abs314159

Could you normalize at the census tract level? Better yet, assign average occupants, shoppers, cars parked, etc. to the locations at which the crime occurred.

A bigger issue is variance in less dense areas. It looks like what you're doing today is simple counts whereas for areas with lower crime rates, more history might provide a more stable crime rate. It might also be useful to weight against a demographic prediction of crime or at least average the crime rate over the period that the demographic prediction is stable.

It's more underhanded than nasty but you're absolutely right that this didn't mean what they portray and most people thought.

Regardless of whether a given user moderated his data usage voluntarily, because he was throttled, or switched plans, the vast majority of the top 5% likely leaves the pool every month. This means that six months after the change was introduced roughly one quarter subscribers will be removed.

Why would AT&T do this? To avoid the negative publicity associated with eliminating a plan so many people valued while maximizing profitability. This was quite cleverly executed: Offer cheaper limited plans to save customers money, which has the effect of offering new customers a more competitive price while existing customers will happily pay the higher price as insurance against potential overage fees. Then, by removing the highest data users, they could maximize revenue from them while continuing to collect the higher fees from the lower data users. Then once unlimited becomes a less attractive offer than the $25 plan, eliminate it to avoid revenue leakage. The strategy might not be optimal but its superior to the simpler alternatives in the short run.

Of course, the reason is works is that the majority of customers are sufficiently credulous to purchase an implicit insurance contract that AT&T never had to honor. Their actions are legally defensible since the customers did receive the uncertainty reduction in the present period but most of them likely knew they wouldn't go over and paid only for the option of maintaining that protection in a future period. That said, communication that is intentionally ambiguous so as to benefit from misunderstanding should constitute an unfair trade practice.

Disclaimer: I have no knowledge of the actual thought process behind these decisions.

I'm sympathetic to the claims presented but how can Think file suit pro se? Corporation are considered separate persons and therefore cannot be represented pro se as has been held in numerous cases (e.g. Brandstein v. White Lamps). While there are limited exceptions for administrative claims, this suit is not being filed as a continuation of the process but rather for damages created by flaws in it.

It seems that the two options are to find counsel willing to represent Think pro bono or for Aaron to re-craft this as a personal claim.

Note that I am not an attorney and this does not constitute legal advice.

We've had no luck with that approach and have tried multiple police departments to use their contacts. Unfortunately, it appears the standard answer is that what we're requesting is impossible. Since this should be technically possible my hope is that someone who both understands the technology and has access to the data could get involved.