It's ridiculous to completely disable something which helps improve safety because people make stupid decisions and choose to misuse it. People maize things all the time, often resulting in injuries or death (look at drinking and driving for an example of this).
Tesla needs to change the name of this feature as it is being taken too literally by people (even though they are told how it is intended to function and what is expected of them). Leave the feature in tact but perhaps also push a brief video which plays on that big screen of theirs which explains the feature and the risks involved in not being attentive. Lately, Telsa may wish to do something to check the driver's attentiveness at varying intervals. (kind of like how long string highways introduce curves now and then so that drivers maintain vigilance and don't get sleepy etc.
Taking away a safety feature like this would be like removing seat belts from cars because in some rare instances, a person can get injured or die as a result of wearing the seatbelt during some type of accident or because a person wore the belt incorrectly. I know people who opted to not wear seatbelt because of this very reasoning. Airbags have caused deaths due to improper use (rear facing child car seats in the front passenger side, people being too close to the steering wheel during an airbag deployment, etc. but they are still in cars and people still have the option to go against instructions and warnings by placing that child car seat in the front passenger seat.. People similarly, can still opt to take their hands off the wheel so they can read, watch movies or anything else while the car is in the "autopilot" mode but if they do, they risk the same results.. death injury or damage to property.
Let's not remove safety features because of poor choices from a couple of people..
I think that someone should come up with a catchy Pokemon style name for a character based upon Darwin. Then, we can hold the annual Pokemon Darwin awards as these fools get themselves killed chasing nothing..
I had long ago thought that Netflix should do something to allow off-hours downloading to allow people to watch these shows during their normal evening hours. This would help ease the complaints that ISP's often voiced (and took action against) around the network being overused during prime time viewing hours. If a person could queue up a few movies or shows which they wanted to watch the next day, the system could download them overnight. This would also help improve the experience for people with slower internet connections in that the show would not experience delays during playback or suffer from quality degradation as the system compensates for lower bandwidth availability etc.
I assumed the major limitation for this would be around what licensing would allow Netflix to do. There would also be hardware changes required (for storage) but that could be addressed in future hardware refreshes for devices such as Apple TV etc.
Interesting that Comcast imposes data caps and charges a pile of money for internet access, complaining that they need to do this to help manage their network infrastructure instead of investing back into infrastructure to accommodate their paying customers. Instead, they take money gained from their customers and use it to buy other companies. This is why it's so frustrating to see the FCC not push harder on these companies to prevent/remove data caps and increase bandwidth for customers, especially since the companies are doing all they can to punish customers for cord cutting. As a cable company, should they not focus on providing the best service available for their customers?
I would be all in favor of Comcast's efforts to become a content creator if they were't using their position against their customers who don't want their content via a cable subscription.
I ama cord cutting household. We have three young kids who love watching videos on YouTube. We stream our videos from providers such as Apple, HBO, PBS, etc. We aren't abusing anything, this is typical use. "Clinging" to the idea of unlimited data comes from companies selling unlimited data in the first place. If it's not unlimited, don't call it unlimited. Call it limited (which it is). They don't call it limited because in marketing, referring to it as limited data is not sexy at all.
The real question is why someone could ever pay a flat fee for an infinite resource. It was obvious that could never last.
The people that scream the loudest about it, are of course the ones abusing the system and hastening its demise...
So if it was clear that it would never last, why then did companies offer it in the first place without clearly stating that this is temporary and will go away in the near future.. We all know why..
As for abusing the system.. Again, this is BS.. My wife's AT&T unlimited data plan which was grandfathered was hobbled because she used 3 or 4 GB one month. This is hardly us abusing the system the most.. We left for T-Mobile and have been significantly happier with their offerings. Fortunately we had a choice since cellular carriers are not as bad a monopoly as high speed internet providers for homes. If there was a similar provider in areas which Comcast covers and if that provider offered similar services for less, you would see people leaving in droves. Comcast knows that no such competition exists (thanks to their bought politicians) and so they can continue to screw over people and treat them like crap with little concern of losing customers.
Hell, the reason that so many people are cutting the cord is that they want to get away from what Comcast and others force upon them with tiered pricing etc.
I would imagine that he meant that larger companies use virtual tape libraries (comprised of hard drives) or use backup systems which write to an array of hard drives instead of tape. These are great for fast backups and restoration of data. Pushing offsite via replication provides the offsite backups.
As Playboy removes nudity from its magazines, subscriptions to National Geographic suddenly skyrockets! Or for those who can't afford National Geographic, there's always the Sears catalogue.
My wife and I were on the AT&T unlimited data plan which got grandfathered once they dropped that plan. AT&T was very interested in pushing people off of that plan which they achieved by throttling people who used too much data. My wife received notice that her data was going to be throttled for the remainder of the billing period for going over around 3 GB. This happened right around when T-Mobile started their "un-carrier" plan which included unlimited data, voice and text. We left AT&T shortly after and never looked back. Thanks to AT&T's shortsighted push to get people off of their unlimited plan, we found T-Mobile which has kept improving what it offers customers (we recently visited Canada and, thanks to their new plan which was added for a few dollars, we were able to use 4G
As long as AT&T and Verizon continue to treat their customers with contempt, people will continue to leave for greener pastures.
The App developers may have good intentions around this and never contemplate using their pipeline from enduser's devices. The issue then becomes how solid they are in terms of security as this opens them up as a big target for others to compromise the user's traffic and device. This becomes a very weak point in the security walls and efforts which Apple has been building and would most certainly become a focus of parties interested in compromising iOS devices. We can't put that level of trust into just anyone who puts an ad blocker up on the App store and even if it were a well reputed company, we have seen how some companies who have this level of access to computers (anti-virus programs which install root certs) fail to be bullet proof.
IOS App store is a curated environment and everyone knows this and counts upon it to keep their devices as safe as possible. Apple identified this content blocker as a problem because of how it is structured and pulled it.This is a good thing. It's no different than Apple force disabling Adobe Flash on OS X when vulnerabilities are discovered in it (for example).
If I had purchased this blocker, I would be demanding my money back. I bought Purify and have been happy with it. Hopefully they remain true to blocking all ads and trackers. Yes it cost more but I see that as an investment in a better browsing experience on mobile.