It wasn’t sudden. You’re just noticing it now.

So Jerry Seinfeld was ahead of the game?

I agree.

Not everyone knows what you know and it sounds like you’re judging them based on the assumption that they do.

They might not be lying.

Yeah. It is possible that, in Scenario 1, the bosses were just incompetent. It is possible that either no one in the room knew the problems OP is having or they were people low in seniority who were afraid to speak up.

Probably. Most mass firings generally have to show that there was a process and that said process didn’t unfairly target certain unprotected classes. So, Meta made AI the process.

People have cracked modular construction. A lot of construction of modern buildings is pretty cookie cutter, especially if the architect is on board to using pre fabricated elements.

Yes.

At this point, I’d look for a new job. They’re looking for a reason to fire you.

People on Lemmy need to make assumptions so they can feel superior to you as they make you a straw man.

It is a compromise because all the other options are worse.

A lot of studios want some form of DRM, so a GOG model won’t work for them. For various reasons, an offline DRM scheme is considered to be superior to an online DRM scheme.

Except that has never been Microsoft’s gaming strategy. The Xbox was developed to give PC gaming a toehold in the console market so that games in one market class could be easily ported over to the other.

As app stores became a major money maker for OS’s, the Xbox game store became a backdoor way to get an established app store on PC to eat Valve’s lunch and pull in a new revenue stream.

Physical media doesn’t work with Microsoft’s gaming strategy.

What is eternal?

I’m not speaking to my use case, I’m speaking about the market as a whole.

You can buy an Ultra Blu-ray burner along with 100 GB discs. There are alternatives already out there on the market and it likely wouldn’t be a major jump tech wise to get up to the TB range. People used to have binders full of data, this would continue that trend. Yet no one it’s developing it, including Chinese tech companies.

I’m not doubting that there are use cases out there; I can even think of a use case for me. Yet, the market demand out there doesn’t seem to be worth it where any company wants to take that leap.

That Sony is abandoning physical media for games when it won two generations for discs based on its gaming consoles is a giant red flag.

If the world was crying out for it, a company would have developed a standard by now.

There may be a market, but it is the fraction of what it was 20 years ago.

Can’t be drunk all day if you don’t start in the morning.

Hope you wake up with all your fingers.

https://castelblanco.com/renters-rights-air-conditioning-california/

Seems like California doesn’t require AC for habitability, but mandates landlord repair and maintenance if the service was provided when the lease was signed and the tenant moved in. Sounds like since you have AC, your landlord is required to provide it to at least one of the tenants unless it was newly installed.

It is a lawyer summary instead of the code, but feel free to dig into the California legal code if you want to argue back.

You wanted ideas of how it could happen and I gave the possible explanation. If you want to argue in front of the judge that an open window isn’t enough of a waste to warrant eviction, go on ahead.

No. There may be other ways. They can look up the law and there might be an out for opening a window. I don’t know. However, based on the limited information given to me, this is likely the excuse given by the landlord to kick out OP.

You’re right, OP likely isn’t responsible for AC. That’s why the owner controls the AC, likely because they are legally required to provide AC. That’s what I said originally.

However, it is usually written into the law that tenants can’t waste landlord provided utilities, and this sounds like the argument that the landlord is making to the town. It sounds like this is just an excuse for the landlord to kick OP out, but this isn’t an argument that I’m making is good.

You keep mixing me up with the landlord.

Edit: It turns out I am somewhat wrong. CA law requires that, if AC is provided, it must be restored by the landlord in case the AC breaks at the landlord’s cost alone. Tenants are legally able to withhold rent due to a broken AC.

Therefore, there is no legal way for OP as a tenant to take over AC costs.