Nobody with a sub-4% is VOLUNTARILY going to sell. Home prices have slowly dropped to adjust for interest rate increases. However, a "price reset" will probably occur in areas where folks need to sell due to financial hardship.
Credit Card usage has already seen an increase, savings contributions have dropped, and car loans payments have seen more defaults. Unfortunately, folks are struggling these days.
A sudden "panic sell" of just a few homes could cause overall homes values in a neighborhood to drop, thus "correcting" or "resetting" over-inflated prices. Unfortunately, this would be a doomsday-scenario for many folks who bought recently in the 6-7% with inflated prices. Until interest rates dropped, they're stuck with a terrible payment while being severely underwater for their homes.
Can you imagine if THEY need to sell? Suddenly the value of their home doesn't even cover their mortgage. Now you're talking bankruptcy for many folks...
> Neutral stance: We're not convinced that the complexity this feature introduces upon the HTML parser carries its weight in terms of usefulness for web developers. There's also a risk that the processing model is not compatible with a future declarative custom elements feature as it was developed in isolation. Having said that, the proposal is a reasonable approach for this functionality that takes into account the various constraints and security considerations that come with changing the HTML parser.
> Positive Stance: This is a reasonable proposal which takes into account the various constraints and security considerations that come with changing the HTML parser.
Hopefully that's a sign of things to come! (Fingers crossed)
It's interesting. My right wing family also now loves him, but they just love Elon. They would never consider a Tesla because it's what the "left" drive in California, neither of which they want to be associated with.
Yep. I once tried to create a cartoon dinosaur with hair in the “style” of an ex President (yellow and combed forward), and was warned with a potential ban.
> "But it's private companies! They can do whatever they want!" The telephone companies are private. Do they have a right to kill your connection when you talk about unapproved subject matter? Twitter, Youtube, Facebook, and so on are the modern de-facto means of communicating long distance and to wide-spread audiences.
If I started robo-calling millions of people with unapproved subject matter, I'd wager they'd kill my connection fairly quickly.
I am not convinved this is a logical metaphor. Robocalls directly bother every person on a list. A social media post goes to those who've consented (i.e. subscribed/followed) and other places the social media company decides they should go. I don't see what the two have in common.
I guess a counterpoint to your story: I worked at eBay when the story broke. We were all aware of Ina's blog and followed it regularly. As you mentioned, she was a great voice for e-commerce, and one that the vast majority of us appreciated. So, when the story broke, every co-worker I messaged was horrified and outraged as well. The fact that it went up as high as it did was really disgusting (and honestly, embarrassing).
Back in my day, the filibuster existed to encourage compromise. The idea that this is "100%" on the Dems is absolutely ridiculous.
There's not much I agree with Trump on, but I do agree with what he said back in 2013: "A shutdown means the president is weak."
Mr. "Art of the Deal" really makes the best deals.