"usage-based pricing provides more options for consumers than flat-rate pricing and can generate additional revenue to fund network improvements and expansion."
i don't mind usage based pricing if they show you how much you've used and ideally where you've used it. then i can simply cut out all the services that suck up all that data. For example, I refuse to install Facebook because it's hundreds of MB.
The ISP doesn't need to know that. Maybe if it's a toggleable option on your modem-router and you want to enable it, sure. I wonder if pi-hole or something like that could track usage... we need a client-side middleman.
or maybe the chrome webstore allows an extension to do this. there are a few that do this but it looks like they're being black-balled by the chrome webstore.
this means we need more visibility on what's sucking up so much data. and then we need to start boycotting and deleting any and all apps that insist on wasting so much data. i bet, those services and sites that are so huge will quickly clean up their act once we all stop using them. Or they'll just go out of business and we can choose some better ones.
But why? Packets aren't finite. We only care about how much data because they're charging for it, not because it's relevant.
If someone charged based on how long packets were in transit on their network or the time under load, wouldn't those provide similar but better outcomes?
Margins aren't just low, many times they're negative! Rivian is losing something like 30% of the sales price each car. Tesla's margins used to be some of the best in the entire auto industry at like 25%, but are slimming down to 17% now.
Two fatal issues I discovered:
- the apple store was so biased, even when I typed in "piano tabs", it couldn't find your app in the top 10 results. I had to type in the name of the entire app: "Piano Tabs: Learn & Practice"
Then I attempted to install it and got this:
- "This application requires iOS 15.0 or later". This is a deal breaker on so many apps. I don't trust apple enough to change my iOS version. Note: this happened on a pretty recent iphone 7+
I'm not sure what OS you're on, but iOS 13 was about the buggiest OS they ever released. If you're on that, I'd highly recommend upgrading. iOS 14 was pretty solid - but I'd still recommend upgrading
Yes - it's so difficult to get up the pecking order in the App Store
Unfortunately I won't be able to support older versions - iOS 15 already causes a lot of problems. That said, all devices that ran iOS 13 also run iOS 15
Absolutely. i so often do a search and it presumes to think it knows what i want rather than giving me what I ask for, sometimes even when I'm being quite specific. I will say it does a great job for programming stuff but a lousy job whenever I'm researching economics topics.
Even programming stuff it does a lousy job. I use R a lot. I plot with the base graphics package because it works fine. Finding R information that does not involve the tidyverse library is so damn difficult on google search. Its bests to just go straight to the documentation since stackoverflow and other sites are pretty worthless with pretty much all answers requiring ggplot or dpylr even if they can be implemented with zero dependencies with the base tooling.
Same situation with python honestly. No I don’t want to use pandas, if I wanted better data wrangling I’d just wrangle in base R then import the wrangled data into python if need be instead of adding another dependency to my python code. Apparently this makes me a heretic based on google search results.
I'm so relieved someone is working on this. I mean, the cars of the 60s and 70s, many of them were so much lighter. Now all the sudden, cars have become fat and heavy and bloated.
Of course it all comes down to consumer demand and regulations. I suspect Regulations have gone a long way towards making cars heavier and bigger and less efficient.
It's not just the US either. My house in London was built in 1970 and has a garage that will not fit a modern hatchback/compact in it. It might just about fit, but you wouldn't be able to open the doors.
Guarantee you can’t find an American car built in 1970 that would fit either. Case in point, the 1970 Pontiac Bonneville Coup. A diminutive 2 door car that was a 18’ long by 6.5’ wide.
The major selling points of metaverse is that you can do work or play from anywhere (why else would you wear a 1500$ helmet that makes you look like a goofball). The push to "be at the office" is proof that metaverse does NOT work. It's truely ironic.
>>> "“They’re saying it’s ‘Hunger Games’ meets ‘Lord of the Flies,’ where everyone is trying to prove their worth to management.”
It sounds like people are really insecure about themselves financially or egoistically. You don't want to put yourself in a position where you have to have your job or you can't go without one for a few a years. and if you're ego can't handle being laid off or fired, you may want to do something about that because jobs these days don't last much longer than 2-4 years at most places: just look at people's resumes on linkedIn.
Realistically speaking, it’s hard for many adults to get into a position where they can go without a job for a few years, even if you are at a high-paying company like Meta. A lot of Meta employees are at places with high cost of living, and you can try to live frugally, but frugality doesn’t solve your problems instantly.
I think we can be sympathetic to the insecurity these people have without considering whether they put themselves in that position. There is a combination of internal (psychological) and external (environmental) factors at play here.
are you really telling me, that after humanity somewhat x100 times productivity improvement over the last 10,000 years, in one of the "richest" countries in the world, the richest 1-4% within that rich country (top 0.1-0.4% in the world, very roughly) can't take a couple years off from work because they can't afford it?
Most of these people aren’t in the top 1% for sure, absolutely sure. Top 1% richest in the US have a net worth of >$10M, and you need >$1M to get into the 90th percentile. Let’s say that you’re fresh out of college and land an IC3 data scientist role at Meta. Your total compensation is probably below $200k and your base salary is closer to $140, maybe $130.
From that, you can run projections on how long it would take you to get to the 90th percentile of household wealth in the US, assuming you stay in the same role. You can try running different scenarios—suppose your rent is free (you’re living with your parents to save money), suppose that you’re paying $1,500 for your share of an apartment with roommates, or suppose that you’re paying $2,500 for a tolerable studio or 1BR in a high-COL area like SF or NYC.
By my math, our IC3 data scientist with a $140k salary has a take-home around $8,800 a month after federal taxes, and if you subtract say $2,250 in living expenses for living with roommates ($1,500 rent + $750 other expenses). It would take this person 12.7 years to save $1M—you can accelerate the timeline when you look at RSU grants, but this is still a lot of work for a “high-paid” worker to get into the 90th percentile of wealth. RSU grants are also tied to employment, so if you are assuming that people are vesting their RSU grants, you’re assuming that people manage to stick it out at places like Meta even when there are morale problems and layoffs. It may be fair to assume promotions, but not everyone gets those promotions and we should hope that the people who don’t get promoted are still able to live their lives.
> you’re assuming that people manage to stick it out at places like Meta even when there are morale problems and layoffs. It may be fair to assume promotions, but not everyone gets those promotions and we should hope that the people who don’t get promoted are still able to live their lives.
Facebook has up or out; I don't remember the timelines, but if our IC3 data scientist doesn't get promoted to IC4 and then IC5, they're not going to be there in 12.7 years, so we may as well go ahead and assume they will be promoted, since the analysis only applies if they are.
> Top 1% richest in the US have a net worth of >$10M, and you need >$1M to get into the 90th percentile.
To be in the top 5% of income (not wealth), you need to earn about $350K per year. Many Meta employees make it to that level. Especially if married to someone earning a good amount as well.
As for the apartment: Check if it has a buy-out clause (e.g. pay one month's rent to break the lease).
If one insists on living in a HCOL area even after being laid off, they should at least own the fact that they're voluntarily gambling.
There's nothing wrong with sympathy. I have all the sympathy in the world for anyone who works at a software company. Those FANGs can be especially toxic.
The fact is, how you spend your money, it's a choice, especially if you're single. For singles, no excuses. In my twenties, i rented a room, slept on a surfboard and ate oatmeal. If you combine that with a Meta salary, you could retire in 5-10 years.
> If you combine that with a Meta salary, you could retire in 5-10 years.
Could you elaborate on this? Do you think that other people SHOULD do this? Because I think we should be sympathetic to people who don’t live like ascetic monks, and it seems unkind to tell people that they could have retired if they lived like an ascetic monk.
No you can’t retire. Only if you don’t have a family, and even then you just get ten years of not working. And good luck attracting a good woman to have kids with while you sleep in a dump
yea that comment is so out of touch. What % of US adults have enough savings to live 2-4 years on their current lifestyle? I'd bet it's very low. Maybe not as low as the subset making a FAANG income, but probably still low.
here in CA, the CPUC is trying their best to prevent people from adding Solar to their roofs. They've even got rid of Net metering almost entirely with their new NEM 3 rules.
Net Metering was a subsidy to encourage solar growth at a time when it wasn't nearly as prevalent as it is now. It's not the "natural" way of metering solar-equipped homes. (Assuming there is any "natural" way at all).
Now that solar is cheap enough to support itself without subsidy, the math is changing at the grid connection.
Everyone is producing gobs of power in the middle of the day, and just expecting the grid to take anything they can't use onsite. Then in the early evening, it all reverses quickly and the demands on the grid quickly flip.
In my mind, a connection to the grid should pay per kWh for two things: generation and transportation. When I pull power from the grid, I pay for both of those things. I pay to have those watts generated, and I pay to have them sent to me.
When I push power onto the grid, I am paid for the generation. I do not get paid to send it to wherever it goes, that's someone else paying that part.
i don't mind usage based pricing if they show you how much you've used and ideally where you've used it. then i can simply cut out all the services that suck up all that data. For example, I refuse to install Facebook because it's hundreds of MB.