Yeah, this guy is smoking something. We've already seen the big ISPs quietly remove any promises to uphold Net Neutrality. If NN gets removed we're all going to be paying more for less, and the shitty providers like Comcast that has a monopoly in so many markets are going to jump on those price hikes.
I think the argument is that bitcoin energy demand is growing faster than clean energy solutions can provide it.
On the other hand, bitcoin's demand for energy could actually drive the entire energy market to innovate more and faster.
An increased demand on a stable supply means prices go up. If energy prices go up then corps see more profit in researching, advancing, and building out new energy production solutions. Now, not all of those solutions might be clean (though there is significant public pressure for them to be so), but, if energy demand was a flat constant then we would see far less build out of new power plants because the return on investment would not only be lower, but by increasing the supply they would actually lower the price.
Assuming that bitcoin's energy costs are unsustainable, as things currently stand, is pretty much a given.
But, technological advances in processing power and efficiency may extend the longevity of the network. Effectively we have two progressive curves working against each other: the curve that makes it harder and harder to mine new bitcoins and process transactions, and the curve of technological innovation and advancement.
There's also the possibility that before the system becomes too untenable that it is forked/transferred/reissued/whatever into a more efficient structure/algorithm while maintaining it's value and reliability. I believe we've already seen some efforts in this regard.
I like the NVidia Shield personally, it may have a TV skin to it but under the hood it's still Android and you can sideload pretty much anything you want onto it if it isn't already available in the play store. Built-in google cast support too (aka it works as a Chromecast). Built-in Plex too (without any need to be subscribed to PlexPass). Or you can install Kodi if you prefer. Only device I've found that allows digital audio passthru of DTS tracks (Chromecast will only do passthru of AC3 iirc).
Roku's a minor third party vendor in comparison, plus, I think they willingly pre-install the Amazon Prime Video/Video on Demand app.
It's a good question as to where all this actually started. Certainly one of the most visible events was when Amazon kicked both AppleTV and Chromecast products off it's store front - particularly when they forbid third party sellers from listing any such items.
My guess is that it goes back much much farther than that though. I would say that it goes back to the Amazon App Store for Android, Google Play Movie rentals, and the origin of FireOS.
If I had to guess, Amazon wanted to list their VoD app for Android on Google Play, but balked at the percentage Google insisted on taking for any in-app purchases made through their service. So they took their ball and decided to build their own court: ie the Amazon App Store for Android. Of course, there was no way for them to get their AppStore preinstalled on regular Android devices, so, they launched their own Fire line of devices running FireOS.
FireOS of course, is just a fork of Android. Heavily skinned, with Amazon branded applications pre-installed, and sold are what arguably must be a steep loss hardware wise to undercut other competitor devices. Not sure if Amazon keeps forking each new iteration of Android and reskinning it, or if they keep taking the code updates from Android and applying them piecemeal as security patches, or if they completely run their own closed source development on the OS now.
I'm not 100% sure but I don't think Google Play started offering movie rentals and purchases until after Amazon launched it's first Fire device. Google Play also sells books now too - though Google doesn't sell any dedicated e-Ink reader device yet.
Not sure if it all Disney movies have this statement on the box or not, but, you can see here on the back of Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales that the codes are explicitly not for sale or transfer. So, Disney actually does have an argument in this case: Dead Men Tell No Tales Blu-ray Cover
Fabrics are actually very difficult for robotics to deal with because it bunches, snags, etc. It's why the manufacture of clothing is still mostly done in sweatshops instead of being completely automated.
A dishwasher could be automated, but you'd be talking about having it integrated into a cabinet system and having grippers on slide tracks trying to grab non-metallic, non-magnetic plates and glasses with just the right amount of force not to break them and organize them throughout the cabinet. Any potential convenience would be grossly out weighed by the cost to develop or even manufacture and install the unit.
There is a ton of automation already out there in "low risk" environments. The average consumer doesn't see it because the cost of it limits it to factories, shipping centers, and other large facilities.
Arguably, the "high" risk nature of driving is one of the main reasons behind autonomous vehicle development. The developers believe that they can and will ultimately create self driving vehicles that are safer than the average human. And keep in mind that the average of human drivers includes those who are sleepy, sick, intoxicated, staring at their phone, road raging, etc.
Of course, the other big factor in the research and development of autonomous vehicles is the shipping industry. How much can corporations save by replacing truck drivers with computers? Computers that don't need to sleep or eat and can be on the road traveling from point A to point B 24 hours a day 7 days a week. That's the jewel at the end of their rainbow.
Unfortunately, there isn't going to be any sudden shift to fully autonomous vehicles, no matter how safe they may end up becoming. The change over is going to be long and arduous, simply because not everyone can just run out and buy a new car. Nor can most existing vehicles be easily retrofitted. I'd wager we're looking at a 30-50 year time span for the development of the vehicles and supporting infrastructure to finish and for them to trickle out through society.
There's also a large potential for fully automated vehicles to cause disruption in individual car ownership. Cars may not be something everyone owns in 20-30 years. Instead, entire fleets of automated vehicles run by Uber, Lyft, or another startup could have their services provided to individuals via subscription fees and shuttle them here, there, and everywhere all with a few smartphone swipes.
"Only one solution"? Well, you might be right about that part, but I think you're completely wrong about what that solution is. Taking away the ability to use cell phones while driving will not put an end to distracted driving. Cell phone use is only part of distracted driving.
The only real way to put an end to distracted driving, is to get rid of human drivers entirely. Once the cars drive themselves there's no human driver to get distracted.
Technology contributed to the problem of distract driving, and eventually it'll fix it too. How? By taking our steering wheels away from us with fully automated self driving vehicles.
The thing about pay phones and emergency call boxes is someone has to pay to maintain them. If pay phones aren't getting used enough to pay for their own maintenance, then, they're going to fall into disrepair until they just get flat out removed.
When it comes to emergency call boxes on the interstate, what's more logical: spending thousands of tax dollars putting in and maintaining boxes that will save the 0.01% of motorists that break down and don't have a cell phone? Or putting that money towards maintaining the actual roads and bridges?
For the motorist that doesn't want to carry a cellphone there are prepaid tracfone's they could buy and shove in their glove compartment for emergencies.
You're arguably right about the social end of things though, unless you just group up with like minded individuals or at least friends that respect your choice not to have one.
One thing he could be referring to is the idea of an automated fleet of vehicles, effectively self driving taxis, that scoffer people around on demand and on schedules and eliminate any significant need for car ownership in metropolitan areas. And do so without a significant monthly cost - ie only $50 a month for 50 hours of travel time or such.
You're probably right though in that a ride service like that will add whatever kind of micro-transactions or advertisements to their vehicles that they can get away with to make a extra buck. Anything from refreshments to movie rentals. And the government may eventually deem user-driven cars unsafe compared to their automated counterparts, especially since for a automated fleet to attain maximum efficiency it can't have manually operated vehicles in the way. That's probably a good 40-50 years out though.
The bigger problem will be surviving 40-50 years to get to that point. Society is going to get rocked by the number of people that get put out of work by self-driving semis, taxis, and other vehicles. How many more will be made redundant by then by AI and robotics is anyone's guess.
There's some startups that seek to address the splintering problem, like VRV. But, they are far from perfect as the deals they've struck with the "channel provides" don't provide access to all the content those providers offer on their dedicated services. On top of that, other than Crunchyroll (which is run by the same parent company) the channels offered aren't really mainstream ones. Funimation is in there but the content is significantly limited compared to Funimation direct.
One of the seemingly few ways not to get ripped off is to have a netflix dvd sub in addition to streaming, and a lot of patience to wait for the seasons to come out on disc. Netflix pretty much maintains a monopoly on disc rentals, except for Redbox (but Redbox's selection is vastly limited in comparison).
Actually, the Electoral College is a handcuffed and corrupt body. If the Electoral College functioned the way it was originally intended then every member of it would cast their votes as they saw fit for whichever candidate they thought was better. However, it's members have been handcuffed by a variety of state constitutions that force a state's electors to vote according to their state's majority opinion. Electors don't vote as they see fit as originally intended. The Electoral College is in no way a Representative body when members of a given state cast all their votes one direction over a 51%/49% public vote in their state. If Electoral Votes were actually representative of the popular vote in each state during the last election, then neither candidate would have received 270 votes.
Who said he isn't entitled to a fair trial? Heck, they are probably going to end up going through thousands of potential jurors to find any without preconceived outcomes in their heads, just like they had to for the Martin Shkreli trial. They'll have to fly them in from the igloos in Alaska.
If he cannot afford an attorney then the court will appoint one for him. He will get his trial and it will be as fair as the system can manage. If you have an issue with court appointed public defendants, well, maybe more money aught to be spent hiring enough of them so that they can afford to spend more than 2 hours per client and give every citizen the just representation they are entitled to.
Interesting fact though, Virginia is a Capital punishment state if the murder or attempted murder is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" against more than one person or as a part of an act of terrorism. The burden will be on law enforcement and the prosecution to gather evidence enough to convince an impartial jury of whether or not his actions were premeditated though.
Eh, regardless of the lack of actual trial verdict being passed out in the instance of James Fields, the raw amount of video evidence screams his guilt to the sky. The car didn't malfunction. There wasn't someone else driving the car. An entire crowd of people didn't just leap in front of his vehicle. He backed up to get room and then gunned it directly at the crowd with the cameras watching. It's no different than if there was clear video evidence of him pulling out and firing a shotgun.
As for Crowdfunding websites - yeah, it's their right to refuse service to anyone that violates their Terms of Service, upon which they make that judgment. It is their privately owned platform. Just like it is Twitter's right to ban any account they view as violating their ToS, or Blizzard's or any other internet company's. If people really want to support this guy for some reason, there is nothing preventing them from digging up his address on 4chan or reddit or wherever else these people hide and mailing him a check. But no corporation is obligated to provide a service to make that easier for them.
Funny thing, phone service, electrical service, etc etc are all Common Carriers and required by law to provide services to paying customers. But who is in the middle of removing Common Carrier status from Internet Service Companies? Oh that's right, Trump's stooge of a chairman at the FCC. So, if they aren't Common Carriers any more, they don't have to abide by any such rules now do they?
Free Speech and the 1st Amendment only gives people protection from the Government censoring their speech - not private corporations.
Now, if there was a law like say... Net Neutrality, for companies to hide behind and say to the public that they're required by law to provide services to paying customers regardless of content, then yeah, the company would have to continue providing those services. But, since the current FCC is in the middle of dismantling Net Neutrality companies can and will do whatever makes the most business sense for them. If Cloudflare starts losing a lot of money due to their current public statement, then, they'll most likely change their minds.
And besides, you are wrong about the 1st Amendment anyway. The 1st Amendment does not give people the freedom to yell Fire! in a crowded movie theater, and it does not protect their freedom to shout hate filled speech that encourages and rallies violence against other human beings.
The way I see this, the internet companies could be trying to trip up the FCC's current Anti-Net Neutrality stance.
Now the FCC has a choice, regulate internet service providers (and that includes hosting and domain registration providers) according to Net Neutrality guidelines, or don't.
If Net Neutrality doesn't apply, well, then internet companies are perfectly free to shut down any website they deem fit, or at least refuse to host/carry their content, their DNS registration or issue them SSL certificates or otherwise do business with them.
If you're called into a board of directors meeting with the CEO of the company, and then the CEO clears the room except for you and then says "I hope" for something, something that is explicitly in your realm of responsibility at the company to make happen, how would you take it? At a minimum I would think my job or at least any potential for a raise in the next ten years is riding on making that something happen.
Mob bosses don't run around telling their goons to go murder person x. They use colorful euphemisms on the off chance they're being recorded so that they can claim they meant something else if their statements get used against them in court.
Taken by itself, Comey's testimony isn't strong enough for an Obstruction of Justice charge. It does however show part of a disturbing pattern. Add in the non-testimonies by the other intelligence heads the day before and their refusal to definitively state that Trump did not discuss the subject with them and it points in a very distinct direction that at least warrants further investigation.
Now if the reports that Trump had similar discussions with those officials as well end up being verified...
...that self driving car technology needs to be aggressively developed and rolled out as fast as safely possible. It is next to impossible to stop people from being stupid. So take the wheel out of their hands.
...they have very little reason to care about password sharing. They explicitly sell their subscriptions based on a number of screens that can simultaneously watch content. No single person is going to watch 4 screens at the same time, so obviously Netflix already views their account subscriptions as "family" accounts, not single person accounts.
Given two hypothetical smartphones - all features identical, except:
The first phone has no headphone jack, but has a higher water proofing rating.
The second phone doesn't have as good of a water proofing rating, but has a 3mm headphone jack.
Both sell for the same price.
Which would you choose?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, this guy is smoking something. We've already seen the big ISPs quietly remove any promises to uphold Net Neutrality. If NN gets removed we're all going to be paying more for less, and the shitty providers like Comcast that has a monopoly in so many markets are going to jump on those price hikes.
Lets not forget about Comcast blocking VPNs and Lotus Notes too!
It won't be Amazon that's slow, Amazon will pay not only for speed but they'll pay to have other sites slowed.
I think the argument is that bitcoin energy demand is growing faster than clean energy solutions can provide it.
On the other hand, bitcoin's demand for energy could actually drive the entire energy market to innovate more and faster.
An increased demand on a stable supply means prices go up. If energy prices go up then corps see more profit in researching, advancing, and building out new energy production solutions. Now, not all of those solutions might be clean (though there is significant public pressure for them to be so), but, if energy demand was a flat constant then we would see far less build out of new power plants because the return on investment would not only be lower, but by increasing the supply they would actually lower the price.
Assuming that bitcoin's energy costs are unsustainable, as things currently stand, is pretty much a given.
But, technological advances in processing power and efficiency may extend the longevity of the network. Effectively we have two progressive curves working against each other: the curve that makes it harder and harder to mine new bitcoins and process transactions, and the curve of technological innovation and advancement.
There's also the possibility that before the system becomes too untenable that it is forked/transferred/reissued/whatever into a more efficient structure/algorithm while maintaining it's value and reliability. I believe we've already seen some efforts in this regard.
I like the NVidia Shield personally, it may have a TV skin to it but under the hood it's still Android and you can sideload pretty much anything you want onto it if it isn't already available in the play store. Built-in google cast support too (aka it works as a Chromecast). Built-in Plex too (without any need to be subscribed to PlexPass). Or you can install Kodi if you prefer. Only device I've found that allows digital audio passthru of DTS tracks (Chromecast will only do passthru of AC3 iirc).
Roku's a minor third party vendor in comparison, plus, I think they willingly pre-install the Amazon Prime Video/Video on Demand app.
It's a good question as to where all this actually started. Certainly one of the most visible events was when Amazon kicked both AppleTV and Chromecast products off it's store front - particularly when they forbid third party sellers from listing any such items.
My guess is that it goes back much much farther than that though. I would say that it goes back to the Amazon App Store for Android, Google Play Movie rentals, and the origin of FireOS.
If I had to guess, Amazon wanted to list their VoD app for Android on Google Play, but balked at the percentage Google insisted on taking for any in-app purchases made through their service. So they took their ball and decided to build their own court: ie the Amazon App Store for Android. Of course, there was no way for them to get their AppStore preinstalled on regular Android devices, so, they launched their own Fire line of devices running FireOS.
FireOS of course, is just a fork of Android. Heavily skinned, with Amazon branded applications pre-installed, and sold are what arguably must be a steep loss hardware wise to undercut other competitor devices. Not sure if Amazon keeps forking each new iteration of Android and reskinning it, or if they keep taking the code updates from Android and applying them piecemeal as security patches, or if they completely run their own closed source development on the OS now.
I'm not 100% sure but I don't think Google Play started offering movie rentals and purchases until after Amazon launched it's first Fire device. Google Play also sells books now too - though Google doesn't sell any dedicated e-Ink reader device yet.
Not sure if it all Disney movies have this statement on the box or not, but, you can see here on the back of Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales that the codes are explicitly not for sale or transfer. So, Disney actually does have an argument in this case:
Dead Men Tell No Tales Blu-ray Cover
Fabrics are actually very difficult for robotics to deal with because it bunches, snags, etc. It's why the manufacture of clothing is still mostly done in sweatshops instead of being completely automated.
A dishwasher could be automated, but you'd be talking about having it integrated into a cabinet system and having grippers on slide tracks trying to grab non-metallic, non-magnetic plates and glasses with just the right amount of force not to break them and organize them throughout the cabinet. Any potential convenience would be grossly out weighed by the cost to develop or even manufacture and install the unit.
There is a ton of automation already out there in "low risk" environments. The average consumer doesn't see it because the cost of it limits it to factories, shipping centers, and other large facilities.
Arguably, the "high" risk nature of driving is one of the main reasons behind autonomous vehicle development. The developers believe that they can and will ultimately create self driving vehicles that are safer than the average human. And keep in mind that the average of human drivers includes those who are sleepy, sick, intoxicated, staring at their phone, road raging, etc.
Of course, the other big factor in the research and development of autonomous vehicles is the shipping industry. How much can corporations save by replacing truck drivers with computers? Computers that don't need to sleep or eat and can be on the road traveling from point A to point B 24 hours a day 7 days a week. That's the jewel at the end of their rainbow.
Unfortunately, there isn't going to be any sudden shift to fully autonomous vehicles, no matter how safe they may end up becoming. The change over is going to be long and arduous, simply because not everyone can just run out and buy a new car. Nor can most existing vehicles be easily retrofitted. I'd wager we're looking at a 30-50 year time span for the development of the vehicles and supporting infrastructure to finish and for them to trickle out through society.
There's also a large potential for fully automated vehicles to cause disruption in individual car ownership. Cars may not be something everyone owns in 20-30 years. Instead, entire fleets of automated vehicles run by Uber, Lyft, or another startup could have their services provided to individuals via subscription fees and shuttle them here, there, and everywhere all with a few smartphone swipes.
"Only one solution"? Well, you might be right about that part, but I think you're completely wrong about what that solution is. Taking away the ability to use cell phones while driving will not put an end to distracted driving. Cell phone use is only part of distracted driving.
The only real way to put an end to distracted driving, is to get rid of human drivers entirely. Once the cars drive themselves there's no human driver to get distracted.
Technology contributed to the problem of distract driving, and eventually it'll fix it too. How? By taking our steering wheels away from us with fully automated self driving vehicles.
The thing about pay phones and emergency call boxes is someone has to pay to maintain them. If pay phones aren't getting used enough to pay for their own maintenance, then, they're going to fall into disrepair until they just get flat out removed.
When it comes to emergency call boxes on the interstate, what's more logical: spending thousands of tax dollars putting in and maintaining boxes that will save the 0.01% of motorists that break down and don't have a cell phone? Or putting that money towards maintaining the actual roads and bridges?
For the motorist that doesn't want to carry a cellphone there are prepaid tracfone's they could buy and shove in their glove compartment for emergencies.
You're arguably right about the social end of things though, unless you just group up with like minded individuals or at least friends that respect your choice not to have one.
One thing he could be referring to is the idea of an automated fleet of vehicles, effectively self driving taxis, that scoffer people around on demand and on schedules and eliminate any significant need for car ownership in metropolitan areas. And do so without a significant monthly cost - ie only $50 a month for 50 hours of travel time or such.
You're probably right though in that a ride service like that will add whatever kind of micro-transactions or advertisements to their vehicles that they can get away with to make a extra buck. Anything from refreshments to movie rentals. And the government may eventually deem user-driven cars unsafe compared to their automated counterparts, especially since for a automated fleet to attain maximum efficiency it can't have manually operated vehicles in the way. That's probably a good 40-50 years out though.
The bigger problem will be surviving 40-50 years to get to that point. Society is going to get rocked by the number of people that get put out of work by self-driving semis, taxis, and other vehicles. How many more will be made redundant by then by AI and robotics is anyone's guess.
There's some startups that seek to address the splintering problem, like VRV. But, they are far from perfect as the deals they've struck with the "channel provides" don't provide access to all the content those providers offer on their dedicated services. On top of that, other than Crunchyroll (which is run by the same parent company) the channels offered aren't really mainstream ones. Funimation is in there but the content is significantly limited compared to Funimation direct.
One of the seemingly few ways not to get ripped off is to have a netflix dvd sub in addition to streaming, and a lot of patience to wait for the seasons to come out on disc. Netflix pretty much maintains a monopoly on disc rentals, except for Redbox (but Redbox's selection is vastly limited in comparison).
Actually, the Electoral College is a handcuffed and corrupt body. If the Electoral College functioned the way it was originally intended then every member of it would cast their votes as they saw fit for whichever candidate they thought was better. However, it's members have been handcuffed by a variety of state constitutions that force a state's electors to vote according to their state's majority opinion. Electors don't vote as they see fit as originally intended. The Electoral College is in no way a Representative body when members of a given state cast all their votes one direction over a 51%/49% public vote in their state. If Electoral Votes were actually representative of the popular vote in each state during the last election, then neither candidate would have received 270 votes.
Who said he isn't entitled to a fair trial? Heck, they are probably going to end up going through thousands of potential jurors to find any without preconceived outcomes in their heads, just like they had to for the Martin Shkreli trial. They'll have to fly them in from the igloos in Alaska.
If he cannot afford an attorney then the court will appoint one for him. He will get his trial and it will be as fair as the system can manage. If you have an issue with court appointed public defendants, well, maybe more money aught to be spent hiring enough of them so that they can afford to spend more than 2 hours per client and give every citizen the just representation they are entitled to.
Interesting fact though, Virginia is a Capital punishment state if the murder or attempted murder is "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" against more than one person or as a part of an act of terrorism. The burden will be on law enforcement and the prosecution to gather evidence enough to convince an impartial jury of whether or not his actions were premeditated though.
Eh, regardless of the lack of actual trial verdict being passed out in the instance of James Fields, the raw amount of video evidence screams his guilt to the sky. The car didn't malfunction. There wasn't someone else driving the car. An entire crowd of people didn't just leap in front of his vehicle. He backed up to get room and then gunned it directly at the crowd with the cameras watching. It's no different than if there was clear video evidence of him pulling out and firing a shotgun.
As for Crowdfunding websites - yeah, it's their right to refuse service to anyone that violates their Terms of Service, upon which they make that judgment. It is their privately owned platform. Just like it is Twitter's right to ban any account they view as violating their ToS, or Blizzard's or any other internet company's. If people really want to support this guy for some reason, there is nothing preventing them from digging up his address on 4chan or reddit or wherever else these people hide and mailing him a check. But no corporation is obligated to provide a service to make that easier for them.
Funny thing, phone service, electrical service, etc etc are all Common Carriers and required by law to provide services to paying customers. But who is in the middle of removing Common Carrier status from Internet Service Companies? Oh that's right, Trump's stooge of a chairman at the FCC. So, if they aren't Common Carriers any more, they don't have to abide by any such rules now do they?
Free Speech and the 1st Amendment only gives people protection from the Government censoring their speech - not private corporations.
Now, if there was a law like say... Net Neutrality, for companies to hide behind and say to the public that they're required by law to provide services to paying customers regardless of content, then yeah, the company would have to continue providing those services. But, since the current FCC is in the middle of dismantling Net Neutrality companies can and will do whatever makes the most business sense for them. If Cloudflare starts losing a lot of money due to their current public statement, then, they'll most likely change their minds.
And besides, you are wrong about the 1st Amendment anyway. The 1st Amendment does not give people the freedom to yell Fire! in a crowded movie theater, and it does not protect their freedom to shout hate filled speech that encourages and rallies violence against other human beings.
The way I see this, the internet companies could be trying to trip up the FCC's current Anti-Net Neutrality stance.
Now the FCC has a choice, regulate internet service providers (and that includes hosting and domain registration providers) according to Net Neutrality guidelines, or don't.
If Net Neutrality doesn't apply, well, then internet companies are perfectly free to shut down any website they deem fit, or at least refuse to host/carry their content, their DNS registration or issue them SSL certificates or otherwise do business with them.
If you're called into a board of directors meeting with the CEO of the company, and then the CEO clears the room except for you and then says "I hope" for something, something that is explicitly in your realm of responsibility at the company to make happen, how would you take it? At a minimum I would think my job or at least any potential for a raise in the next ten years is riding on making that something happen.
Mob bosses don't run around telling their goons to go murder person x. They use colorful euphemisms on the off chance they're being recorded so that they can claim they meant something else if their statements get used against them in court.
Taken by itself, Comey's testimony isn't strong enough for an Obstruction of Justice charge. It does however show part of a disturbing pattern. Add in the non-testimonies by the other intelligence heads the day before and their refusal to definitively state that Trump did not discuss the subject with them and it points in a very distinct direction that at least warrants further investigation. Now if the reports that Trump had similar discussions with those officials as well end up being verified...
...that self driving car technology needs to be aggressively developed and rolled out as fast as safely possible. It is next to impossible to stop people from being stupid. So take the wheel out of their hands.
...they have very little reason to care about password sharing. They explicitly sell their subscriptions based on a number of screens that can simultaneously watch content. No single person is going to watch 4 screens at the same time, so obviously Netflix already views their account subscriptions as "family" accounts, not single person accounts.
Given two hypothetical smartphones - all features identical, except:
The first phone has no headphone jack, but has a higher water proofing rating.
The second phone doesn't have as good of a water proofing rating, but has a 3mm headphone jack.
Both sell for the same price.
Which would you choose?