them together and then proceed to present a bunch of copypasted arguments that lump people together based on their rough age. As your arguments are pretty clearly just some copypasted and you refused to respond to my observations I'm just going to return the favor and ignore your copypasted arguments.
Seriously thou, with technology being in constant state of flux and better ways of doing things being added right into technologies and taught to students I question the idea that experience is as valuable as older workers make it out to be. Sure, with experience you may come up with better ways of doing things, but the technology itself isn't going to be stale and much of what you may come up with over time is probably going to be implemented trough standard and additional features to the technology that younger workers are then going to use thinking that it's the way it was always done or not even realizing it's being used as it's now part of the technology's standard features.
When you consider the fact that Facebook has long since been caught allowing advertisers target their ads with a long list of parameters, some of them being quite questionable and with occasionally startling accuracy (like showing people actively trying to hide being gay ads for gay events like cruises) this isn't really all that surprising. In all honesty, what would be surprising would be if they didn't allow age targeting of job ads seeing how they already allow the targeting of other ads based on almost exact location, race, income, sexual orientation, political views, interests, etc.
This is probably going to piss off a lot of the older folks here, but having worked with older workers I can actually understand why companies want to exclude them from job listings. Sure, older workers tend to be more experienced, but they demand more salary, are much less likely to do 40+ hour weeks, overtime when necessary, acquire new skills as they go along and have skills in new systems or technologies before the organization adopts them. Even the usual complaints from the gophers about how the "young-uns" just doodle all day on their cellphones, facebook and the like ring kind of hollow when older workers are just as likely to waste time at work, they just look at stuff like porn, listings of cars or houses for sale instead. A friend of mine caught his boss calling a sex hotline at work one time.
Uber has been "successful" mostly trough skirting/ignoring regulations meant to protect taxi customers, thus giving them an edge over more law abiding competitors, and exploiting people desperate to make ends meet. The reason why I'm using quote marks is that they're still making some pretty heavy losses and operating for the most part on venture capital money.
The only thing they've come up with that could be described as an innovation and just not an attempt at skirting customer protection regulations to gain an edge over competitors is the ordering system and that's easily adapted for the rest of the taxi industry. Uber could easily pivot the company and make a very profitable business out of cooperating with taxi companies, but they don't because they think they can be more profitable by being a taxi company that ignores anything that causes them extra costs.
Seriously, if you don't like regulation and think the wild west is the way to go, you're free to pack your bags and head for the closest thing you can find to your ideal society. However until you do, you're just going to have to play by the rules set up by the society you loathe so much.
Nah, after the containment of /pol/* completely broke it's just as toxic of a place as twitter is, if not worse. I decided to keep out everything except a couple of niche non-political boards after I encountered more than my fair share of people who thought there was nothing wrong in things like calling all Syrians rapists and all black people "nignogs" and similar genuinely racist terms.
/pol/, back in 2010 the original /news/ board got so racist it really didn't provide any meaningful conversations anymore so moot (Christopher Poole) rather justifiably removed it. It's userbase then rebelled and spammed racist content on practically every other board for weeks on end demanding moot to reinstate /news/. Eventually after listening to complaints from people who didn't want their racist crap posted on their boards moot relented and created /pol/ as a place where they racists got to be racist among themselves and not bother other boards. Unfortunately with the rise of trump and the alt-right it's grown absolutely massively and it's userbase now seemingly spend more time on other boards than on the board itself.
* For those not familiar with the history of
The only problem is that they have history of enforcing rules against racists, crazies and trolls rather halfheartedly and the few times they've at least tried to enforce those rules properly those normally excluded racists, crazies and trolls have cried fowl.
In all seriousness twitter has never really been a place where any even slightly valuable dialogue takes place. 140 characters and a massive potential audience is great for chanting slogans, both political and advertisement ones, mindless drivel and abuse (there's dozens of people who have regularly do what Milo Yiannopolis got banned for), but not much else. I don't think anything has caused as massive of a regression in public discourse as twitter has so the sooner they finally destroy their platform and run themselves into bankruptcy, which should have long since happened seeing how they've never come close to turning a profit, the better.
If you absolutely must know how old I am, I'm 28 and I have friends in the range from their late teens into their 40s, many of whom I've known since my teens. In my experience most people don't really change all that much in their political leanings. Sure, their priorities change as they age (the elderly for example care much more about elderly care than anyone else), but liberals tend to stay liberal rather than turning into conservatives. The only real exception to this are people who vote for candidates rather than parties and they swing back and forth depending on who's on the ballot.
As for the "flower children" of the 1960s, they were really just a minority of young people back then who got an unusually large amount of attention from the media due to being something that hadn't really been seen in any kind of significant numbers. Media attention really doesn't equate to actual numbers and that applies to both the "flower children" and the actual "alt right" (i.e not everyone who questions the far left, including actual liberals, as the far left tries to define it). Those "flower children" that are still alive today tend to keep voting for left leaning/liberal candidates.
Soon they’ll be ditching the Feel the Bern shirts and voting Republican.
My understanding is that this is mostly just a misconception based the republican supporter base being skewed towards old people because of to the way younger generations tend to be more progressive than their parents. People don't start voting republican when they get older, no, old people just vote republican more often because they're on the whole more conservative than their children are or will ever be.
I doubt anything will happen because of this except the 'burbs becoming more liberal and republican supporter bases being pushed even further away from urban centers (where democrats already reign supreme, thou with some exceptions).
I doubt the fires themselves will drive people out of the state on the whole. Sure, some people whose house burns down may not build a new house where the old one stood, but with their jobs and most social connections being in the state it's going to take much more to make any significant amount of people leave the state.
As for higher density housing, i.e apartment buildings, the reason so few have been built despite the demand has mostly to do with the NIMBY home owner's associations and the fires won't do much about them. Sure, land to build them may now be easier to come by when people sell their land in fire prone areas and actual burnt down neighborhoods, the home owner's associations and their deep dislike of the lower income people who will be living in those apartments will still be there to torpedo any and all attempts to build high density housing anywhere near a suburb.
Not sure about how exactly it was done, but that's pretty much what happened in 2011 and the EFF's investigation into the matter found that the ISPs Cavalier, Cogent, Frontier, Fuse, DirecPC, RCN and Wide Open West all took part in it.
The only problem with this is that the republicans are rather firmly in the pocket of telecom companies (and the democrats as well to a lesser, yet still significant extent) so any national level net neutrality laws have not only a Trump veto to contend with, they also have a snowball's chance in hell passing the necessary votes required to even end up on Trump's desk. For it to stand any kind of chance the republicans need to get absolutely murdered in the next elections, which I doubt seeing how the democrats have to get their act together after the disaster that was the 2016 presidential election, and Trump either being impeached and replaced or put in a position where he has to make a deal with the democrats where he refrains from using his veto on this.
Those got handled by the FCC stepping in, but they lost the power to do that in 2014 when Verizon successfully challenged their 2010 Open Internet order and got the courts to tell them that to be able to enforce net neutrality, they need to class ISPs under Title 2 and not Title 1 like they had previously done. The Obama era regulation that Pai just revoked was this Title 2 classification and it's what Pai means when he says that net neutrality hasn't technically gone anywhere. It's just become unenforceable.
In all seriousness, this is like removing the bans on asbestos and/or lead paint and expecting the companies who would start making these things to do so responsibly. Knowing what's happened in the past it's just bound to go badly wrong...
Man do you have a lot of holes in your knowledge on this subject...
First of all, other countries with similar population distributions with lower average GDP have been much more successful at building up internet infrastructure so the argument that the current state of affairs is explained by geography is provably wrong. Sure, more dense countries have it easier, but the sparcity isn't really an excuse for things to be anywhere near as bad as they are in more rural parts of the country. Even at that, it's not like companies can't charge more for connections in areas where the per-subscriber infrastructure costs are higher (they already do).
Secondly, ISPs are on the whole a very profitable industry and thus definitely have the money to spend of improving their infrastructure. However seeing how people need internet connections these days people will pay for substandard service. What this means is that in areas where companies have a monopoly, which covers a very large part of the U.S, there is little financial incentive to spend any money on new infrastructure. This is why they fight so hard against people when they decide to get together and build their own fiber, meaning that to compete they'd actually have to make the infrastructure investments they decided were unnecessary. Companies simply don't want the no competition gravy train to come to an end in these areas.
So what this all really boils down to is ISPs trying to maximise profits by minimising infrastructure investments (and ensuring that people can't get together and build their own competing infrastructure).
Likewise, except I've spent my resources on the William Connor foundation for the splendid work he did with Liberace back in the day, because we really need to make sure that famous people can't hide being gay.