Then get another one you moron!

This is incorrect, per wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

Groundhog Day 2 is a bit grittier than the original.

I am waiting patiently for the AI bubble to pop so that all of a sudden there's an excess supply of ram, gpu's, drives, etc.

America is not featured in this article.

I think this is the link: https://forums.redflagdeals.com/whc-web-hosting-canada-whc-web-hosting-canada-ci-0-75-ca-domain-names-via-cira-2821281/

Source for that? I can only find some statements from the daughter.

Honestly I think they should bring average speed cameras here. They would be very effective on a few choice corridors.

Or just the main charges that make sense, like the elevator and small number of big-ticket items? If charging separately for the elevator means everyone pays a reduced rent (or building costs if you own the unit), and then pays their elevator charge separately, I don't see why this is so bad. It would only be a bait and switch if you are using the elevator more, and if so, it also provides some financial incentive to change behaviour to the extent you can.

What is liberal bullshit? I don't understand.

I would have expected manufacturers to be increasing production due to the bubble, so when demand evaporates there would be an oversupply. EG - expanded memory production would lead to an oversupply of memory post-burst, leading to a reduction in prices. But a quick google shows at least memory and HDD manufacturers aren't increasing output, possibly recognizing a bubble, and some things (e.g. GPU's, SSD's) are supply-constrained due to memory shortages. Others like CPU manufacturers seem to be increasing supply capacity. So maybe it's more of a mixed bag.

Please enlighten me. Isn't a bait and switch a thing only if you wind up paying more, unexpectedly and by fraudulent design?

I guess we'll see.

I'm sure disabled people could be exempted in such a system. Then again, a disabled person might choose to pay lower rent or ownership costs with a user fee for the elevator if they don't use the elevator much.

I had somewhat of a longwinded reply but edited it to say it would be based on the assumption that rent is reduced about the same amount by the income received from user fees, since the owners would no longer have to pay as much to maintain the elevator. Whether that assumption holds true would be true is some cases and not true in others.

Ehh, there's a not-insignificant chance someone of that age with vascular problems may have dementia, which does a number on people's personalities.

So, everyone seems against this. But, given that elevators are very expensive to maintain and repair, why shouldn't the users who use it the most pay more than those who don't? Catoblepas mentioned disability, so yes you could exempt those people. But for example in a high rise, those on a higher floor typically will have a higher market value than those on lower floors (or a higher rent, but similarly are likely to be relatively higher income). And people who are particularly heavy users will otherwise cause maintenance and repair costs to be spread over other people who aren't heavy users, and that's not really fair either.