Come one there was no coordinated attempt to cover up the health risks. If the understated the risks it was to avoid a panic. The reality is at the end of the day state and federal medicare is going to be on the hook of those health effects either way. So private insurers might get stuck with some of the bill in the mean time but for the most part these things will present as increased rates of later life illnesses like COPD and various cancers among those exposed.
I am saying don't try it yet. Wait another 10 years for the people with more money then the sense to pay for the next generation of technology before you buy it. I also think commercial enterprise needs to lead, here. The technology needs to be made to work in office buildings, hotels, golf courses etc before its scaled down for the home.
If it takes 15 years with (tax incentives which might be removed) than its a laughably stupid idea for most consumers.
If you have the upfront capital to put in the system you'd be better off buying some shares in a mutual fund today and just keep paying your current electric expenses.
If it takes 15 years to pay for itself you are then left with an asset that is at least half way though its useful life. Probably quite obsolete, with newer models offing much greater payback. You may never even realize any of the real savings if the system fails prematurely. Even if they are highly reliable in aggregate you only have one of them remember so you lack diversity.
Sorry but the risk reward is just not there. Anytime you looking at investing in any of these domestic add on technologies you need to see an projected break even of about 5 years before its a good risk as compared to most of the other options you have for your money. At 15 years if you are doing it for reasons other than wanting to virtue signal brag to your soyboi buddies at the coffee shop, than you either don't understand math, or don't understand your own motives.
Now on the other hand if you are talking about something you have to buy anyway like say a furnace (and you live in the north east) than sure investing in that 95% efficient model over the cheaper 85% might make sense even if the pay off is 10+ years because you still have the same risks with 85% model of failure etc.
I don't consider my lawn an entitlement. I live in the country too. I have a lawn but its supported entirely by rain fail, and whenever it might pull out of the ground on its own. I have well but I use it for drinking bathing and the occasional washing of things but not for watering a lawn.
I have been known to water the vegetable garden when the plants are small and in hot months. Water is plentiful here; so is wood for heating. I have moved before and I would move again if those things changed, and the change appeared to be on going trend.
At the micro economic level it certainly existed. It was not however a political/societal organizing principle before smith. Most economies were quite closer to command economies than free markets. Sure they may not have been micromanaged to the degree 20th century Soviet style communism tried but you grew the crop the Duke, Earl or Viscount of wherever said to grow. If you were a merchant you played mostly by their rules or moved on; I am not talking about what we think of as regulations and standards in modern times either I am talking about things like price controls, being common.
Even early American elected governments (prior to independence) commonly fixed prices; they had price books for everything right down to what an Inn might charge for bed with or without clean sheets.
Calling our current economic system "late capitalism" suggests that, despite our gleaming buzzwords and technologies
So he decries the use of buzzwords and than invokes the buzzy "late stage"
Look there is no reason at all to think we are in "late stage" capitalism. Capitalism as Adam Smith defines it has only really been tried in the 19th and 20th centuries and the societies that embraced it are still existent. We don't know where this road ends or if it ends.
All Leary's argument unless the book actually bears little relation to the summary (highly possible this is slashdot) shows is his imagination is as manacled by language as are those he is complaining about. Other than his captors chose neo-marxist handcuffs rather than neo-capitalist ones. Either way if he is right its by accident rather than insight.
So what was once a green and fertile area has since become a desert. Tough luck, eh?
Yes I guess so but look, you have had LOTS of warning it was time to move on. Maybe after the third time you had to dig the well deeper that should have been a clue that things are not going your way there and its time sell off the cattle and pack your things.
Where do you get this idea of entitlement from that rest of use should enable you to maintain a dairy in what is becoming a desert?
they're gonna blame the people there for not doing anything about it, never mind that most of those cities are relatively poor and even the big ones have a small number of well to do with the rest pretty much dirt poor.
Phoenix, Vegas, Albuquerque, SLC, etc have plenty capital resources to start addressing the problem they choose to use those resources other ways. As for many of those other cities they need to STOP building. Sorry but they are as we type here aggressiveness developing real estate toward more water intensive use and higher population while the supply dries up before their very eyes. Then after lining their pockets even the poor folk as their modest homes increase in value and they use home equity as an ATM machine. They expect you and I to then fund some HARP like program and solve their water problem when the crisis of their own make finally hits; but they will be keeping their fancy SUV, and other toys they bought.
They also need to price water for agricultural use differently so as begin to dissuade people from growing rice and fruit in the dessert. I did not hear any of them asking what they could do help out the less productive (shorter growing season) but sustainable farmers they were displacing from the markets in the North and back East.
Sorry but nope - I will have ZERO interest in helping them and do everything I can to prevent it politically. Screw them they are doing this to themselves. Its EXACTLY like New Orleans; they KNEW those levies were inadequate for a decade or more, and they chose to spend the cities money on all kinds of other things before taking steps to insure their own survival; than they wanted the rest of us to bail them out. I am all for helping people who are real victims but I draw the line at people who wilful ignored trouble heading their way until they were unable to help themselves.
50K a year isn't a lot anyway but its not awful in large parts of the county either; especially if you get to use someone else's vehicle and presumably fuel to commute to work.
That should put roof over you head and food on the table anyway.
Moving is expensive when you're an adult with a 20 years worth of "things." If you just graduating high school and there are not jobs in your community town - moving is dirt cheap load your crap into the car and go some places where you can get hired.
because landfill space is actually quite limited and expensive. Modern landfills are NOT just a big pits you know. They are lined so the stuff that is decomposing does not go directly into the water table and elsewhere. That process is expensive. Things that don't degrade cause the landfill to fill faster.
The solution to recycling plastic is DON'T The solution to plastic in landfils and our oceans is don't put it there.
The right answer is to collect it! Use a deposit to get people to actually return it. Once returned burn it in a waste to energy facility, with proper high temperature combustion and flue-gas remediation its not going to be a whole lot worse than oil plants and probably still cleaner than a coal plant.
It gets rid of the waste and produces useful electricity. Now I am not saying do this to the exclusion of other activities to address the waste plastics challenge; certainly we can look to using other more renewable, better biodegradable materials for things like packaging, food and beverage transport etc. We are not going to replace plastics though because there are a lot of applications where they are really really ideally suited.
Right so put the choice in the hands of the consumer. Take away the price discrimination like my and parent poster are arguing. Let people choose. Let insurances decide to raise your individuals rates or not based on the non-emergency care choices you make. If you have a habit of consistently selecting more expensive providers for non-emergency but still insurable events (like a cancer diagnosis) they can raise your rates.
So rather than thousands of pages of new regulations we could have just enacted the following:
1) All compensation for employment shall be taxed as regular income
2) A medical insurer may only set prices based on individual underwriting, covered services, and size of deductible; they are forbidden to offer rate variances or discounted based on the insured association with any third party such as employment by a business, membership in religious organization, etc.
3) Non-cosmetic medical expenses including medical insurance my be deducted from individual income on individual returns. Keep your receipts if your costs exceed the standard deduction itemize!
That could have been the entirety of the ACA and it would (in time) have done more to straiten out the idiocy of the current market place than the ACA has.
It might be that those companies are simply dipping their fingers into every honey jar. Build a complex in Sweden where you can take advantage of the tax situation, public education etc..then drive a ton of revenue from the American market where you can charge whatever you want to large pool of patients outside medicare etc.
The geographic location the research is done does not change where the revenue to support it ultimately comes from and that is mostly from America and other countries where price controls are largely absent.
A thousand times this. The current system is crazy because despite the lefts lies there really is competition in medical care. If there was not the phrase "In Network" would be foreign to everyone; and its not.
Right now Hospital Systems and Doctors offices negotiate rates with insurers and either accept those rates and become part of the network or decide they can't accept those rates and don't participate in that network. This why you with BCBS insurance go to one Doctor and your Neighbor with Cigna sees another often a few doors away sees another.
The providers bill at some insane rate that nobody realistically pays. $180 for a 20min office visit, $80 for a single aspirin tablet etc. They bill the insurer who basically short pays them according to their negotiates rates, which might end up being $80, and $3 for those particular services. Notice the spread is absolutely huge and it does not matter if Provider A charges 180 and Provider B prices that office visit at 150. Both are getting paid the insurers rates of $80 or they forgo that group of customers. So as a consumer today I frankly don't care about my providers price book. It does not impact what my out of pocket cost will be and it really does not even impact what my insurer will end up paying either.
Now the real game comes in with all the uninsured or underinsured patients (people who need/want services not covered). See this people will get issued a giant personal bankrupting bill. They will be refereed to some third party who negotiates actual payments for the provider. That group will do some kind of income/hardship analysis and ultimately charge the patient the maximum they can actually pay and avoid a bankruptcy (where they might be permitted to default). -Or- in the case the person actually is monied they simply pay up and the provider makes some phat margin.
So what we really need to do is make Providers publish a single price book and charge those prices to everyone. Let them update it weekly or something. This way insurers would only be administrative overhead. That is their administrative costs would add to their total outlay. This would allow/force providers to actually compete on price and for the majority of services that works. For the ambulance ride case - perhaps not - but that is where insurance actually comes into play. See once insurance is all overhead than it only makes sense to be filing claims for surprise events. You would not file a claim to your insurer to cover a basic office visit / checkup. You would for your auto accident or heart attack or cancer diagnosis. Insurers could sensibly do things like offer life style discounts. Get regular checkups and don't smoke you get discounts; but if you have that heart attack and we did your blood work and find out you have been smoking well we can deny your claim.
I agree the 5-7 sentence thing is news to me as well but there are and should be some rules for paragraphing. For example a single sentence would make a poor paragraph Generally paragraphs should have their own sort of introduction, body, and conclusion. What is the basic idea being proffered, supporting details or thoughts, and a summary to cement it. So I would say a paragraph will need at least three or four sentences. If you don't have four sentences chances are good the concept isnt really deserving of its own paragraph and would be better offered as support in some other paragraph body.
These writing rules make good rough guides for beginners. Its often unclear to them what good organization structure look like. Working inside a basic template gives them targets to aim at. It provides some indicators they can use to decide maybe this isn't organized well. As often forcing ideas onto that template creates a tortured text it forces the deliberate organization of thoughts where you'd otherwise end up with stream of conscience.
I live in a rural county (western edge of Virginia) and you most certainly can not get uncapped cell service. Maybe your friend is on some kind of grandfathered plan? VZW won't sell you unlimited on their home broadband without significant contractual engineering. Its not even a choice; they don't sell it. The best you can do and i don't even know you can do this today; is get them to class their cantenna solution as a companion device on the "old" unlimited plan for a handset (which costs more than the new plans) and requires you to have handset with a line on that plan.
Last time I went to get a new handset and keep my (current plan) the girl at the store said I was 'lucky' to have that home broadband on the old unlimited plan and that there was no way I could get anything close on the new plans in terms of cost and quantity of transfer. Did not explore that further for what its worth.
AT&T won't even sell home broadband in my area. It is possibly with VZW by paying way more to buy 30 or 60 gig plans + overages for the home broadband solution. You can get unlimited plans on mifi's but they actually assign those different frequencies and I got one for a month to determine what the store girl said was true that the performance would be "comparatively abysmal" (her words). Throughput on the cantenna is more than double.
But yes I understand the bandwidth is limited on share media and they need to incentivize use patterns. I come back to 5G not really being a solution though. It might help in big cities where congestion is major problem; but it won't help in cattle country and or the hills where smaller cells don't make sense. Most folks though can just wait until there are somewhere with good wifi to do their bulk transfers though if they live in a city.
Then you don't need the extra speed either. So you restrict video to 720p than 4g is more than fast enough to deliver it in real time. Same for web pages your mobile only has so much ram anyway you can only put so much on a single page before its basically unusable. We are talking about partial seconds here in improving loading time of your typical page; unless is really really big; and that is assuming the bottle necks are client side.
If you fast speed does not make you use more total data I really question the need for the greater speed in the first place. Yes there are cases where say being able to download video much faster than real time could be useful -grabbing a movie right before you board or a flight for example. I am not saying there is no value proposition here but I am suggesting its well into the diminishing returns zone for most people as its offered today. I just don't see much to gain from greater speed without greater caps.
4G if the cell size isnt overly huge or overly crowded can deliver pretty good speeds 6Mbit or as deployed by the carriers.
Right now even the unlimited plans cap you around 20Gigs and despite what VZW's marketing materials say trying to actually get an unlimited plan on a their home broad band solutions are nearly impossible; the best you can really get is like 15GB and than throttle; and that by the way is only even when its a laughably characterized as companion device to handset on an unlimited plan. Its damn near a bait an switch to get you in the store as near as I can tell.
So 5G will be fast okay; what good is that if you get throttled down after 20Gigs, I can't imagine very many application / situations where burning thru your monthly cap in 10min is useful service. Maybe some remote monitoring station needs to do a bulk data upload once month some place but that is about it. For basically every other customer use case more speed means higher caps have to come with it or its not practical.
Oh and of course 5G cells are tiny by comparison so it more or less means 5G service will only be available in densely populated places where there is probably ground based network and wifi available any way. So I am still wondering who is this for?
Incidents like these translate directly into reduced sales
No they really don't. Security conscious types were never going to get an always on voice assistant. Its also not very likely to make anyone stop using amazon because honestly there isn't a replacement for Amazon.com (in terms of being one stop shopping for ANYTHING); certainly not for Prime. Its not going to make your company not choose AWS either.
Look at facebook! How many privacy incidents have they had, how much negative press, and yet #DELETEfacebook went basically nowhere. Same is true all be it to lessor extent with Google, yet anything not iOS or Android remains an also ran, basically everyone still uses their search, and GMail remains near the top of the heap too.. These tech giants are not in the same class as your dentist.
Slashdot Mirror
Come one there was no coordinated attempt to cover up the health risks. If the understated the risks it was to avoid a panic. The reality is at the end of the day state and federal medicare is going to be on the hook of those health effects either way. So private insurers might get stuck with some of the bill in the mean time but for the most part these things will present as increased rates of later life illnesses like COPD and various cancers among those exposed.
I mean at this point there have been so many other major breaches Its hard to imagine to much of real interesting being there.
I am saying don't try it yet. Wait another 10 years for the people with more money then the sense to pay for the next generation of technology before you buy it. I also think commercial enterprise needs to lead, here. The technology needs to be made to work in office buildings, hotels, golf courses etc before its scaled down for the home.
If it takes 15 years with (tax incentives which might be removed) than its a laughably stupid idea for most consumers.
If you have the upfront capital to put in the system you'd be better off buying some shares in a mutual fund today and just keep paying your current electric expenses.
If it takes 15 years to pay for itself you are then left with an asset that is at least half way though its useful life. Probably quite obsolete, with newer models offing much greater payback. You may never even realize any of the real savings if the system fails prematurely. Even if they are highly reliable in aggregate you only have one of them remember so you lack diversity.
Sorry but the risk reward is just not there. Anytime you looking at investing in any of these domestic add on technologies you need to see an projected break even of about 5 years before its a good risk as compared to most of the other options you have for your money. At 15 years if you are doing it for reasons other than wanting to virtue signal brag to your soyboi buddies at the coffee shop, than you either don't understand math, or don't understand your own motives.
Now on the other hand if you are talking about something you have to buy anyway like say a furnace (and you live in the north east) than sure investing in that 95% efficient model over the cheaper 85% might make sense even if the pay off is 10+ years because you still have the same risks with 85% model of failure etc.
I don't consider my lawn an entitlement. I live in the country too. I have a lawn but its supported entirely by rain fail, and whenever it might pull out of the ground on its own. I have well but I use it for drinking bathing and the occasional washing of things but not for watering a lawn.
I have been known to water the vegetable garden when the plants are small and in hot months. Water is plentiful here; so is wood for heating. I have moved before and I would move again if those things changed, and the change appeared to be on going trend.
At the micro economic level it certainly existed. It was not however a political/societal organizing principle before smith. Most economies were quite closer to command economies than free markets. Sure they may not have been micromanaged to the degree 20th century Soviet style communism tried but you grew the crop the Duke, Earl or Viscount of wherever said to grow. If you were a merchant you played mostly by their rules or moved on; I am not talking about what we think of as regulations and standards in modern times either I am talking about things like price controls, being common.
Even early American elected governments (prior to independence) commonly fixed prices; they had price books for everything right down to what an Inn might charge for bed with or without clean sheets.
Calling our current economic system "late capitalism" suggests that, despite our gleaming buzzwords and technologies
So he decries the use of buzzwords and than invokes the buzzy "late stage"
Look there is no reason at all to think we are in "late stage" capitalism. Capitalism as Adam Smith defines it has only really been tried in the 19th and 20th centuries and the societies that embraced it are still existent. We don't know where this road ends or if it ends.
All Leary's argument unless the book actually bears little relation to the summary (highly possible this is slashdot) shows is his imagination is as manacled by language as are those he is complaining about. Other than his captors chose neo-marxist handcuffs rather than neo-capitalist ones. Either way if he is right its by accident rather than insight.
So what was once a green and fertile area has since become a desert. Tough luck, eh?
Yes I guess so but look, you have had LOTS of warning it was time to move on. Maybe after the third time you had to dig the well deeper that should have been a clue that things are not going your way there and its time sell off the cattle and pack your things.
Where do you get this idea of entitlement from that rest of use should enable you to maintain a dairy in what is becoming a desert?
they're gonna blame the people there for not doing anything about it, never mind that most of those cities are relatively poor and even the big ones have a small number of well to do with the rest pretty much dirt poor.
Phoenix, Vegas, Albuquerque, SLC, etc have plenty capital resources to start addressing the problem they choose to use those resources other ways. As for many of those other cities they need to STOP building. Sorry but they are as we type here aggressiveness developing real estate toward more water intensive use and higher population while the supply dries up before their very eyes. Then after lining their pockets even the poor folk as their modest homes increase in value and they use home equity as an ATM machine. They expect you and I to then fund some HARP like program and solve their water problem when the crisis of their own make finally hits; but they will be keeping their fancy SUV, and other toys they bought.
They also need to price water for agricultural use differently so as begin to dissuade people from growing rice and fruit in the dessert. I did not hear any of them asking what they could do help out the less productive (shorter growing season) but sustainable farmers they were displacing from the markets in the North and back East.
Sorry but nope - I will have ZERO interest in helping them and do everything I can to prevent it politically. Screw them they are doing this to themselves. Its EXACTLY like New Orleans; they KNEW those levies were inadequate for a decade or more, and they chose to spend the cities money on all kinds of other things before taking steps to insure their own survival; than they wanted the rest of us to bail them out. I am all for helping people who are real victims but I draw the line at people who wilful ignored trouble heading their way until they were unable to help themselves.
50K a year isn't a lot anyway but its not awful in large parts of the county either; especially if you get to use someone else's vehicle and presumably fuel to commute to work.
That should put roof over you head and food on the table anyway.
Moving is expensive when you're an adult with a 20 years worth of "things." If you just graduating high school and there are not jobs in your community town - moving is dirt cheap load your crap into the car and go some places where you can get hired.
because landfill space is actually quite limited and expensive. Modern landfills are NOT just a big pits you know. They are lined so the stuff that is decomposing does not go directly into the water table and elsewhere. That process is expensive. Things that don't degrade cause the landfill to fill faster.
The solution to recycling plastic is DON'T
The solution to plastic in landfils and our oceans is don't put it there.
The right answer is to collect it! Use a deposit to get people to actually return it. Once returned burn it in a waste to energy facility, with proper high temperature combustion and flue-gas remediation its not going to be a whole lot worse than oil plants and probably still cleaner than a coal plant.
It gets rid of the waste and produces useful electricity. Now I am not saying do this to the exclusion of other activities to address the waste plastics challenge; certainly we can look to using other more renewable, better biodegradable materials for things like packaging, food and beverage transport etc. We are not going to replace plastics though because there are a lot of applications where they are really really ideally suited.
Right so put the choice in the hands of the consumer. Take away the price discrimination like my and parent poster are arguing. Let people choose. Let insurances decide to raise your individuals rates or not based on the non-emergency care choices you make. If you have a habit of consistently selecting more expensive providers for non-emergency but still insurable events (like a cancer diagnosis) they can raise your rates.
So rather than thousands of pages of new regulations we could have just enacted the following:
1) All compensation for employment shall be taxed as regular income
2) A medical insurer may only set prices based on individual underwriting, covered services, and size of deductible; they are forbidden to offer rate variances or discounted based on the insured association with any third party such as employment by a business, membership in religious organization, etc.
3) Non-cosmetic medical expenses including medical insurance my be deducted from individual income on individual returns. Keep your receipts if your costs exceed the standard deduction itemize!
That could have been the entirety of the ACA and it would (in time) have done more to straiten out the idiocy of the current market place than the ACA has.
Yes but being profitable on exiting lines vs generating enough margin to support blue sky research that often does not pay off is not the same.
It might be that those companies are simply dipping their fingers into every honey jar. Build a complex in Sweden where you can take advantage of the tax situation, public education etc..then drive a ton of revenue from the American market where you can charge whatever you want to large pool of patients outside medicare etc.
The geographic location the research is done does not change where the revenue to support it ultimately comes from and that is mostly from America and other countries where price controls are largely absent.
^^^This^^^
A thousand times this. The current system is crazy because despite the lefts lies there really is competition in medical care. If there was not the phrase "In Network" would be foreign to everyone; and its not.
Right now Hospital Systems and Doctors offices negotiate rates with insurers and either accept those rates and become part of the network or decide they can't accept those rates and don't participate in that network. This why you with BCBS insurance go to one Doctor and your Neighbor with Cigna sees another often a few doors away sees another.
The providers bill at some insane rate that nobody realistically pays. $180 for a 20min office visit, $80 for a single aspirin tablet etc. They bill the insurer who basically short pays them according to their negotiates rates, which might end up being $80, and $3 for those particular services. Notice the spread is absolutely huge and it does not matter if Provider A charges 180 and Provider B prices that office visit at 150. Both are getting paid the insurers rates of $80 or they forgo that group of customers. So as a consumer today I frankly don't care about my providers price book. It does not impact what my out of pocket cost will be and it really does not even impact what my insurer will end up paying either.
Now the real game comes in with all the uninsured or underinsured patients (people who need/want services not covered). See this people will get issued a giant personal bankrupting bill. They will be refereed to some third party who negotiates actual payments for the provider. That group will do some kind of income/hardship analysis and ultimately charge the patient the maximum they can actually pay and avoid a bankruptcy (where they might be permitted to default). -Or- in the case the person actually is monied they simply pay up and the provider makes some phat margin.
So what we really need to do is make Providers publish a single price book and charge those prices to everyone. Let them update it weekly or something. This way insurers would only be administrative overhead. That is their administrative costs would add to their total outlay. This would allow/force providers to actually compete on price and for the majority of services that works. For the ambulance ride case - perhaps not - but that is where insurance actually comes into play. See once insurance is all overhead than it only makes sense to be filing claims for surprise events. You would not file a claim to your insurer to cover a basic office visit / checkup. You would for your auto accident or heart attack or cancer diagnosis. Insurers could sensibly do things like offer life style discounts. Get regular checkups and don't smoke you get discounts; but if you have that heart attack and we did your blood work and find out you have been smoking well we can deny your claim.
I agree the 5-7 sentence thing is news to me as well but there are and should be some rules for paragraphing. For example a single sentence would make a poor paragraph Generally paragraphs should have their own sort of introduction, body, and conclusion. What is the basic idea being proffered, supporting details or thoughts, and a summary to cement it. So I would say a paragraph will need at least three or four sentences. If you don't have four sentences chances are good the concept isnt really deserving of its own paragraph and would be better offered as support in some other paragraph body.
These writing rules make good rough guides for beginners. Its often unclear to them what good organization structure look like. Working inside a basic template gives them targets to aim at. It provides some indicators they can use to decide maybe this isn't organized well. As often forcing ideas onto that template creates a tortured text it forces the deliberate organization of thoughts where you'd otherwise end up with stream of conscience.
Come on neither of those are similar to "WebOOB" in that in both of your examples there is no word joob, dJoob and WetB isn't a word either.
I live in a rural county (western edge of Virginia) and you most certainly can not get uncapped cell service. Maybe your friend is on some kind of grandfathered plan? VZW won't sell you unlimited on their home broadband without significant contractual engineering. Its not even a choice; they don't sell it. The best you can do and i don't even know you can do this today; is get them to class their cantenna solution as a companion device on the "old" unlimited plan for a handset (which costs more than the new plans) and requires you to have handset with a line on that plan.
Last time I went to get a new handset and keep my (current plan) the girl at the store said I was 'lucky' to have that home broadband on the old unlimited plan and that there was no way I could get anything close on the new plans in terms of cost and quantity of transfer. Did not explore that further for what its worth.
AT&T won't even sell home broadband in my area. It is possibly with VZW by paying way more to buy 30 or 60 gig plans + overages for the home broadband solution. You can get unlimited plans on mifi's but they actually assign those different frequencies and I got one for a month to determine what the store girl said was true that the performance would be "comparatively abysmal" (her words). Throughput on the cantenna is more than double.
But yes I understand the bandwidth is limited on share media and they need to incentivize use patterns. I come back to 5G not really being a solution though. It might help in big cities where congestion is major problem; but it won't help in cattle country and or the hills where smaller cells don't make sense. Most folks though can just wait until there are somewhere with good wifi to do their bulk transfers though if they live in a city.
Then you don't need the extra speed either. So you restrict video to 720p than 4g is more than fast enough to deliver it in real time. Same for web pages your mobile only has so much ram anyway you can only put so much on a single page before its basically unusable. We are talking about partial seconds here in improving loading time of your typical page; unless is really really big; and that is assuming the bottle necks are client side.
If you fast speed does not make you use more total data I really question the need for the greater speed in the first place. Yes there are cases where say being able to download video much faster than real time could be useful -grabbing a movie right before you board or a flight for example. I am not saying there is no value proposition here but I am suggesting its well into the diminishing returns zone for most people as its offered today. I just don't see much to gain from greater speed without greater caps.
Um no "Web-Oh-Oh-Bee" is perfectly fine. The name is only juvenile of you yourself are a child and decide to pronounce it a different way.
4G if the cell size isnt overly huge or overly crowded can deliver pretty good speeds 6Mbit or as deployed by the carriers.
Right now even the unlimited plans cap you around 20Gigs and despite what VZW's marketing materials say trying to actually get an unlimited plan on a their home broad band solutions are nearly impossible; the best you can really get is like 15GB and than throttle; and that by the way is only even when its a laughably characterized as companion device to handset on an unlimited plan. Its damn near a bait an switch to get you in the store as near as I can tell.
So 5G will be fast okay; what good is that if you get throttled down after 20Gigs, I can't imagine very many application / situations where burning thru your monthly cap in 10min is useful service. Maybe some remote monitoring station needs to do a bulk data upload once month some place but that is about it. For basically every other customer use case more speed means higher caps have to come with it or its not practical.
Oh and of course 5G cells are tiny by comparison so it more or less means 5G service will only be available in densely populated places where there is probably ground based network and wifi available any way. So I am still wondering who is this for?
Incidents like these translate directly into reduced sales
No they really don't. Security conscious types were never going to get an always on voice assistant. Its also not very likely to make anyone stop using amazon because honestly there isn't a replacement for Amazon.com (in terms of being one stop shopping for ANYTHING); certainly not for Prime. Its not going to make your company not choose AWS either.
Look at facebook! How many privacy incidents have they had, how much negative press, and yet #DELETEfacebook went basically nowhere. Same is true all be it to lessor extent with Google, yet anything not iOS or Android remains an also ran, basically everyone still uses their search, and GMail remains near the top of the heap too.. These tech giants are not in the same class as your dentist.