Right? So much of this seems like people not able to tell if actions are good or bad independent of who takes the action. There’s no way their team could ever do anything bad, and anything done by the other team is automatically bad.
God forbid you try to reinforce a rare good behavior from someone who’s also done a lot of horrendous things.
Like I get it, they don’t want someone torrenting 100tb of data in a day. That bogs things down.
No, that isn’t accurate and isn’t getting it.
All the data caps today are for total cumulative quantity per billing cycle. That is not a reliable method for controlling what actually bogs things down, which is the bandwidth used at any moment (speed).
Limiting bandwidth is also done by most ISPs today, but that’s not what this is asking to change. The data caps are exclusively a way to charge more.
Shouldn’t the pipeline have failed unless the functional tests passed?
Generalizations that are oversimplified to the point of lacking all nuance are probably untrue because there are bound to be exceptions. Instead, try including ‘many’, ‘most’, or such as an easy remedy.
Specifically, landlords can create value when they handle property management and maintenance (and the related costs) efficiently. It is wrong that greed has made that so rare.
as we know bandwidth is extremely expensive
No. You very obviously don’t know how bandwidth is handled for large providers. They don’t pay per gb, and instead have peering agreements with other networks. Google generally doesn’t have to pay these other networks, as Google has the web applications that the other networks’ customers expect to be able to use.
I helped do the easy scenario at large scale in a fortune 50 several years ago after the vendor thought they could get greedy on the support contract renewal. Only required small changes to a few files and packages.