sans_souse

That would have been bold

Just my observations from the Android side of things.

Just a thought I had while reading your introduction: this is applicable even to running a successful business model. I'm honestly having trouble even putting it into words, but you have my analytical mind going now at a very late hour... Thanks!

To anyone wondering this essentially turns your brake pedal into a gas-like brake pedal.

Now what I'm wondering is, can we tie this all to the brake-light brightness?

Ok, I say this tongue-in-cheek, but it's plausible and that's the point. There's a lot of wrong here in this insurance being allowed to exist, and I'd only add in along with the author's points how this "murder insurance" opens up a can of Murphy's Law that we clearly don't need right now.

  On September 25, 2010, the IP address   18.55.6.215, part of the MIT network, began   sending hundreds of PDF download requests per minute to the JSTOR website, enough to slow the site's performance.[81] This prompted a block of the IP address. In the morning, another IP address, also from within the MIT network, began sending more PDF download requests, resulting in a temporary block on the firewall level of all MIT computers in the entire 18.0.0.0/8 range. A JSTOR employee emailed MIT on September 29, 2010:

  Note that this was an extreme case. We typically suspend just one individual IP at a time and do that relatively infrequently (perhaps 6 on a busy day, from 7000+ institutional subscribers). In this case, we saw a performance hit on the live site, which I have only seen about 3 or 4 times in my 5 years here. The pattern used was to create a new session for each PDF download or every few, which was terribly efficient, but not terribly subtle. In the end, we saw over 200K sessions in one hour's time during the peak.[82]

  According to authorities, Swartz downloaded the documents through a laptop connected to a networking switch in a controlled-access wiring closet at MIT.[15][16][83][84][85] The closet's door was kept unlocked, according to press reports.[80][86][87] When it was discovered, a video camera was placed in the room to record Swartz; his computer was left untouched. The recording was stopped once Swartz was identified, but rather than pursue a civil lawsuit against him, JSTOR settled with him in June 2011; under the terms of the settlement, he surrendered the downloaded data.[88][89]

Do people really need something this extravagant not too mention ridiculous looking in order to just relate to other humans? In order to empathize? Is it so hard to "take someone's word" for how they feel, that we need to feel it too? I've never had a Kidney Stone in my life, and I'm not signing up for one because I don't need to "see it to believe it."

But if it sells I say Kudos to the creator. I'm just shocked there's a niche here.