Needs more CAD

One thing nobody ever considers about landlords. . . It costs them a considerable amount of money for their property to be empty. Most of them will accept slightly lower rents to keep the property occupied constantly. This cost avoidance ensures that there are always landlords at below market value, thus keep the higher rents in check.

I have only my own experience to back it up. I’ve always washed my wooden utensils in the dishwasher (top rack only). The cheapest ones do ok, but show some wear after a few years. The bamboo ones look as good today as when they were purchased (10+ years ago).

Not that much of a problem, and even less so if you use bamboo utensils.

Heyday is what you mean, I think.

They are better, but you foolishly assumed that they meant better for the consumer, not better for the seller.

They are unenforceable for more reasons than that. They also can not prove that you agreed to it, only that someone did.

Also, they can’t change the terms of your previous purchase after the fact. They can make you agree to something new going forward, but if they make your current device a brick because you don’t agree (which they are doing here), then they need to reimburse you for causing the loss of use of your device that you already purchased and was working under the previous terms.

It’s google, they’ll just stop working on it.

There are 2 choices so they are equally likely

There are only two options at that point. It MUST be 50-50.

The host’s intentions are irrelevant. Numerically, there are only two choices. That makes it fifty-fifty.

Now you have 2 choices: the door you chose, or the only other door left. One has a goat and one has a car. That’s fifty-fifty.

In your explanation, the door originally had a 1% chance, but after showing 98 goats, it has a 50% chance.

After you find out there’s a goat behind door #2, you have a 50% chance whether you stay on 1 or move to three. There are only two possible outcomes at that point (car or goat), so either way it’s a coin flip.

Or add 3% to the green grid

Three apps, plus still needing iTunes for podcasts. Thanks, Apple.

Bunch of jabronis

It’s easier said than done, but it’s not that difficult. It’s mostly reconfiguration of plumbing and zone controls on HVAC. The electrical is easier to distribute.

If you commit to doing it the right way, and tear it down to the structure (but leave the facade alone), it’s not terribly difficult.

The problem is that the building owners want to do it cheap, and it won’t be cheap. It will be more economical in the long run than fully vacant building though.

If it truly is only an hour of someone’s time, then I’d much rather they made that insignificant amount less profit, but did the work to make our experience better.

They can, but many do not.

Yes, but actually no. They are looking NOW, because they are being forced to look. They apparently weren’t before, which is a sign of bad QA, and the scary part for the potential passengers.

I just want them to make it a KC Chiefs helmet full-time.