Because percent change uses the previous value in the denominator, which here was negative. (2.33- -0.5)/(-0.5) = about -5.66, or -566%. What number do you think would make more sense?
festus
joined 2 years ago
Out of curiosity - what laptop maker is installing Sway by default?
I pay for the Softmaker Office suite, it's pretty good and has Linux native versions.
I had a few false starts before, but MS force-updating me to the objectively worse and user-hostile Windows 8 triggered my latest (and successful) switch.
If I were to play devil's advocate, it would be that capped rent increases is to prevent predatory landlords from increasing rent more than their costs, but that if their costs go up more then they have a way to cover that without losing the property / going bankrupt.
That provision is maybe more acceptable when you're talking about families renting out their basement suite, but I have zero sympathy for investors who took a risk and lost. And even in the case of non-investor landlords, I'm skeptical that it's appropriate to make the tenant shoulder all the increased costs.
Because they aren't overriding it - the legislation allows for these rent increases in certain circumstances. Not agreeing with the law or the decision, but the arbitrator isn't making up some new power.
I switched jobs earlier this year for a 47℅ 'raise' - I'm absolutely loving my new role.
My understanding is that a potential sale of my previous employer fell through because I was basically the brains that developed / maintained the only innovative thing they had done in the past 15 years, and given their lack of investment in anything else there was nothing else of value for the buyer.
Other way around - the AI is writing a letter "from" the daughter to be sent to the athlete. Still BS though, and I'm sure famous people just love getting spam fan mail where the person couldn't be bothered to draft it themself.
Maybe the Republicans should do the same thing then and have Trump stop running.
- He could be an Arab Israeli
- He could be ultra-orthodox
- He could have had a medical exemption
- He could have received Israeli citizenship later in his adult years after conscription.
- He may have served but in a role that isn't committing human rights abuses (say working on missle defense)
- He may have served but his political views have since developed and he's now pro-peace / anti-apartheid.
To generalize and assume that nearly all Israeli men are war criminals is to generalize on the basis of national origin which in most jurisdictions is rightfully assumed to be racist.
You can't not serve someone because of their country - the hotel doesn't know whether this man is a soldier or not, just that he's Israeli.
Yeah I'll agree that on its own it's not a good measure because of situations like this.