If they don't increase the amount of housing, then they don't decrease it either, right? They effectively move a house that would be bought by a home buyer, to a house that would be rented by a renter.
I can see how given the argument that landlords generally make profit, that they are a needless middleman, and therefore they contribute to higher housing costs. Is there any evidence that this impact is so substantial that regulating independent landlords will be a boon for consumers of housing?
I appreciate you sharing your perspective! I remain open to be informed as to how such a policy would help the housing crisis.
Sincere question: how would this help renters? It seems to me that this would discourage people from buying investment properties to rent out, and increase the supply available to buyers. While this would make it cheaper to buy, it seems like it would make it more expensive to rent, unless one or more of the following is true:
A significant number of units are sitting empty, owned by speculators, rather than being rented. out (plausible, but I haven't seen proof - is there any?)
Landlords are colluding to keep prices high (unlikely given that there are hundreds of thousands of independent landlords per StatsCan)
For some reason besides collusion, free-market pricing is otherwise inapplicable to rent prices (why could this be?)
If you or anyone else would kindly shed some light on this for me, I would gladly join your cause. As it stands, I'm currently more of an advocate for building public housing to increase the supply of both rental and purchase units, rather than adjusting the bias of what units we already have towards ownership over rentals.
I don't need insurance, I don't need no parkin space
and if you try to clamp my horse he'll kick you in the face
I don't pay no tax, fuck NCT
you'll arrive in style if you ride with me
Presumably, Google Pay, Firefox, etc. all continue to work, so do I really care if Samsung's web browser and mobile payment system is broken? (sincere question)
Changing your MAC will make older messages undeliverable, but that just means the connection will be momentarily interrupted until you establish new connections after re-connecting to the WiFi.
Why not just assign yourself a different internal IP? Because a. the router probably wants to assign you one itself via DHCP; and b. the router isn't looking at your IP address to lock you out; it's looking at your MAC address.
If your IP address is where in cyberspace you are, a MAC address is who you are. If you want to fool the bouncer, change your name, not your address.
Not necessarily "wrong" but a weakness is that they tend to focus on concrete language syntax and skimp on abstract software design, and data structures and algorithms. The result is a programmer who knows how to write code, but may struggle on larger projects or more complicated problems, compared to a computer science or software engineering graduate.
Of course I've met developers from applied courses and boot camps who are driven, passionate, and gifted who have gone on to make excellent system designers and software architects, but generally speaking, knowing how to code alone does not make one a software developer.
I prefer torrents because it's totally free, unlike Usenet. I don't even pay for a VPN since I don't care about a few love letters in my inbox. It's not about the cost; it's a matter of principle that I disagree with commercialized piracy.
Sounds like DMCA abuse to me. You can't copyright a fact. In this case, the fact that these IPs are used by a company is a fact.