I can see the greater complex-wide cycle argument for complex wide amenities, leasing office support, and maintenance request response/resolution times.
Everyone moves out, so the above issues become a higher priority until units are backfilled. Since units are filled, the above issues become less important (to the owners at least, not the renters). Then renters receive this worse service, start moving out in waves, and the cycle continues.
The mold, and in-unit plumbing, and insect issues seem more like routine maintenance types of things to me. But compounded slightly by longer maintenance request response/resolution times.
Thanks, she was older for a cat and the prognosis of surgery wasn’t great and in the best case she’d have suffered recovery for low odds, still felt horrible holding her in my arms as the vet injected the sedative, she was trying to play with the vet prior to that, I had her (and her brother) their entire lives bar a few weeks, neighbours found the litter and we took a pair.
My ex wanted cats, I was never a fan but her and her brother wormed their way into my heart in a way I never expected, I’m not going to get another though, my missus isn’t a huge fan but more than that they don’t live long enough compared to us and it really hurts too much because of that.
> I am sorry but I can’t use any US AI if I don’t have the guarantee that I will be able to use it tomorrow.
To be fair this is every commercial model. We have already seen GHCP increase prices by anywhere from 10-100x (depending on usage). And old models get retired all the time. While these are not exactly the same as a cutting edge model being shut down, increasing prices a super high amount leads to effectively the same outcome.
Where is it forbidden by the standard? I don't see anything in the GET definition in RFC 9110 [1] forbidding that. My understanding was that this is just undefined behavior. And not recommended due to your point about some third-party CDNs and RPs handling that UB in different ways.
It's never been explicitly forbidden, just heavily discouraged in virtually every version of the spec. In the current 9110:
> "A client SHOULD NOT generate content in a GET request unless it is made directly to an origin server that has previously indicated, in or out of band, that such a request has a purpose and will be adequately supported. An origin server SHOULD NOT rely on private agreements to receive content, since participants in HTTP communication are often unaware of intermediaries along the request chain."
"Content" is what the RFC calls a request body. The simplest argument against IMO is it makes caching more complex, as now the request body would have to be part of any cache keying etc, you can't just blindly key off the request + URI params for every single GET. There are plenty of other reasons to not do it.
The spec expects responses to GETs generally to be cacheable:
> "The response to a GET request is cacheable; a cache MAY use it to satisfy subsequent GET and HEAD requests unless otherwise indicated by the Cache-Control header field (Section 5.2 of [CACHING])."
I may be the exception, but if I plan to work on non-work related stuff while traveling I absolutely take my personal laptop. I've done this when traveling to my HQ, as well as taking both work and personal laptops on personal vacations.
"75% More Pedestrians Have Been Killed Since 2009. Giant Trucks and SUVs Are *One Reason*" would be a more accurate title based on my reading.
reply