When you choose an eccentric lifestyle you should accept the loss of certain features.
Many "eccentric" lifestyles are not chosen.
For instance not owning a smartphone or not having access to power easily is not necessarily limited to well-off tech-savv hipsters who want to make a statement, homeless people, older people in less connected areas or people in developing countries can also be in that situation.
When you make your services depend on specific access, and you give people without it no escape hatch, your service becoming successful usually means worsening access for people that have fewer means to adapt.
Interesting choice of vocabulary.
You could decide not to serve people without also describing them as freeloaders in order to feel morally righteous about your choice.
I think the discussion is less around "subsidizing" them and more why requiring a cellphone with 2FA to exist and do basic things is kinda stupid.
You were the one introducing this vocabulary (as well as claiming everyone living there does it by choice). Now you try to move the debate again with people "demanding" stuff. None of this vocabulary or framing exists in the original article, or in mine.
Let me clarify the question: why do you insist on framing this debate in a way that makes a moral claim about people's character?
I must be imagining the farms that I pass in the mountains in the middle of nowhere when I go backpacking. Surely your argument isn't, "My farm was here, so it's impossible for other farms to be in different locales"?
>I once...
My phrasing did not suggest "one time" (the phrase was "I pass", suggesting regularity), and it's not just one single farm, it's a few, and I've passed them many times. I have to agree with someone else[1] about your using vocabulary that others haven't introduced - I question whether or not a good faith discussion can be had because of that. Have a good one!
Recently former homeless person here. The Republicans in Congress refused to renew the Lifeline program in 2023 and the replacement is objectively worse in every single way.
> Not all choices need to be subsidized.
Ah yes, being homeless, a choice. I hope it never happens to you.
1. Has internet, has WiFi calling.
2. Has a cell phone, but the signal is crap at the house.
Before you answer, that describes my house exactly. And I live in Redmond, WA, and a 10 minute drive from the Microsoft main campus. Though the neighbors might disagree, there is nothing eccentric about my lifestyle.
The terrain is rugged there, but it is not an "eccentric lifestyle"
It is extremely typical, however, to see the most basic needs of Appalachian people ignored on the grounds of their perceived choice of lifestyle
just this weekend I endured yet another incest joke.. I bet you have one of those ready too
Heck, there are places that are a 20 minute walk from Apple and Google HQ without cell service.