I still think the most notable thing about this story is that the owner of a New York City bookstore is married to a US Senator from Oregon. The last time this came up people said she's usually in the store when they visit.
I think it has some impact. People who would buy a Tesla are clued into doing online research, and see the news about their repair problems.
I personally would have already leased/bought a Model 3 if I didn't have serious concerns about their supply chain and repair issues brought to light by people like Rich Rebuilds and others. I am waiting it out to see if it improves, or if Tesla goes bankrupt/forced merged and their IP lives on elsewhere.
Because they feel they’re safer or cooler. Car companies are able to charge more for them so they’ve been pushing them in every way imaginable. Very weird that you didn’t know this.
A 2 seater Tesla would sell very well. Tesla would make it cool. There are already multiple companies that have recently made very cool designs for 2 seater EVs but failed due to bad leadership and running out of funding.
Unfortunately Elon is set on robotic Uber being the cheaper option.
Not sure how that is relevant to my comment, but the 2017 nominal median income per capita was $31,786 in the United States. That means even a $650 television is more than a week's gross pay for as much as 40% of the US population.
Most of us are quite content with even 720p too and just because something is 'under $1000' doesn't mean you need to replace a perfectly functional television.
The average person spends something like 35 hours a week watching TV and the average household spent $285 per month on media last year. Not spending a large amount of your income on a nice TV is kind of insane given that.
It’s not even remotely. It’s equivalent to 3 mbps. It’s not a technological limit. It’s only imposed to extract more money and discourage streaming. It sets the country back technologically. It also discourages content creators from jumping to 4K.
People don't buy home internet to max out their connection 100% of the time. It does not make sense for the capacity to be designed for 100% load from 100% of the customers 100% of the time, otherwise you'd price out most of your subscribers. Ergo, you're never going to get it unless you pay some pretty high rates. Even many datacenter connections are billed on some bandwidth percentile billing and not always max link speed as often connections are fairly bursty.
My fastest speed I've measured at my place (Oz) is 1gbps, but due to latency and jitter it's generally much worse. There's a large disconnect happening in tech, where infrastructure isn't keeping up in all countries with what the tech companies are providing. Ironically, ISPs here do sell unlimited plans.
If it were equivalent, you could take any random person's 100 or 200 or 400 mbps service that has a 1 TB per month cap and replace it with 3 mbps uncapped and they would not care.
As someone currently on 400 mbps plan with a 1 TB cap, I can assure you that I would care, and would strenuously object to any such replacement.
I don't have 400 mbps so that I can download more than I could when I had slower plans. I have 400 mbps so I don't have to wait as long for downloads to finish.
Not sure what you mean by "It’s equivalent to 3 mbps". Are you, like, streaming a video of an eagle nest 24/7?
You are paying for residential Internet service. The number of people who would legitimately need to transfer more than 1 TB per month over a residential Internet connection is vanishingly small. Bandwidth, particularly during high-demand hours, costs money. It is not fair for other users to subsidize your extreme usage scenario (since it is an axiom that all costs borne by the ISP are passed on to customers). It is far more fair that you, the extreme outlier, pays more.
The problem is that underprovisioning uses some statistical average that will fail on special situations. Content streaming is so common now that there are peak hours where almost everyone is streaming video. If ISPs need to have that use case in mind, it should be possible for them to sustain that demand 24/7. If they don't do that, it's for one of two reasons. Either they can't sustain peak demand and they are trying to disincentivize usage, or they can handle a heavy demand but want to charge extra for off-peak bandwitdh usage, thus earning money for an already amortized infrastructure.
I can’t imagine many people use Viasat to watch Netflix when satellite TV exists. Satellite based ISPs are the only ones with a legitimate reason to impose data caps.
With the amount of money Americans have spent on internet everyone could have 100 gigabit by now.
The real question is how telcos have managed to spend all of their income. I know mine Frontier spends it all on interest payments for the service areas they’ve bought.
