2706
2707

What was ruined for everybody by one person? (self.AskReddit)

Team_Rocket_Landed が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]FatPotatoNinja 3050ポイント3051ポイント  (152子コメント)

the guy who uploaded 75TB to OneDrive's 'unlimited' storage

[–]zyygh 526ポイント527ポイント  (151子コメント)

I'm always a bit pissed when this happens.

"You can use as much as you want!"

someone proceeds to use extremely much

"Well obviously we didn't mean that much!"

[–]Maraxusx 306ポイント307ポイント  (126子コメント)

75TB is somewhere past the line of reasonable storage limits though. Did anybody really think that unlimited really means infinite when talking about data storage. It's actually a physical impossibility to store infinite data.

[–]fugbrah3 7ポイント8ポイント  (4子コメント)

But where do you draw the line? They could've said 50TB. I'm pretty sure they would be someone out there with a use for 75TB. Maybe a small company or something.

[–]Supersnazz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Did anybody really think that unlimited really means infinite when talking about data storage

Yes. I cannot think of what else it could possibly mean. If 75Tb was too much then offer 30Tb, or whatever they think is reasonable.

[–]AngryCyberCriminal 265ポイント266ポイント  (111子コメント)

Then stop saying unlimited if you are going to only offer limited amounts.

[–]S3xyTrap 25ポイント26ポイント  (1子コメント)

Because it's better than saying "We offer more than average storage!"

[–]KaptainKrunch [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Dont be obstinate.

You just have to say 'We offer ____ GB of storage"

Example "We offer 2 TB of storage!"

[–]exyccc [スコア非表示]  (11子コメント)

It's very obviously limited, they're just being reasonable.

"Yo use my garden hose as much as you NEED, we are neighbors"

"Ok well I'm gonna fill the ocean thx"

"No"

[–]Dr-NguyenVanPhuoc [スコア非表示]  (9子コメント)

there's a small difference between an agreement between 2 neighbors and a legally binding agreement between a business and a consumer. few months ago everyone complained about volkswagen. "only X emissions. wait, no, we obviously didn't mean >that< low" is exactly the same thing. if a company sells something and have no intention of ever delivering, it's called fraud.

[–]Balind [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Er, no this is entirely different. The emissions thing is a government rule. This was more of an advertised "use as much as you want!", the "don't be so fucking crazy we have to change the policy as it might bankrupt us" part is implied.

They shouldn't have to say it, as it's a logical consequence of what will happen if people decide to abuse it. But sadly, some people decide to, using the reasoning you're using above. "But they said unlimited!"

Yeah, this is why we can't have nice things. Literally.

In the future read, "unlimited", as "don't be a dick amount", and you'll have a much closer understanding to how most of the world operates.

[–]Dr-NguyenVanPhuoc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

image a gigabyte of data. it's a small game, maybe a movie. not really much. few decades ago the storage of 1gb cost a fortune. the "don't be a dick" move is used by companies to get out of old contracts because they don't want to deliver anymore. if you make a legally binding contract, you have to serve what you agreed to in that document, otherwise it's fraud. furthermore "don't be a dick" is highly subjective. some people consider 10gb of data enormous. yet some project generate a couple of terabytes within minutes or even seconds. if you know what you can serve, it's not hard to put it in the contract rather than saying "unlimited" because how the fuck am i supposed to know how much you calculated?

[–]Isord [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

To put it another way, if a store in Flint had boxes of water bottles outside that said "Take what you need." and then some asshole came by and took a dozen cases than I wouldn't blame the store for changing it to "1 per family" or something.

[–]derpotologist [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

In the future read, "unlimited", as "don't be a dick amount", and you'll have a much closer understanding to how most of the world operates.

That's how it's marketed, but that's deceitful. As a business, I get why they do it... 98% of their clients won't have any issues, and if they don't say unlimited they look weaker than the competition--but I still think it's wrong.

What about those of us who actually do want unlimited amounts? We just get shit on? Keep looking for "Truly for real unlimited for people who actually want or need itTM"?

[–]telegraph_road [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Data storage is limited in itself, so no matter how much you pay an how hard the company is willing to try an hold up to their word, at some point you can abuse it so that you reach a limit. If they didn't stop at 75TB, some other genius would try to upload 75PB and complain when Microsoft would tell him to stop.

[–]Dre_PhD [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It's actually not analogous to the VW thing, and it's also not fraud. Any reasonable person would realize that unlimited data storage is impossible.

[–]Dr-NguyenVanPhuoc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

unlimited storage is possible if we create storage faster than we can generate data

[–]_procyon [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

What about unlimited bread sticks at olive garden? Should I demand an infinite supply of bread sticks for the rest of my life because I paid 12.99 for some crappy pasta?

[–]Dr-NguyenVanPhuoc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

there's no document signed which includes a legally binding agreement. if you sell me a car and say "it can go 200mph+" and it actually stops at around 100mph, you better be ready to take that piece of shit back

[–]Laundry_Hamper [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

THEN DON'T SAY UNLIMITED! The whole fucking POINT of the word UNLIMITED is to denote that there ARE NO LIMITS! If there's a point in your service past which you don't want people going, and you advertise it as unlimited, you get all the benefits of people assuming you mean the thing you've said when in actuality you don't mean the thing you said. That's a convoluted way to describe telling a lie. Unlimited means a particular thing, nowhere in any dictionary is the definition suffixed with a description of a "fair usage policy," and if you can't provide an unlimited service you shouldn't be able to use that word.

[–]qwerto14 [スコア非表示]  (20子コメント)

The only people who aren't going to take it as "practically unlimited" are pedantic assholes. An individual's first reaction to unlimited shouldn't be "Let's see if I can break that." While that's technically correct, it's just an overall shitty thing to do.

[–]Dr-NguyenVanPhuoc [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

some projects generate massive amounts of data and 75tb is a joke for some people. if you offer "unlimited" you must serve "unlimited", it's not hard to understand

[–]sicklyslick [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

There's no such thing as unlimited. Unlimited = infinite data= infinite amount of data center to store the data which means it's impossible for to physical limit.

People who actually assumed it was unlimited were morons and that one guy genuinely ruined it for all.

[–]Dr-NguyenVanPhuoc [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

there's a limiting factor, internet speed. if you use your entire bandwidth, they have enough time to increase storage capacities. that's practially unlimited for the consumer. if volkswagen announces an "absolutely emission free car" and eventually it blows a shitload of dangerous gasses into the environment while claiming "it's impossible to make zero emissions, people who believed us are just morons", everyone would be outraged. if there's a legally binding contracts, limiting an "unlimited" offer is a break of contract. if you can't deliver what you promise - and you know you can't deliver in advance - it's fraud. you're not allowed to make shit up just because it sounds better

[–]Twilightdusk [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

How did it ruin it then if it just turned an unspoken limit into an explicit one?

[–]AutismHour [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The comment you replied to explains just that.

The hard limit they set is going to be way less than what users could have previously gotten with limited abuse, rather than blatant, dickhole abuse.

[–]frogandbanjo [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

Way shittier than a corporation deliberately committing fraud against diffuse consumers with way less power and influence than them, I agree. Funny how "don't be a fucking asshole" is a one way street and the little guy is always supposed to be the bigger person.

[–]negaterer [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

What fraud? They did, literally, offer unlimited storage. Someone abused that offering, so they provided advance warning to users and changed the offering.

[–]derpotologist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Someone happened to use more data than the average bearFTFY

I know a few people legitimately using that much storage on a home NAS. Why wouldn't they want that backed up?

[–]Adulated-Aspersion [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

That isn't fraud. They still offered unlimited storage. They didn't have a cap on it. They merely changed their user agreement to prevent other people from being ridiculous. Fraud would have been if they stated it was unlimited, but capped the service.

As a side note, not all corporations are big scary meanies, and not all individuals are the innocent little guy. That is a stereotype perpetuated by weak people who have no personal power.

[–]derpotologist [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They merely changed their user agreement to prevent other people from being ridiculous.

Depending on what you do, 75TB isn't terribly ridiculous. I know a couple people that legitimately have that on a home NAS. Yeah, they're few and far between.... but it can be done. I have somewhere around 15TB of data at home, and it's growing. I just installed a home security system and as I add cameras and retention, it will grow a lot more... 4MP video a piece, 24/7. I'd love to have 30 days of retention but x 10 cameras I'm not sure I can afford it.

As a side note, not all corporations are big scary meanies, and not all individuals are the innocent little guy

Yeah, I agree fully. It tends to be that way though. Not sure if I agree with your reasoning though.

[–]Coolstudlyguy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What? They offered all the storage you could need for personal use, and this guy said "how can I take advantage of that". Idk about you but I don't like when people try to take advantage of me, so why should a corporation?

[–]felixlivesagain [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah saying unlimited storage wasn't a challenge to see if they where serious

[–]DeathByFarts [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

Oh .. fuck that.

Stop trying to a word to mean two different things.

They use "UNLIMITED" in the marketing to get the emotional response to the fact that there is no limit to the thing. Then get bitchy because someone actually uses it ?? .. No they don't get to change the meaning of the word depending on what they want it to mean.

[–]AutismHour [スコア非表示]  (6子コメント)

Unlimited = infinite data= infinite amount of data center to store the data which means it's impossible for to physical limit.

Are you saying the user legitimately thought the company had found a way to create infinite space-time?

[–]DeathByFarts [スコア非表示]  (5子コメント)

I am saying that words have meaning. You don't get to change the meaning of the word.

If you offer a connection of X speed with "unlimited" storage. I should be able to use every single bit of that connection to store data.

[–]AutismHour [スコア非表示]  (4子コメント)

Right, he was within his every right to do what he did. And he did, indeed, ruin it for everyone.

No one is debating what the word means.

We're just saying he ruined it for everyone, which he did.

[–]DeathByFarts [スコア非表示]  (3子コメント)

No one is debating what the word means.

The comment I originally replied to ( the one that started this fork ) tried to do exactly that.

From that comment ...

The only people who aren't going to take it as "practically unlimited" are pedantic assholes.

[–]atero 258ポイント259ポイント  (54子コメント)

Fuck off. Everybody knows perfectly well that the dude did not have 75TB of legitimate data be wanted to keep. He was deliberately being a dickhead. I'd be extremely surprised if you found me someone who requires that much space and doesn't already have access to cloud servers through a university or whatever.

For all intents and purposes, it was unlimited to the reasonable human being.

[–]zyygh [スコア非表示]  (21子コメント)

I'm working on a medium scale data migration project. Volume predictions are about 15TB. It's not unreasonable for me to start taking daily backups and store them in the cloud.

75TB is really not that much for a service that claims to be usable for businesses.

[–]lightgiver [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yes for business, but the product was for personal use only

[–]liamwenham [スコア非表示]  (17子コメント)

For business, sure. But I doubt there's very many personal users that need 75TB

[–]Grasswalker [スコア非表示]  (15子コメント)

Anyone who does Youtubing as a hobby can tell you this; I can have up to 10-20GB of footage per day, and that's for 1 video a day that varies between 5-30 mins.

Do that for 2 and a half years at 20GB a day and you've got 36.5TB easily.

5 years of simply having a hobby of recording videos and you have 75TB of personal data.

God forbid someone uploaded a 4-6 hour stream every day for a few months, they'd be at 75TB no problem at all.

Edit: Literally one guy asked, which means I get the greenlight to shill myself - https://www.youtube.com/c/Grasswalker

I personally just delete my masses of raw footage, but I can see someone who's sentimental and/or paranoid they might lose it storing it online.

[–]liamwenham [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

I guess, but I'd counter that if you're recording a half hour video a day for five years its not really a hobby anymore

[–]Grasswalker [スコア非表示]  (7子コメント)

You don't think people can have hobbies for 5 years? Or is it the daily part?

I played Warcraft for at least half an hour a day for like 3 years, that was definitely a hobby.

Some people run every day.

I dunno.

[–]klutch_steezy [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

yes finally someone who isn't retarded here.

[–]Dre_PhD [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Bruh if you think it's reasonable to upload 75 TB to a personal use storage cloud, you're the idiot. That guy was a dick trying to exploit the vague wording of unlimited, when he knew that it wouldn't really be unlimited. He didn't upload video files over 2 years, he uploaded 75TB in a matter of weeks to exploit the service.

[–]LimXInf [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

apparently one was enough.

[–]mikefightmaster [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I run a small production company doing video production... now that so much is being done in 4K... 75tb isn't THAT much.

I have 18TB in hard drives currently scattered around my edit station and a large amount of them are full.

[–]Sixaintnine 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

But it did not say "unlimited for the reasonable human being" it said "unlimited" as in infinite.

[–]robotiod [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They obviously didn't have the foresight to realise people would actually test how unlimited it was. They probably had calculated an average they expected to be used between all users but this average was well exceeded by the few power users that used thousands of times more storage than average expected.

They then realised it wasn't financially viable to offer unlimited storage because the average storage needed was always going to be higher than they could afford to hold. I have no doubts that they would have continued to upgrade their storage to the point where the expected average for each user was in the TBs decades down the line but by that time the power users will be uploading hundreds of PBs of data and it still wouldn't be financially viable for them.

It's a shame but sometimes you want to be able to offer a service and realise that it was an impossible service to hold together and you then need to go back on your word. The fact that one user could upload 75TB proves that they had every intention of following their word at first since there was no secret hard coded limit implemented.

[–]Coolstudlyguy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I mean that's kind of implied. They were basically like "hey were not going to be dicks about this unless you make us" and then that guy did his thing.

[–]wagedomain [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

TIL "Unlimited" and "Reasonably Limited" are synonymous.

[–]-d0ubt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not the intent of being a dick.

[–]thouhathpuncake [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Those 5TB porn megapacks have to be stored somewhere.

[–]watchfuleye [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

/r/datahoarders

[–]Ibrey [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

But they could have said "one terabyte" or a similarly finite number all along, and let that be understood as unlimited to the reasonable human being. Just like when Gmail came out offering a gigabyte (!!!) of free storage, never "unlimited," but that was unlimited as far as we were all concerned. The way some people will treat "unlimited" offers is also known perfectly well from the history of all-you-can-eat buffets, and all-you-can-download bandwidth contracts, and all-you-can-fly airline tickets, and a business like Microsoft should know better than to make such promises if they are not prepared to follow through.

[–]MkeyAllison [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It wasn't 1TB. 1TB was base free storage, then you get increments of 10TB

[–]It_Is1-24PM [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Everybody knows perfectly well that the dude did not have 75TB of legitimate data be wanted to keep. He was deliberately being a dickhead

And that is why MS cancelled this service for everyone ..? Really? Because of one guy with stuff from torrents? Sounds to me like a cheap excuse

[–]MkeyAllison [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I read somewhere that the person who helped spearhead the project was re-assigned shortly after and the new CEO was like WTF is this, we'll go bankrupt at this rate.

[–]lefixx [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Nice try telecommunication companies

[–]workwork6984 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They did exactly this. They said unlimited but they didn't say unlimited forever.

[–]dabosweeney [スコア非表示]  (12子コメント)

I like how we are blaming the company here

[–]pr109 [スコア非表示]  (10子コメント)

Because the company made a false claim, so they are to blame. But to be fair there must have been a disclaimer somewhere giving the real definition of "unlimited."

[–]Shermander [スコア非表示]  (8子コメント)

Dude do you even have 75TB worth of saved shit?

[–]supposes [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If I had unlimited storage, I would.

[–]It_Is1-24PM [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

do you even have 75TB worth of saved shit?

/r/DataHoarder

[–]Dre_PhD [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Why would you upload 75 TB of porn and illegally acquired media to a cloud service though? Cmon 😉

[–]It_Is1-24PM [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Why would I upload anything sensitive in unencrypted form to the cloud at all..?

[–]klutch_steezy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

does it matter niga , the point is the company fucked up.

[–]pr109 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I don't even have 1 TB lol but that's not the point. The company lied, which is a bad thing to do. But don't get me wrong, I'm all for business freedom and the right to make whatever choices they want.

[–]Dre_PhD [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They didn't lie, once again. There wasn't a coded in limit, like when ISPs throttle your "unlimited" data after a certain amount. He was totally allowed to upload the 75TB, so he never reached any limit. They simply changed the TOS after realizing the potential for abuse

If anyone has bad intent, it was the douche who intentionally exploited their promotion and ruined it for everyone else

[–]SpottedPaws [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I have a grand total of 1.5TB of data, and that's only if I pull everything together from the various clouds and devices. To think I considered myself to have a lot of files... lol.

[–]lynnangel [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You people are the fucking problem. Pearls before swine, as the old saying goes. A company tries to be nice and just say "Take whatever space you need" and someone of course jumps in with "You're not going to put a limit on my data? HAHAHAHA BIG MISTAKE JACKASSES HERE'S A GIANT FUCK YOU! Wooooooo! Stickin' it to the man!".

Everyone should be able to enter an agreement like this in good faith. I don't WANT companies to have to have five thousand pages of fine print just to stop every fucking asshole with their "omg false claims!!!!1!" shit from taking something clearly unreasonable. You can't wonder why companies are trying to fuck you over all the time if you're just waiting for the chance to fuck THEM over.

[–]lengau [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It seems nobody is willing to admit that perhaps there's no good guy here. Microsoft lied about "unlimited" storage, and the guy was an asshole and called their bluff.

[–]NoThanksDave [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

They did.

[–]InvadedByMoops [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Buffets are all-you-can-eat, that doesn't mean you get to set up a camp inside the restaurant and eat there for the rest of your life.

[–]SpottedPaws [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure there was an understanding or even a written clause about reasonable expectations

[–]lostmywayboston [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I'm pretty sure they did.

[–]autumnbringer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Isn't that exactly what they did?

[–]CrippledOrphans -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Fine, 74TB limit.

[–]woodyco [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

yet ISP's do this and people get pissed.

[–]madamz [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's actually a physical impossibility to store infinite data.

Yeah you'd think a tech company would know better than to offer something that is literally impossible to deliver on.

[–]exilus92 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

than why didn't they just tell people what the limit is?! For a normal user, 5TB might seem unreasonable but for video producer with 700TB of raw footage who doesn't know much about servers and data storage, 1TB is just half day of work

[–]SgtMcMuffin0 [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It doesn't matter what they meant. They said unlimited,

[–]negaterer [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It matters to users because it forced MS to change it. Everyone was able to use the "unlimited" storage no problem...people used a reasonable amount, and MS didn't bother to care whether you used 50 GB or 500 GB. User X stores 75 TB, way outside what anyone would consider reasonable for personal use, and now that offer is removed and everyone has a hard cap. Sure it "doesn't matter they said unlimited he could do it", but by doing so he destroyed the offering for everyone.

[–]__sebastien [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Look, they said unlimited. I didn't say it, nobody forced them to write "unlimited" on their contract. Unlimited means I can upload all the fuck I want.

My phone operator, they said you have 50GB of 4G data. They didn't say unlimited, yet they give you so much data that almost nobody will use all of it. It's in effect as if it was unlimited.

Microsoft could have done that. Give you say 20TB. 99% of their customers wouldn't have used it anyway.

[–]dr_rentschler [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Then why don't they say 5TB instead of "imlimited" in their advertising.

[–]GoodOldGoodOldGames [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

75TB isn't even that much to be honest.

[–]LurkerOrHydralisk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

So go the gmail route: make it a seemingly unreasonably large size. I do not know how much they offer now, but I recall when they started they offered a GB and growing, which 11ish years ago was a massive amount.

[–]FreshGroceries 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Their favorite phrase is " within reason"

Source: Worked at plenty of companies that offered " unlimited" storage .

Pro tip: never fucking trust that in companies advertising it

[–]FACE_Ghost 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not that ridiculous of a request.

Take an all you can eat Buffet. They expect you to take probably 1-2 servings per person, and people pay $15 for this all you can eat. So very likely that most people will be consciously trying to "eat their money's worth" so they will eat 2-3 servings. This stresses the system and causes the buffet company to be actively making their product better and more effective (aka more filling) so that the people can't just eat 100000 different things (I'm looking at you America)

Then you get the assholes, you get honey boo boo and her mom walk in pay $30 for the both of them... and proceed to eat an entire roast, and entire sack of potatoes worth of mashed potatoes and they eat this and that and the other thing and half the managers hand. SO yes, the sign said "all you can eat" but it just isn't a survivable business model with particularly awful customers. People don't see themselves as awful customers, but for example the 75TB dude just wanted to upload his daily stuff. 75TB is a lot of data, for example I work in IT and we have 10 TB of cloud data which we distribute to our customers so they have something to back up to. We have about 80% of our data unused and almost all of our clients use AutoCAD and/or take huge pictures. If the guy claimed he didn't know what he was doing was being abusive than he is lying.

[–]returnofdoom 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

That's like when people use the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively."

[–]speaksonlythetruth [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

It's almost like you don't realize what the definion of literally is according to the Oxford dictonary/Mirriam-Webster Dictionary/Google/etc.

literally ˈlɪt(ə)rəli/ adverb

informal

used for emphasis while not being literally true. "I have received literally thousands of letters"

[–]lostmywayboston [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It didn't use to be that definition. That one is relatively new.

Granted you can't be an asshole to people who use literally when they should have used figuratively, but there was a time not too long ago when you could.

[–]speaksonlythetruth [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, that's because the meaning of words changes grandpa. You're the one who's wrong, not everyone else. Literally now literally means figuratively.

It's like complaining that someone uses the word 'torch' instead of 'flashlight' when referring to a flashlight. Some idiot will pipe up with "OH THATS NOT A TORCH, A TORCH IS A ROD WITH SOMETHING BURNING ON THE END! WAAAAHHHHHHHHHH!" or similar and you have to just roll your eyes and try and remind yourself that even though spitting in their face and pushing them into traffic, while justified, would probably be a hassle.

[–]Walthatron 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Figuratively they would literally mean the proper way

[–]JamesMcCloud [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

People use "literally" for hyperbole. It's exaggeration. Literally still means the same thing they're just taking it to an illogical extreme for effect. It's no different from "very" or "extremely". Nobody means to say "figuratively" in that context. If I said "I could figuratively eat a million hot dogs" it would sound really stupid because it's impossible to eat that many hot dogs, of course I'm speaking figuratively. If I said "I could literally eat a million hot dogs" I would hope that you could figure out I was being hyperbolic from the context.

Long story short: NO ONE IS CHANGING THE DEFINITION OF "LITERALLY", NOR DO THEY MEAN TO SAY "FIGURATIVELY".

[–]UnidansOtherAcct [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

extremely much

[–]MY_NAME_IS_IN_CAPS [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Because there's an understood disclaimer of "within reason." It's why restaurants can kick you out of their all you can eat buffet.

Inb4 Simpsons.

[–]baccus83 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I mean me too but still... That's a fucking lot.

[–]neurorgasm [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

If I as a customer said I'm offering unlimited payment, the majority of companies would absolutely go beyond reasonable.

[–]someguy451 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

It's like saying "make yourself at home" to a guest. You usually don't want them to take it literally.

[–]LTCM1998 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But obviously when someone does this just for the fuck of it, you just ban that fucker and let it be for the rest of us. Fuck that guy and his whatever clever ideas.

[–]billbixbyakahulk [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

And as an IT person I constantly have to explain to people why I can't give them unlimited email storage even though "google can do it for free"

[–]felixlivesagain [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Well it was previously unlimited but thanks to the abusers the rest of the users are now on a limited supply of data storage

[–]spacesticks 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

bit

[–]Polite_Insults 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

Phone company said to my friend unlimited texts (he is an event coordinator) proceeds to send around 15k texts in 2 weeks. They now say within reason at the bottom of all pamphleta

[–]Googlesnarks 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

what exactly do they mean by "within reason"? it was within his reason to send 15k texts in two weeks. for his work.

[–]ccai [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

With the text messages, 7.5k/week isn't unreasonable. That works out to approximately ~2.5 text message per minute for 8 hours straight. Assuming the person is in the US, you get 'charged' for incoming and outgoing text messages - it's not that hard to reach those levels.

I sent/received over 20k SMS messages with my ex alone over a course of our first month together at a boring internship. 30k+ is not unimaginable.

Now if it was 6 figures amounts then there's some automation going on and that is definitely not "within reason".

[–]Googlesnarks [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

how do you know it isn't within someone's reason to use automated text services?

[–]ccai [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

At that point it's most likely being used maliciously to spam others. For mass advertising sms, there are dedicated services available to serve them. You do not use personal devices for that purpose.

[–]DownYourRabbitHole 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Texting doesn't cost them shit, they just realized they could charge per text and make a truckload of money.