Probably at Monoproce.
One is seldom given access to HOA bylaws and other deed restrictions until closing, at which point the buyer stands to lose their earnest money.
In some places earnest money is a token couple hundred dollars (we put 500 down in earnest on our current home), and the real estate agent produces a boilerplate contract to which you'll add your own clauses such as "acceptable inspection results". On my last home, I added "acceptable HOA rules and deed restrictions," and made the seller's agent produce them. She wasn't happy; it was an irregular request; but she understood that once agreed to, if they produced them at closing, I was going to spend my time reading them, and be withing my rights to walk away if they were disagreeable.
I wanted to be sure the HOA didn't have any super nutty rules. They didn't - we bought the house.
But in other places where real estate is a bit more competitive (e.g. Westchester County, NY), your earnest deposit might be the 20% that will become your down payment. In those places one hires a real estate lawyer to handle the transaction details. I was pleased with the service mine provided for a mere $600.
The gender gap was evident in 1984 when I got to college and there were only three females in my Comp. Sci. program.
You might be shocked (shocked I tell you ) at how capricious a lot of those decisions are.
Node.js is a shitty hamburger restaurant?
Nerds Without Grilfriends
a skunk by any other name
s/pandering to idiots/responding to market incentives/
It is right and proper to extort money from parties with deep pockets.
This is just one facet of good old American Capitalism.
You didn't say anything about this explicitly, so I'll add it.
The people who study balance sheets, and decide whether tr not to risk their money on your company (either in the form of equity or loans), have apparently all decided that cheap labor is a universal good, and profits that come at the expense of squeezing them out of your labor employees, rather than from increased sales, are also markers of good management.
The effects of hiring the cheap labor (and the overall lesser skill levels that come with it) are not felt for several quarters, and since everything is all about this quarter, hiring twice the labor for two thirds the cost looks good on the current balance sheet. Plus they get to inflate their work force numbers. Since the goal of every manager is to grow head count and budget, and since nobody can objectively judge how efficiently you ran your department, more head count is better. Especially when you can't grow your budget, and especially when you can shrink you budget at the same time.
The a couple of years later, when your company starts to implode, you get your golden parachute, and the company becomes somebody else's short term problem.
It is not surprising that a group with an existing legislative advantage in the marketplace is returning to the legislature to bolster their advantage against a new threat. That's how the market works.
The primary job of an elected official is to get reelected. If you want a legislator's attention,donate to their election fund. They'll notice the money, and then when you talk about your legislative needs, they'll listen carefully, and often act in your interest. Just keep those checks coming.
> But we are too quick to blame Oracle and the developer of healthcare.gov for problems that come down to what is simply, a bad and incomplete spec that is impossible to build a good system against.
No. All specs are incomplete or bad.
The Waterfall model that everybody seems to still love,in which you assume a spec is complete before you begin work, was discredited in the very paper that named it. Fifty years of waterfall model system develop has borne that out time and time again.
Part of delivering a working figuring out where the specs are flawed, and changing them so that the delivered system works for the users. otherwise it only works for the contracting officers and the lawyers who handle the ensuing lawsuits.
You have no idea how badly amazon doesn't wan't this burden, or the one passed a couple of years ago that forces them to send 1099s to anybody how they pay more than $600 in a year. No business wants to pay to implement these processes. Especially since they are not revenue stream, they are very real cost drivers.
Annoying systems, with no business value, with lots of human intervention, and compliance costs. It's a bit like the cost of implementing Sabannes-Oxley, but on a smaller scale.
The specter of being a dead witness is what compels people to NOT testify.