They're quite good at just iterating different "ideas" on a performance metric with an objective measure. They can use tools like `perf` and do some analysis on the output. Sometimes they go off in the weeds unproductively, and sometimes they give up because your goal was too high, but as long as you're sort of babysitting the process, you can make pretty rapid improvement to naive code.
"Rank the top findings/solutions by impact vs confidence" continues to be one of my best quickwins to add to all sorts of prompts. Bam, now you have a reasoned priority list.
He doesn't actually "get away" with it. A lot of people, left and right, are unhappy about tariffs. But for now, he controls the executive, so it is what it is.
The problem is it was never an executive power to begin with. The unitary executive theory pushed by the Heritage Foundation is counter to everything the US was founded on. Decisions from the current SCOTUS are questionable given the conflicts of interest with certain spouses and the endless improper gifts.
His core base (a solid 25-50% of the party) would rather die than vote for a democrat and all this DSA scare mongering is only entrenching them further/pulling the more moderate among them back into the fold.
The blue wave will likely be a result of blue turnout and some small number of red sitting at home. And sadly the senate is still a toss up
It's silly to claim that a lot of people on the right are unhappy about tariffs.
When Obama put a tariff on Chinese tires, right-wingers (correctly) argued that it was a bad idea that caused American consumers to pay almost a million dollars per "job saved" in the tire industry.
Today the right is in control of the executive, the legislative, the judicial, and and far more news media and... basically just crickets.
As for "he controls the executive". Bullshit. When a Democrat is in office, right-wingers remember that the President is not a king.
Please don't "both sides" this extremely one-sided attack on the American worker.
SCOTUS ruled that the executive order that included it was illegal. So it went away, even though they never ruled on the specifics of the de minimis system. Now it is back, under a different EO.
Banning junk fees / truth in advertising is good. But I absolutely hate that pet rent was bundled in to this. Pets occasionally cause very high amounts of real damage that should be covered by pet owners, not tenants without pets. And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits).
Yes this will absolutely raise rents for everyone in order to cover pet damage costs, which can easily reach thousands, exceeding any profit for the lease term. They are the top cause of rental unit damage.
Many smaller landlords will choose to exclude pets entirely in order to keep rental rates competitive.
(I have worked in housing in Seattle and have seen this first hand. And I love pets, have them myself!)
If you worked in housing in Seattle you would know it's not really legal or practicable for landlords to exclude pets, considering the expansiveness of ESA designations. Almost every landlord already excludes pets outside of ESAs
Yes and the ESA program is unfortunately regularly abused. Without judging tenants, I know multiple people from my personal network who proudly got the ESA designation simply to get around the rule.
There are numerous pet-friendly landlords, but typically the rent is not cheap. Pets have a real cost — they aren’t cheap for the owner, I don’t know why the owner assumes they don’t add cost to their living situation.
The main complaint seems to be that there is not a glut of cheap pet-friendly rentals, which is an unrealistic expectation in Seattle where the housing market is already extremely competitive.
Is there data to show that pets actually cause more damage? I see this argument get thrown around quite frequently (often by landlords), but I don't buy that it's a major issue.
It isn't that every pet causes more damage as a rule, its that very frequently pets do damage that is quite expensive. Urine can require floor and subfloor replacement. I've seen dogs chew through walls, etc. Pets in common areas leaving tracks and fur, etc. I'm a dog lover, but it would be folly to pretend that owning a dog does not cause additional wear and tear on my house.
That said, damage from pets should be handled through the damage deposit. Pet rent is just another way to pad the bill.
I am thinking it might be less about the damages (which the tenants are obliged to pay for anyway) and more about the extra work the property must do to deal with noise complaints, escaped pets, possible legal actions, hassles the maintenance might need to show up for, possible extra hours staff might need to work, pooper scoopering, yellowing grass, etc.
Well, there are plenty of lies. Because tenants are liable for the supposed damages regardless of whether landlords can grab $100/mo or whatever.
That's not to say that pets can cause tons of damage: if someone let's a cat spray inside and doesn't immediately clean it, that can cost tens of thousands if it seeps down to the underlayment. But (1) that ain't getting covered by the $50 - $100 they want to gouge people for; and (2) tenants are liable for that either way.
Typically these claims are completely unrecoverable. The tenants don’t have the money, and the cost of pursuing further is too high. The only way to ensure payment is to get it upfront.
Yes, we'll see an exodus of small landlords and see much higher monthly rents passed on to all tenants just to subsidize the ones that cause damage. This isn't better for most tenants.
> And Seattle has banned every other possible avenue of passing this expense only to the parties responsible (higher deposits).
From the very legislation this article is about:
7.24.040 Fees permitted and prohibited
<...>
B. A landlord may charge the following fees in addition to rent:
<...>
4. Pet damage deposits pursuant to Section 7.24.038;
tl;dr: Pet damage deposits may not exceed 25% of the first full month's rent, no other fees are allowed. If I'm reading this correctly the current version of that ordinance was passed in 2016.
land lords assess and charge for damages, regardless of source
why should pets require a monthly, non refundable fee regardless of damages or not?
My main gripe is my building charges $50 more for EV spots and then wants to charge as much as the charging stations, that's a nope for me, I'll just charge while buying groceries
I would think that if a pet causes a high amount of real damage, the landlord should still be able to seek remuneration for that damage. They just can't charge for it in advance.
It's an insurance premium of sorts. They are statistically much more likely to have a problem, so they adjust they rent to make the deal a positive expected value again.
Urine soaking into a subfloor can easily cost more to repair than the security deposit, and recovering damages in court is hard and expensive in its own right (if the person even has money to take).
Not to mention, even when there's no apparent damage, a pet apartment can require extra cleaning to get rid of odors and dander.
It just makes sense for the landlord to price in a potential headache.
Now we know you have never been a landlord... "Seek it after the fact" works out in ~0% of the time. Best case is you can sell the debt to a collections agency for ten cents on the dollar, and that is after a court case that you are unlikely to win in the first place. This is why security deposits exist. Cause "get it after" rarely works out.
If only. A bad tenant with a dog can do an obscene amount of damage to a property. The people who leave a place with torn up walls and urine+feces throughout the carpet tend not to be the kind of people who will gladly pay extra fees for the damage they caused.
The landlord can sue them, but that's a slow expensive process and there's a good chance they will never recover enough to pay for the damage.
If you buy like carpet you could reasonably expect to replace it in 10-15 years, and if you allow pets you are more likely to need to. However getting 15-20 years out of it instead without pets is probably more like double-dipping than a subsidy as replacing it on the correct schedule should already be factored into the rent.
reply