For me it’s Adobe. Stupid government and other forms I need for work. No available third party software will work on some of them, and I’ve tried them all. And for some dumb reason even having an Acrobat subscription won’t let me fill them out on their (extremely buggy, by the way) web app.

Was never able to get it working with wine.

That, and the compatibility between Libreoffice (or other Linux office software) and MS Word is still terrible. I’m quite sure that’s mostly due to shenanigans by MS. So if you have to swap documents back and forth between people (e.g. with track changes) it just doesn’t work as well. And, like Adobe, the web app version of Word seems to be kneecapped in a few key places.

I have a feeling that Musk is gonna sue who he’s gonna sue.

I suppose that could potentially drag Mastodon’s developer into a legal fight (if X were to sue them), which would be costly and a distraction.

deleted by creator

Please enlighten me. Isn’t a bait and switch a thing only if you wind up paying more, unexpectedly and by fraudulent design?

I’m sure disabled people could be exempted in such a system. Then again, a disabled person might choose to pay lower rent or ownership costs with a user fee for the elevator if they don’t use the elevator much.

Or just the main charges that make sense, like the elevator and small number of big-ticket items? If charging separately for the elevator means everyone pays a reduced rent (or building costs if you own the unit), and then pays their elevator charge separately, I don’t see why this is so bad. It would only be a bait and switch if you are using the elevator more, and if so, it also provides some financial incentive to change behaviour to the extent you can.

Groundhog Day 2 is a bit grittier than the original.

I had somewhat of a longwinded reply but edited it to say it would be based on the assumption that rent is reduced about the same amount by the income received from user fees, since the owners would no longer have to pay as much to maintain the elevator. Whether that assumption holds true would be true is some cases and not true in others.

So, everyone seems against this. But, given that elevators are very expensive to maintain and repair, why shouldn’t the users who use it the most pay more than those who don’t? Catoblepas mentioned disability, so yes you could exempt those people. But for example in a high rise, those on a higher floor typically will have a higher market value than those on lower floors (or a higher rent, but similarly are likely to be relatively higher income). And people who are particularly heavy users will otherwise cause maintenance and repair costs to be spread over other people who aren’t heavy users, and that’s not really fair either.

America is not featured in this article.

I guess we’ll see.

I am waiting patiently for the AI bubble to pop so that all of a sudden there’s an excess supply of ram, gpu’s, drives, etc.

Ehh, there’s a not-insignificant chance someone of that age with vascular problems may have dementia, which does a number on people’s personalities.

Source for that? I can only find some statements from the daughter.