As a tenant you are freed from the property maintenance; instead you are at mercy of landlords for that aspect, but I think they should and actually do the maintenance in practice.
Many properties in SK are offered via a peculiar scheme, the Housing Subscription System 주택청약제도, which is a result of convoluted history. Basically you should have a dedicated saving account, and your eligibility will be scored by multiple factors including the deposit sum of that account and in particular the period of non-ownership. When you buy a house your non-ownership counter resets; Jeonse will keep it. So if you use Jeonse as long as possible, your chance of being eligible for this scheme will increase.
They don’t want to is the idea. They want to live their for two years and then get their money back so they can move somewhere else without risk of things breaking or housing market going down.
The owner might not want to sell, or they might only want to rent. Also, the deposit is fully refunded at the end of the term in this type of rental. In a jeonse, the deposit is generally 50% to 80% of the value.
What answer are you suggesting? Is it that banks will finance a jeonse deposit, but they won't finance a purchase?
> Chonsei deposits are often very large, at around 70% of house prices
> Chonsei arrangements are popular partly due to the fact that the residential mortgage market in Korea is unusually underdeveloped: mortgages have very short terms, and loan-to-value ratios generally below 40%.
> It is common for tenants to fund Chonsei deposits by borrowing from banks
I've never used Stripe before so wanted to ask a clarification question.
Their docs [1] say that the payout schedule is 7-14 days after the payment. What prevents companies from taking out their money every week (or 2 weeks)?
For OP, is 250k euros weekly income? If so, it shouldn't bother them?
If not, then why didn't they take out their money before this happened?
It seems like it's a potential "profit" of 44,000 € before taxes for that sale. 44,000 € is not even 20% of a guaranteed loss of 250,000 €, which is definitely outside "shouldn't bother" them.
I think the concern is less technical and more policy.
I might be able to sts:AssumeRole to any number of roles created by bad cloud engineers that allowed my account instead of another. But - ignoring that it requires exceptional luck to find the right account/role pair - it takes explicit action on my part to move into their account. At the end of the day, I exchange my credentials for those in another account, and that action is logged in my account, theirs, and with AWS.
The concern here is this sharing happens without me doing anything. What happens if I get added to an account whose admin cries foul to Google? Or if their account is flagged for violating GCP terms? Given Google’s history, I’d be worried too.
Technically, but this is more about how 'Account B Admin' must define who (user/principal) can access the resources Account A has already given Account B access to. The difference I see here is that it's not an invite system; Account A does not notify Account B of its new permissions when it grants them, and Account A is not notified when Account B's administrator has defined an access policy for those resources.
You're right, thanks for pointing this out. I'm the author; I updated the graphic to split based on the framework's purpose, "pure backend" vs. "focus on rendering". I hope this is clearer now.
If IPv6 addresses are free while in use like IPv4 used to be, this would be the cheapest option
[1] https://repost.aws/questions/QUOWEDVURTSxWkSlenuHaS4g/cloudf...