ZFS will guard against bit rot. That's not enough. RAID isn't enough. You need redundancy outside your home or office. Cloud maybe expensive for the amount of data you have, but Amazon S3 maybe the most affordable in that range. You could get S3 for maybe $15-20 a month if you have a terabyte of data. If that's cost prohibitive, rotate external drives regularly and keep one at work. You'll lose very little data since you're archiving things.
AWS S3 pricing is $0.023/GB or $23/TB/month.
But for infrequently accessed data, AWS Glacier offers the same durability of S3 for only $0.004/GB or $4/TB/month. There's an infrequent access tier in between those two for $12.50/TB/month.
If you never want to leave your home. But why stop at that? Why not drug yourself strapped to the bed and get nutrition via IV? As long as the obese pay more for plane tickets and healthcare, I'm good.
When you leave your home, do you really want to spend that time at the grocery store? I'd rather let someone else pick and deliver my groceries so I can do the things I *want* to do.... I don't find grocery shopping to be particularly pleasant.
Chances are you don't find cooking particularly pleasant either, so dunno why you're bitching. Your pizza and sushi gets delivered to the Snowflake residence all the same.
Ahh, on the contrary, I love cooking. But when I'm cooking something special, I buy my produce at the produce market and meat at the butcher, not the overwaxed produce or yesterday's random cuts of meat at the supermarket. But for everyday staples, I just have them delivered.
Olive Garden isn't McDonald's. Although even there I expect a certain level of service. Considering the cuisine at McDonald's if I have to punch buttons on a Kiosk to get my food I'll just go home and have a Marie Callender's TV dinner. Without the service what is it really? Just some marginal food in a paper bag or on a plastic tray. Maybe this will wake the public up to they fact they're paying for garbage. I see a silver lining here.
You go to McDonalds for the *service*? I thought people only went there because it was fast.
What is it about the service at McDonalds that you find appealing? I can press "#2 Large fries, Medium Coke" in a kiosk faster than I can tell the guy behind the counter, because I don't have to wait for anyone to read it back. And I bet the kiosk won't forget to give me my cup.
If I have the choice between eating at home or eating at McDonalds, I choose eating at home every time, and not because of service.
I love grocery shopping! It's one of the few reasons to go out when you live in a small town.
A few years from now it will be like the big city where you no longer know your neighbours.
Weird, I live in a city (well, more of a large town) and I know most of my neighbors. I see many of them while we're walking to the train, I see others at local restaurants, the gym, etc. I got my most recent job through after the guy down the street introduced me to my current boss on one of our weekend bike rides.
Now I know why I live in a city if going to the grocery store is one of the few reasons to go out in a small town.
If you never want to leave your home. But why stop at that? Why not drug yourself strapped to the bed and get nutrition via IV? As long as the obese pay more for plane tickets and healthcare, I'm good.
When you leave your home, do you really want to spend that time at the grocery store? I'd rather let someone else pick and deliver my groceries so I can do the things I *want* to do.... I don't find grocery shopping to be particularly pleasant.
Delivering pre-packaged cans, bottles, and jars may indeed make sense, at some point - but I'd be leery about someone else picking my produce, eggs, perhaps even potato chips - unless there's a generous return policy.
Why do people here talk as if grocery delivery services don't already exist? I've been getting my groceries delivered for over 2 years now (and I wasn't an early-adopter), and in the rare case that I receive something damaged or otherwise unusable, I report it and they refund me, no questions asked.
And it's not like I'm a perfect grocery delivery person -- I've picked product that I later found to have a bad spot, I've dropped groceries on my way into the house, etc.
Is your handgun locked inside? Because that's the one criminals would actually want.
I knew someone would question that when I compared the cost of the safe to the cost of the long guns -- yes, the handgun is locked inside the same safe as the long guns. And further, when I drive it to the shooting range, it's locked in a lockbox that's bolted to the trunk of my car.
What if we aren't haters and don't hate the NRA? What if we don't have a phobia of guns? Why is this "stuff that matters"?
I don't have a "gun phobia", I own 3 - a rifle, a shotgun (which I use for hunting), and a handgun (which I use for fun -- i.e. target practice).
But I do think guns are way too easy to obtain (both legally and illegally), and gun owners should hold more responsibility for securing their weapons so they aren't stolen and resold on the black market. My gun safe cost as much as both of the long guns that are locked inside it.
Companies that sell ads sell ads. BFD.
It's not the ad sale that's the story, it's the extortion.
Do people get the right to disrupt police/FBI hacking of their devices as well? That's probably the only hackers that would actually be disrupted by this new law, since criminal hackers use someone else's computer to hack you -- if you hack back, you're only hurting some innocent third party that had *his* computer hacked.
Well, obviously, Amzaon's redundancy is either useless on non-existent, so I don't know what you think you're paying for.
There's a difference between durability and availability. I'm mostly interested in durability for objects I store in S3, but for when I care about availability, I mirror them across regions.
I get more value and redundancy out of spinning up dozens of 1-2 GB Digital Ocean droplets than I do with Amazon--especially now that they have their LBS service and an equivalent to EBS.
A 2GB RAM digital ocean droplet gives you 40GB of disk space for $20/month, or around 50 cents/GB. To get the same triple redundancy that S3 gives you, you're paying $1.50/GB, compared to $0.023/GB that S3 costs. Plus you've got to manage the redundancy yourself. Or, better availability, you can have S3 mirror your data between regions, and you're paying $0.046/GB.
I've done the latter -- mirrored my data between regions, so the us-east-1 outage took a single parameter change and service restart to point my app to the us-west region (it could be done automatically, but full-region outages like this are so rare, I haven't bothered)
(you could store your data on Digital Ocean LBS and pay $0.10/GB (or $0.30/GB for the same triple redundancy S3 provides).
How is it that you pay more for storage, have more hardware to manage, yet you get more value and redundancy than S3?
And the rulings, as enacted, did no such thing and did NOT protect the citizenry.
AT&T and Verizon still gave preferences to their content through their ISP connections and Google, Facebook and Twitter all block and censor content and access to webpages at their hearts desire - customers be damned.
A monopoly (or duopoly, triopoly) ISP should not be able to give preference to any of "their" content. They shouldn't control both the pipes and the content.
If you don't like Google's "censorship", then you're free to use Bing or another search engine. But if, for example, AT&T has a deal with Google, they may force you to use Google even though you'd rather use someone else -- and sometimes AT&T is your only option for ISP service due to the huge barriers to entry to becoming an ISP.
like pretty much every delivery person and warehouse worker in the country?
Their job description also includes knowing what to pick up with minimal instructions and an extremely low error rate, as well as where to take it and when and how to drop it off, the ability to work for up to 12 hours repeatedly and reliably, independence from wall power, and the ability to deviate from this routine where and when required in reasonable ways.
Are you describing robots or people? Sounds like a job description suitable for a mobile robot. A human worker isn't going to magically know where to pick something up or where to take it unless some central system tells him to. And a robot is equally able to follow instructions like: "Go pick up item 718281718 from bin 7891 (use your scanner to find the right item), box it and walk it over to loading dock 287 for immediate shipping. There's a liquid spill in aisle 27, find your own way around it."
Oh no! All the people whose job description is to be 6 feet tall, to lift 100 pounds, to jump 4feet into the air and to be able to travel at 9 miles per hour are no longer economically viable...
Time to upgrade that resume. Skills: can lift up to 101 pound jump 4 feet 5 inches into the air. Can travel at 9.5 miles her hour. Will cost no more 10% of a robot doing the same thing a year. A bonus feature: can travel at least 30 miles on a single charge!
you mean, like pretty much every delivery person and warehouse worker in the country?
An Amazon warehouse worker earns around $12.50/year, or $25K/year. Fully loaded cost including benefits and otther administration would be close to $50K. If this robot can replace 2 shifts of workers, if it costs $100K to purchase (around the price of a Tesla), it would pay for itself in a year, assuming the operating cost is low.
A bonus feature: can travel at least 30 miles on a single charge
Few humans are willing to walk 30 miles on the job without breaks, and human breaks last longer than the 3 minutes it would take to do a battery swap on a robot.
I have a curved ultra-wide monitor, and I like the curvature
As a matter of personal interest what do you do on the monitor? I used one briefly and found it was horrible when doing anything like drawing, graphic design, photo editing, etc. It seemed to mess with the perspective.
Coding mostly, editor/IDE in the middle, debug output/IDE errors window on the right, browser window with docs on the left. With my laptop display open and used for email/Hipchat. I try to keep functions relatively short so they almost always fit within the vertical space of the monitor.
I have a curved ultra-wide monitor, and I like the curvature -- I think it looks better than the same sized flat monitor I use at work when I look to the edges of the screen.
But sit much closer to my monitor than I do to my TV.
However, if I had a 4K TV and sat close enough to it to see an advantage in 4K (4.5 - 7 feet for a 55" TV), then maybe I'd see a similar advantage with a TV.
The cheapest EC2 node has one CPU at a reserve pricing as low as $0.003 for a t2.nano instance. The exact math I used is:
(6500 * 365 * 24) * 0.003 = $170,820
I realize that a nano instances don't really have much CPU power available (they're intended to be used for bursty tasks), but Google didn't define what a "CPU hour" was, so neither did I.
Like you said, t2's aren't meant for sustained CPU use. You only get 30 minutes of full CPU use after launch, and they further limit how many t2's you can launch with the full initial CPU credit (100 per day) - so you can't just keep launching new hosts to reset the CPU balance and run out the balance for 30 minutes then relaunch. After you use up the initial credit balance, they throttle the CPU to 5% and each hour they give you another 3 credits (which will let you run at 100% cpu for 3 minutes). They've been very careful with pricing and launch limits to prevent them from being used as a cheap CPU compute farm.
Maybe Google didn't define what a "CPU hour" was, but they surely didn't mean "5% of a typical server CPU".
To get the $.003 pricing, you need to purchase a 3-year reserved instance for $69, so assuming you want to get the job done in a year, you need to purchase 6500 instances for $448,500, if you could use the full CPU. But you can't, so you'd really need almost 20 times that number.
t2's are great if you have a low CPU use case, but once your application exceeds the CPU credit balance, performance gets terrible very quickly (even getting an SSH session open can take 30 seconds on a throttled t2.nano instance), so you need good monitoring and the ability to re-launch instances if you're going to use them for anything significant.
If you were actually going to do this, you would NOT use a CPU. A data-lite computation-intensive task like this is ideal for FPGAs, where it could be massively parallelized. If you needed to run multiple MITM attacks, then you could fab some ASICs and cut the hash/joule cost much more. There is likely some NSA datacenter in Utah doing this right now.
But Google actually did it and they say they used CPU's.
if you happen to have thousands of CPU's laying around that aren't always busy, using CPU's is apparently feasible.
Well, what exactly a time unit of CPU computation means isn't defined (it's like saying "This item cost me 500 monetary units", there's no context), but if we just take it to mean a literal amount of time on any random CPU...
6,500 years of CPU time potentially costs as little as ~$171k USD at Amazon, and compute costs are continuously falling.
how did you come up with that price?
Spot pricing on a 36CPU c4.8xl is currently $0.46/hour.
Spot pricing may go lower from time to time, but on-demand pricing for the c4.8xl is $1.80hour, so $0.46 is already a significant discount. The upcoming c5 series should help with pricing.
Ok, fuck it, I am done with user friendly. This is too far. Some people deserve to be hit by cars. Instead of this, let's revise traffic laws so that cars that mow down people using smartphones aren't liable for anything. Maybe we can pay drivers who mow down smartphone users a bounty.
When did the streets *start* being user friendly to pedestrians? Pedestrians are routed blocks out of their way to get to a destination that's just across the street, when they get there they have to stop and hit the "pedestrian beg button" to beg for permission to cross the street (even if the light is already green for cars when they get there, they sitll have to sit through an entire light cycle), and then when they finally get the pedestrian walk signal, cars get a green at the same time, so the pedestrians still need to watch for and dodge cars.
Which part of that is "user friendly" to any users but drivers?
The word "unlimited" has a common, everyday meaning that is understood by nearly everyone. Advertisers should not be allowed to make up a new meaning that is basically the opposite.
Exactly, I don't see why the FTC allows carriers to advertise limited plans as "unlimited".
Let them call them "high-limit plans", like they are. They can even call it "Super-mega-ultra limit" if they want to, but letting them advertise "unlimited" plans that have limits just dilutes the word "unlimited", and it will spill over into other areas.
"Unlimited miles with every car rental! (limited to 100 miles at full speed, afterwards car will be limited to 15mph unless customer pays 25 cents/mile "full-speed" surcharge)"
"Unlimited gym visits! (limited to 4 gym uses, subsequent visits may only be to our gym store)"
"Unlimited Coffee Refills! (limited to one coffee refill, subsequent free refills will use muddy water)"
The article says that "So, it created an algorithm that eliminated left turns from drivers’ routes even if meant a longer journey", and "the company said that the total distance covered by its 96,000 trucks was reduced by 747,000km"
How did they add longer journeys and reduce distance at the same time?
Slashdot Mirror
ZFS will guard against bit rot. That's not enough. RAID isn't enough. You need redundancy outside your home or office. Cloud maybe expensive for the amount of data you have, but Amazon S3 maybe the most affordable in that range. You could get S3 for maybe $15-20 a month if you have a terabyte of data. If that's cost prohibitive, rotate external drives regularly and keep one at work. You'll lose very little data since you're archiving things.
AWS S3 pricing is $0.023/GB or $23/TB/month.
But for infrequently accessed data, AWS Glacier offers the same durability of S3 for only $0.004/GB or $4/TB/month. There's an infrequent access tier in between those two for $12.50/TB/month.
Volume discounts kick in above 50TB.
If you never want to leave your home. But why stop at that? Why not drug yourself strapped to the bed and get nutrition via IV? As long as the obese pay more for plane tickets and healthcare, I'm good.
When you leave your home, do you really want to spend that time at the grocery store? I'd rather let someone else pick and deliver my groceries so I can do the things I *want* to do.... I don't find grocery shopping to be particularly pleasant.
Chances are you don't find cooking particularly pleasant either, so dunno why you're bitching. Your pizza and sushi gets delivered to the Snowflake residence all the same.
Ahh, on the contrary, I love cooking. But when I'm cooking something special, I buy my produce at the produce market and meat at the butcher, not the overwaxed produce or yesterday's random cuts of meat at the supermarket. But for everyday staples, I just have them delivered.
Olive Garden isn't McDonald's. Although even there I expect a certain level of service. Considering the cuisine at McDonald's if I have to punch buttons on a Kiosk to get my food I'll just go home and have a Marie Callender's TV dinner. Without the service what is it really? Just some marginal food in a paper bag or on a plastic tray. Maybe this will wake the public up to they fact they're paying for garbage. I see a silver lining here.
You go to McDonalds for the *service*? I thought people only went there because it was fast.
What is it about the service at McDonalds that you find appealing? I can press "#2 Large fries, Medium Coke" in a kiosk faster than I can tell the guy behind the counter, because I don't have to wait for anyone to read it back. And I bet the kiosk won't forget to give me my cup.
If I have the choice between eating at home or eating at McDonalds, I choose eating at home every time, and not because of service.
I love grocery shopping! It's one of the few reasons to go out when you live in a small town.
A few years from now it will be like the big city where you no longer know your neighbours.
Weird, I live in a city (well, more of a large town) and I know most of my neighbors. I see many of them while we're walking to the train, I see others at local restaurants, the gym, etc. I got my most recent job through after the guy down the street introduced me to my current boss on one of our weekend bike rides.
Now I know why I live in a city if going to the grocery store is one of the few reasons to go out in a small town.
If you never want to leave your home. But why stop at that? Why not drug yourself strapped to the bed and get nutrition via IV? As long as the obese pay more for plane tickets and healthcare, I'm good.
When you leave your home, do you really want to spend that time at the grocery store? I'd rather let someone else pick and deliver my groceries so I can do the things I *want* to do.... I don't find grocery shopping to be particularly pleasant.
Delivering pre-packaged cans, bottles, and jars may indeed make sense, at some point - but I'd be leery about someone else picking my produce, eggs, perhaps even potato chips - unless there's a generous return policy.
Why do people here talk as if grocery delivery services don't already exist? I've been getting my groceries delivered for over 2 years now (and I wasn't an early-adopter), and in the rare case that I receive something damaged or otherwise unusable, I report it and they refund me, no questions asked.
And it's not like I'm a perfect grocery delivery person -- I've picked product that I later found to have a bad spot, I've dropped groceries on my way into the house, etc.
If you knew then why didn't you say? Are you just that desperate for human interaction? :P
Because that was such a minor detail in my post and seemed to trivial to include the clarification.
Is your handgun locked inside? Because that's the one criminals would actually want.
I knew someone would question that when I compared the cost of the safe to the cost of the long guns -- yes, the handgun is locked inside the same safe as the long guns. And further, when I drive it to the shooting range, it's locked in a lockbox that's bolted to the trunk of my car.
What if we aren't haters and don't hate the NRA? What if we don't have a phobia of guns? Why is this "stuff that matters"?
I don't have a "gun phobia", I own 3 - a rifle, a shotgun (which I use for hunting), and a handgun (which I use for fun -- i.e. target practice).
But I do think guns are way too easy to obtain (both legally and illegally), and gun owners should hold more responsibility for securing their weapons so they aren't stolen and resold on the black market. My gun safe cost as much as both of the long guns that are locked inside it.
Companies that sell ads sell ads. BFD.
It's not the ad sale that's the story, it's the extortion.
Do people get the right to disrupt police/FBI hacking of their devices as well? That's probably the only hackers that would actually be disrupted by this new law, since criminal hackers use someone else's computer to hack you -- if you hack back, you're only hurting some innocent third party that had *his* computer hacked.
Well, obviously, Amzaon's redundancy is either useless on non-existent, so I don't know what you think you're paying for.
There's a difference between durability and availability. I'm mostly interested in durability for objects I store in S3, but for when I care about availability, I mirror them across regions.
Amazon is not cost-competitive.
I get more value and redundancy out of spinning up dozens of 1-2 GB Digital Ocean droplets than I do with Amazon--especially now that they have their LBS service and an equivalent to EBS.
A 2GB RAM digital ocean droplet gives you 40GB of disk space for $20/month, or around 50 cents/GB. To get the same triple redundancy that S3 gives you, you're paying $1.50/GB, compared to $0.023/GB that S3 costs. Plus you've got to manage the redundancy yourself. Or, better availability, you can have S3 mirror your data between regions, and you're paying $0.046/GB.
I've done the latter -- mirrored my data between regions, so the us-east-1 outage took a single parameter change and service restart to point my app to the us-west region (it could be done automatically, but full-region outages like this are so rare, I haven't bothered)
(you could store your data on Digital Ocean LBS and pay $0.10/GB (or $0.30/GB for the same triple redundancy S3 provides).
How is it that you pay more for storage, have more hardware to manage, yet you get more value and redundancy than S3?
And the rulings, as enacted, did no such thing and did NOT protect the citizenry.
AT&T and Verizon still gave preferences to their content through their ISP connections and Google, Facebook and Twitter all block and censor content and access to webpages at their hearts desire - customers be damned.
A monopoly (or duopoly, triopoly) ISP should not be able to give preference to any of "their" content. They shouldn't control both the pipes and the content.
If you don't like Google's "censorship", then you're free to use Bing or another search engine. But if, for example, AT&T has a deal with Google, they may force you to use Google even though you'd rather use someone else -- and sometimes AT&T is your only option for ISP service due to the huge barriers to entry to becoming an ISP.
Their job description also includes knowing what to pick up with minimal instructions and an extremely low error rate, as well as where to take it and when and how to drop it off, the ability to work for up to 12 hours repeatedly and reliably, independence from wall power, and the ability to deviate from this routine where and when required in reasonable ways.
Are you describing robots or people? Sounds like a job description suitable for a mobile robot. A human worker isn't going to magically know where to pick something up or where to take it unless some central system tells him to. And a robot is equally able to follow instructions like: "Go pick up item 718281718 from bin 7891 (use your scanner to find the right item), box it and walk it over to loading dock 287 for immediate shipping. There's a liquid spill in aisle 27, find your own way around it."
Oh no! All the people whose job description is to be 6 feet tall, to lift 100 pounds, to jump 4feet into the air and to be able to travel at 9 miles per hour are no longer economically viable...
Time to upgrade that resume.
Skills: can lift up to 101 pound jump 4 feet 5 inches into the air. Can travel at 9.5 miles her hour. Will cost no more 10% of a robot doing the same thing a year. A bonus feature: can travel at least 30 miles on a single charge!
you mean, like pretty much every delivery person and warehouse worker in the country?
An Amazon warehouse worker earns around $12.50/year, or $25K/year. Fully loaded cost including benefits and otther administration would be close to $50K. If this robot can replace 2 shifts of workers, if it costs $100K to purchase (around the price of a Tesla), it would pay for itself in a year, assuming the operating cost is low.
A bonus feature: can travel at least 30 miles on a single charge
Few humans are willing to walk 30 miles on the job without breaks, and human breaks last longer than the 3 minutes it would take to do a battery swap on a robot.
I have a curved ultra-wide monitor, and I like the curvature
As a matter of personal interest what do you do on the monitor? I used one briefly and found it was horrible when doing anything like drawing, graphic design, photo editing, etc. It seemed to mess with the perspective.
Coding mostly, editor/IDE in the middle, debug output/IDE errors window on the right, browser window with docs on the left. With my laptop display open and used for email/Hipchat. I try to keep functions relatively short so they almost always fit within the vertical space of the monitor.
Ultra-wide is another retarded fad. I'd much rather get more vertical room.
That's what I used to say until I got an ultra-wide monitor at work... I liked it enough to buy one for home too.
Distance doesn't matter. It's all down to how many degrees of your vision that the screen takes up.
Isn't that dictated by distance + screen size?
I have a curved ultra-wide monitor, and I like the curvature -- I think it looks better than the same sized flat monitor I use at work when I look to the edges of the screen.
But sit much closer to my monitor than I do to my TV.
However, if I had a 4K TV and sat close enough to it to see an advantage in 4K (4.5 - 7 feet for a 55" TV), then maybe I'd see a similar advantage with a TV.
The cheapest EC2 node has one CPU at a reserve pricing as low as $0.003 for a t2.nano instance. The exact math I used is:
(6500 * 365 * 24) * 0.003 = $170,820
I realize that a nano instances don't really have much CPU power available (they're intended to be used for bursty tasks), but Google didn't define what a "CPU hour" was, so neither did I.
Like you said, t2's aren't meant for sustained CPU use. You only get 30 minutes of full CPU use after launch, and they further limit how many t2's you can launch with the full initial CPU credit (100 per day) - so you can't just keep launching new hosts to reset the CPU balance and run out the balance for 30 minutes then relaunch. After you use up the initial credit balance, they throttle the CPU to 5% and each hour they give you another 3 credits (which will let you run at 100% cpu for 3 minutes). They've been very careful with pricing and launch limits to prevent them from being used as a cheap CPU compute farm.
Maybe Google didn't define what a "CPU hour" was, but they surely didn't mean "5% of a typical server CPU".
To get the $.003 pricing, you need to purchase a 3-year reserved instance for $69, so assuming you want to get the job done in a year, you need to purchase 6500 instances for $448,500, if you could use the full CPU. But you can't, so you'd really need almost 20 times that number.
t2's are great if you have a low CPU use case, but once your application exceeds the CPU credit balance, performance gets terrible very quickly (even getting an SSH session open can take 30 seconds on a throttled t2.nano instance), so you need good monitoring and the ability to re-launch instances if you're going to use them for anything significant.
If you were actually going to do this, you would NOT use a CPU. A data-lite computation-intensive task like this is ideal for FPGAs, where it could be massively parallelized. If you needed to run multiple MITM attacks, then you could fab some ASICs and cut the hash/joule cost much more. There is likely some NSA datacenter in Utah doing this right now.
But Google actually did it and they say they used CPU's.
if you happen to have thousands of CPU's laying around that aren't always busy, using CPU's is apparently feasible.
Well, what exactly a time unit of CPU computation means isn't defined (it's like saying "This item cost me 500 monetary units", there's no context), but if we just take it to mean a literal amount of time on any random CPU...
6,500 years of CPU time potentially costs as little as ~$171k USD at Amazon, and compute costs are continuously falling.
how did you come up with that price?
Spot pricing on a 36CPU c4.8xl is currently $0.46/hour.
6500 years in hours / 36 * $0.46/hour is $728K
Spot pricing may go lower from time to time, but on-demand pricing for the c4.8xl is $1.80hour, so $0.46 is already a significant discount. The upcoming c5 series should help with pricing.
Ok, fuck it, I am done with user friendly. This is too far. Some people deserve to be hit by cars. Instead of this, let's revise traffic laws so that cars that mow down people using smartphones aren't liable for anything. Maybe we can pay drivers who mow down smartphone users a bounty.
When did the streets *start* being user friendly to pedestrians? Pedestrians are routed blocks out of their way to get to a destination that's just across the street, when they get there they have to stop and hit the "pedestrian beg button" to beg for permission to cross the street (even if the light is already green for cars when they get there, they sitll have to sit through an entire light cycle), and then when they finally get the pedestrian walk signal, cars get a green at the same time, so the pedestrians still need to watch for and dodge cars.
Which part of that is "user friendly" to any users but drivers?
The word "unlimited" has a common, everyday meaning that is understood by nearly everyone. Advertisers should not be allowed to make up a new meaning that is basically the opposite.
Exactly, I don't see why the FTC allows carriers to advertise limited plans as "unlimited".
Let them call them "high-limit plans", like they are. They can even call it "Super-mega-ultra limit" if they want to, but letting them advertise "unlimited" plans that have limits just dilutes the word "unlimited", and it will spill over into other areas.
"Unlimited miles with every car rental! (limited to 100 miles at full speed, afterwards car will be limited to 15mph unless customer pays 25 cents/mile "full-speed" surcharge)"
"Unlimited gym visits! (limited to 4 gym uses, subsequent visits may only be to our gym store)"
"Unlimited Coffee Refills! (limited to one coffee refill, subsequent free refills will use muddy water)"
Depends on whether shorter is time or distance.
The article says that "So, it created an algorithm that eliminated left turns from drivers’ routes even if meant a longer journey", and "the company said that the total distance covered by its 96,000 trucks was reduced by 747,000km"
How did they add longer journeys and reduce distance at the same time?