Zero percent and govt covers operating costs with a stipend per loan. Granted figuring out the rate to pay would be a task, and keeping that from being a gouge itself... but better than passing it along to borrowers.
jadegear
joined 1 year ago
Depends on if it coincides with raises for working class staff, or there was enough transparency in operating costs and expenditures to be confident it's not just being done for additional profit margins. If the cost of serving video has actually gone up by $2 * subscription count every month, then no problem. I suspect that isn't the case, though.
If you remove mspaint.exe then Windows will refuse to boot. It's true, I knew a guy!
Apple?
Plenty of homes in rural NE that (while not as small as this) are still well within the 60% mark for garage ratio. They tend to double as workshops or large enough space for farm vehicle maintenance.
Considering the amount of rural settlements and farmlands / ranches around the US, I'd say it's not necessarily unreasonable. Can even find them in suburbia, albeit more rarely (have in-laws with the living space lofted over a full garage, which would put it at ~50% minimum before accounting for interior walls.)
Terrible analogy.
Talk to a lawyer right away. This is screwed up and the lawyer may well take your case paid on contingency (eg, if and when you win a malpractice suit.)
Good luck. 4.5 hours is an eternity in the chair and the work sounds shoddy.
I'd speculate some combination of control over employees (poor management practices, etc) and making use of owned land/offices that are difficult to sell otherwise. Not much else makes sense to me, especially for tech companies where nearly the entire job exists in virtual space of some kind - no wrenches to turn.
Edit: Someone else suggested a way to "lay off" folks by having them voluntarily leave the job to avoid the return to office. That also sounds pretty plausible to me with the extent to which companies are starting to squeeze with what feels like an incoming recession period.
There's more lead allowed in a liter of drinking water in the US than a serving of any of the chocolates being reported, as far as I can find. (15 micrograms per liter.) Provided nobody's eating a few dozen bars of chocolate in a single sitting I can't imagine accumulating enough to cause acute harm from the chocolate alone. Chasing down Hershey, Nestle et al to hold them accountable is great, but in terms of toxic metals we'd have more success and greater impact lighting up the news about water supplies.
Just mildly frustrated that I continue to see talk about chocolate while drinking water is a necessity and consumed in greater amounts daily but rarely gets reported outside of extreme cases like Flint.