[gaiagraphia]

Personally, I think it's a bit scummy to expect customers to trawl through T&Cs, when the company gets to sit back and chill, while profiting from using 'unlimited' front and centre.

There's a subtle difference between using something for 5 hours per day vs causing the heat death of the unvierse.

Metred use, with all parties being informed and honest with wording, is the fair and ethical solution. I absolutely abhor how companies are allowed to change meanings of words, then run behind 'muh conditions' when they lose out on their gamble.

[louthy]

> There's a subtle difference between using something for 5 hours per day vs causing the heat death of the universe.

Replace 'heat death of the universe' with 'the available funds of the organisation'. Nobody should be so naive to think that any 'unlimited' service is unlimited in the same way as there's an unlimited set of natural-numbers, or any other mathematically pure meaning. There are plenty of words where the precise meaning isn't used any more ('myriad' is one that jumps to mind right now, nobody uses it to mean 10,000 any more).

I'm sure if there was a word that meant: "effectively unlimited for the majority, but there's a limit for the extreme outliers" I'm sure it would be used as an alternative, I don't know of one?

I agree that the absolute upper-limits should be upfront. So the local definition of 'unlimited' is clear. I believe that's what Kagi is moving toward, if I'm reading FAQ correctly.

[ipaddr]

If no one can offer unlimited then it shouldn't legally be able to make that claim. It's like putting cures cancer on your bread loaf and then changing the terms to say curing cancer means eating wheat; everyone should know it's a lie but it raises sales anyways.