It's physically not possible, which means there is zero chance that the T&C's you agreed to prohibit them from limiting you. They can call a plan whatever they want.

Look. I have not read all the T&C's, but there is absolutely zero chance that the T&C's do not allow for less than optimal speeds, because it is physically not possible to guarantee full speed in unlimited capacity. So, what you all have your panties in a wad about is the name of the plan. If they named it the Pigs Will Fly plan, it's not fraud just because pigs don't end up flying.

god, who cares

Unlimited bandwidth is not possible. You can make it illegal all you want. It doesn't trump physics.

1) The stats are only considering the number of subpop test takers out of all test takers. It does not say anything about those taking the course itself, as the test is often optional, and it certainly says nothing about the relative popularity of CS with the subpop.
2) Smaller schools will never offer AP CS courses. Never. The data is incredibly noisy as a result, and entire states might have zero participation from a given subpop mostly as a result of limited availability.

For example, I could get the increase celebrated in this story just by pushing teachers to require all AP CS students take the test.

Why do you keep further explaining your viewpoint unsolicited? I am not interested. It comes off as highly defensive and whiny.

They offset it by buying magic unicorn credits

This was my thought exactly. I thought it was odd that the title makes "Greenpeace" so prominent. Author (or editor) seems to think that adds credibility.

People who cannot think on a systemic level will never understand things like this. It is not an education thing; it is a problem solving thing. You either see the world as a set of systems, or you don't and can only focus on what is directly observable as consequence. You may be wasting your time.

It's pretty hilarious to watch you put me into boxes I don't belong. I could give two shits about NSA's databases and whether The Google is reading my email. I'm writing this from a Chromebook for chrissakes. I'm just pointing out that you are incredibly naive with regard to government abuses of power. But once you acknowledge that it does and will continue to happen, you still have the option of saying "who cares?"

> monopoly

You mean a monopoly where competitors can't deliver that kind of value to customers? How terrible.

> Any company willing to tell it's investors "screw you", because they are looking long-term instead of focusing only on quarterly gains, that's a company I'm willing to invest in.

They didn't have to tell investors "screw you". Their multiple is ridiculously high. Investors believe the story. This story is about some initial doubt that the long term investments pay off. Forgoing short term gain for long term benefit is a pretty typical thing (it's called CapEx), and investors get worried in times like the last 5 years when companies forgo CapEx in favor of share repurchasing and dividend increases, unless there truly is nothing better for the company to do with their cash.

Your caricature of "investors" shows a pretty naive view of what analysts and investors do. Of course they are not perfect, but outside of day traders, the kind of long term view that you imply can only be done if companies ignore investors, is very much what money managers, fund managers, analysts, and others look for. All you have left is mom and pop individual investors, who make up such a tiny percentage of the share count that companies don't care about their opinions (nor should they).

that's what happens when you don't let water cost what water costs. planting crops in arid regions wouldn't be viable if water were not subsidized. same with population explosion.

Um... have you heard of personalized learning applications?

Don't forget how you can't change anything about how the system works in a way that reduces the work of any particular role in the organization, or the relevant union will get very angry.