> though there are a few notable exceptions (i.e. Prince)

There was an episode of "What's Happening" when Rerun gets in trouble for bootlegging a Doobie Brothers concert, does anyone remember? It aired when I was a kid and now I somehow still feel guilty when I listen to bootlegs.

I've only heard it in a gambling context which is why I was confused. I was briefly on a UK gambling platform and they referred to themselves as punters.

They should still be allowed to disconnect you or cap it if you abuse it. Businesses shouldn't be forced to put up with customers that are costing them money by being unreasonable.

The "unreasonableness" of using what you pay for.

"Unlimited" is just the plan name / description. It doesn't mean you can defy physics. You cannot have more Olive Garden breadsticks than there are atoms in the universe.

Sure, but if you advertise unlimited data and a data rate of 100mbps you should be obligated to deliver 100mbps for as long as the user continues to pay for service.

Except that I guarantee there's some fine print in the terms that says otherwise. Also, cancelling his service means he's not continuing to pay for service.

So, you are saying it is unreasonable to take a company at its word.

You are saying it is unreasonable to understand the words a company uses as having the same meaning as understood by every other speaker, writer, listener, and reader.

And you are saying it is reasonable for a company to lie, to make claims that are the opposite of the words it uses.

Yes, the company's network resources are finite, and it is reasonable to put in limits on abuse. That does not (and should not) create a license to abuse the language. There are many other words a company could HONESTLY use to describe its biggest plan that do not mean infinite when they mean finite. Any competent marketer and lawyer can find a thesaurus.

(and the same applies to "Full Self Driving", an obvious lie in it's second decade.)

It's still unlimited if they cap you, it's just slow.

The family plan is brutal. They know you can either pay the price increase or explain to 5 people why your love for them does not amount to $3.

Well, when tourism is in decline, all those clowns and fake psychics in Jackson Square still need to eat.

> that he would rather live in an underground bunker

He isn’t, never has and never will. I know some of the bunker people. They basically have them in the way you or I might have a fancy tool in the garage or piece of art. It’s a discussion piece for a different class of wealth.

That's a cute theory that it's just a conversation starter. Truth is, he knows he will need that bunker when the shit hits the fan. And it's already starting to.

I don't see the bunkers as being as useful as some might imagine them to be. In the kind of apocalyptic scenario which would actually make him want to move to the bunker in New Zealand, why would his security people bother to keep taking orders from him instead of just taking his stuff and demoting him to an advisor or maybe even killing him? I guess it's better than dying outside the bunkers, but there's a good chance that he would lose his status and live subordinate to whoever the local warlord turns out to be.

> why would his security people bother to keep taking orders from him

Shock collars / implanted brain bombs would be my evil plan, but he's got smarter people than me on this so who knows?

Yeah, I guess the practical problem with shock collars / implanted brain bombs is that you would have to somehow convince your security people to put them on or get them implanted before the apocalyptic scenario happens, which seems like a tough sell even for someone with Altman's business acumen.

Nah you just tell them it's rfid chips to get into the bunker.

do you hold Altman solely responsible for everything on earth?

No, just the things his company does.

This has already been a movie called Terminator 2: Judgment Day. Sarah Connor is out to kill Dyson to stop Skynet from becoming a thing and the audience watched it thinking she was probably justified but was uncomfortable anyway. Spoiler alert: she ended up shooting but not killing him.

My point is, we've seen this movie and killing Sam Altman is uncomfortable but justified.

It's like a baby on board bumper sticker. But for your house.

*gate. Sounds like it was thrown at his gate not his house.

That his security is inadequate.

Is the underground bunker in New Zealand ready yet? Better check on it.

Who would build a bunker on a fault line?

It's a decent trade-off. It's not like an earthquake destroys all of the entire country at once if one happens, only a localized portion is affected. It's super far from everywhere, and very beautiful. Plus, it's left off a bunch of maps, so some people don't even know it exists.