not silly if they have confidence that they will live in the place long enough to get paid back (and more). shortsighted to think otherwise.
I've renovated kitchens in apartments Ive lived in with coordination with the landlord (when I had confidence that I was going to be there 3+ years, with likelihood of 5+) as the $10k or so it cost me when amortized over a 36 month period came out to a few hundred a year, and finding an equivalent place with such a kitchen would have cost me significantly more in the area.
While I can't say its universally true (many landlords are just as shortsighted as renters), good landlords will be happy to give certainty to good tenants who want to take care and improve their unit in manner that the landlord is happy with.
I had an apartment in NYC that over a 10+ year period my landlord never raised my rent, because I never complained, paid my rent on time and took care of the place in a manner that enabled him to rent it for even more than he could have otherwise after I moved out. Part of this is NYC rules (rent stabilization and other rent rules would have controlled how much he could have raised it anyways and also provided me certainty), but also partly that good tenants are worth their weight in gold.
It's quite common for utilities like water and gas to be shared, where the renter is billed proportionally to the usage of the entire block/rental complex.
Plus, people generally aren't doing chores or using appliances unnecessarily. That means it's difficult to find ways to save meaningful amounts of energy other than adjusting the thermostat. Most household energy use outside heating /cooling comes from the appliances they can't upgrade, so the alternatives are quality of life issues like fewer showers and less laundry.
And the US would be right to prosecute Microsoft because there are US sanctions against Iran. There are no US sanctions against Israel. Israel is also considered and important ally. So, industry cooperation with defense on both sides is legal.
This is the current conundrum. It’s perfectly legal (and politically recommended) to support this genocidal regime in the name of some guy who lived and died 2000 years ago. Can’t have the dark skinned terrorists perform their cult like rituals on the floor of their beloved sacred holy sites (shared by all three might I add).
It’s faith-based warfare disguised as a terrorist fight and the AI is in full force flooding feeds of aid when the reality is it’s a god damn wasteland.
That’s a nice story spun by the lobbyists in the US and Europe (if there is such a thing in Europe). But said person 2000 years ago was crucified by the Romans at the request of the Jews.
There are Jews of every color - so feeding this as a white vs brown fight is incorrect.
I don’t belong to (nor believe) in any of the 3 religions in this fight. But historically the other two (Christians and Muslims) have been very genocidal.
He himself was a Jew. Doesn’t mean they aren’t shielding behind this being some holy crusade to rid the world of evil hamas.
The whole situation is so fucked no one wants to touch it. Netanwacko is even asking for a pardon for his crimes. Like everyone took DMT and no one cares.
Well in this case the executive branch isn't even following congressionally appropriations, so one could argue that this particular shut down is more caused by the president than any other in history.
AFAIK this kind of situation is a result of a novel interpretation by an AG of a much older law some time around 1980. I don't think it's ever been tested in court, and we'd operated for decades under the old interpretation before then.
Trump could just say "we're going back to the old interpretation" and at-minimum buy several months of runway while court challenges happened (if they even did). This would be among the least questionable "stretches" (to be very generous) of presidential power he'd exercised.
Given how much he contributed to the election outcome it hardly seems tired to blame him for the consequences.
Plus he's on Twitter every week publicly discussing how much he uses the platform to put his thumb on the scale of discourse towards his personal beliefs.
reply