drewrv

What is Redmond or the rest of the Eastside doing to help homeless people that Seattle has failed to do?

You might find this interesting: https://news.uchicago.edu/story/employment-alone-isnt-enough...

Bus tickets are unhelpful because it further uproots their lives. People (including homeless people) have support networks, communities, etc that get destroyed by being forcibly relocated.

They’re human and like all people they build a life over time, they have neighbors and friends and possibly family nearby that love and support them.

There are also annoying logistical challenges to moving that are harder if you’re homeless. Finding a new doctor is hard, harder still if you’re restricted to free or reduced cost clinics. Finding a food bank or getting a PO Box or a church or a job.

People are homeless because they don’t have a home. There’s all sorts of reason why but usually it’s because housing is expensive. More expensive cities see more homelessness.

No doubt many people who can’t afford housing lost their money to addiction, and giving them housing will not solve the addiction.

That being said: getting clean is way more likely in a stable living environment than in an unstable one.

I’d also add that homelessness can exacerbate an existing addiction. It’s a stressful and traumatic experience.

So yes, giving them housing will not solve addiction. Addiction is hard to overcome even for wealthy people with loving, supportive family.

I do agree that a society capable of nuclear power or space travel can be considered implausible. A similar thought experiment might be, "how technological could a prior species have become before we'd notice?"

Animals today, from dolphins to chimps, can be found using tools. Is there any reason to believe this didn't happen in the age of the dinosaurs? Then you can expand beyond simple sticks and stones to other primitive technologies. Maybe we weren't the first to figure out fire, or agriculture, or animal husbandry.

Or maybe any brain capable of fire + agriculture + animal husbandry will eventually be so successful that nuclear power and space travel are inevitable.

I'm not arguing in favor of any of this: it's just fun to think about.

I agree about "questionable content". Can editors kill or downplay stories, or introduce bias? Sure, of course. Editors can also scrutinize reporting, double check sources, or try to counteract bias.

The problem with Substack is that it tends to attract journalists who need an editor. Anyone who is having trouble publishing a story in a reputable outlet can simply throw it up on Substack. And if they can cause drama about how they were being "censored", all the better to drive traffic.

I'd say one difference between reddit mods and the police is that the stakes are really low on reddit.

Arguing or getting upset about mod decisions gives off strong "fight with the bouncer" vibes. Even if you're right, there's no way to "win". The best course of action is to just quietly move on.

Also worth noting that once this collusion was stopped and exposed, salaries went up across the industry. If you work in tech, even if you never worked for one of these companies, this collusion made you poorer.

I’m certain she wasn’t actually watching porn. It’s a pretty common joke answer to say “porn” when someone asks what you’re browsing and you don’t want to share.

The fact that the author seems to take it as genuine adds to the bizarre nature of this blog post though!

I'm not generalizing across 140M people, I said there is a "movement among the American right". Saying "there is a movement among the left that believes ACAB" is probably true too, but we're talking about fact-checkers here not the criminal justice system.

Journalists: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/business/media/trump-medi...

Scientists: https://www.breitbart.com/environment/2023/01/23/woke-lancet...

Professors: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/just-how-liberal-are-c...

Librarians: https://nypost.com/2022/09/10/librarians-go-radical-as-new-w...

Doctors: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/boston-childrens-hospit...

> are you insinuating that "the American right" don't like scientists, journalists, professors, librarians, and doctors?

I actually don't think this. I know conservatives, they will generally believe scientists who are studying black holes but when climate change gets brought up they accuse them of bias. Similarly they will seek out doctors for their condition but when a doctor treats a trans patient they will accuse them of bias. It's not a dislike, and not of individuals, it's more of a distrust of institutions.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Is there a profession who seeks to learn or explain the truth that the American right hasn’t accused of bias?

I don’t think I’ll find the answer in an article about Hillary’s cell phone.

The reason "fact-checked" seems political is because there is a movement among the American right to discredit any job that involves seeking or explaining the truth. I may come across as hyperbolic but I'm serious: name a job where you try to sort out what's true and what isn't, and American right-wing trolls will accuse it of bias.

Scientist? Journalist? Professor? Librarian? Doctor? It was only a matter of time before "fact-checker" got the same treatment as these other people. None of these people or careers are beyond reproach, but there is a difference between good-faith attempts at finding the truth and bad-faith accusations of bias.

Moreso than professional sports or actors?

Please don't hesitate to reach out to people and organizations who can help with these thoughts.

I understand that nonstandard analysis is a firm footing on which to build calculus, but is it totally equivalent to real analysis?

I loved real analysis in college, for example I found cantors set kind of crazy. Does that "exist" in nonstandard analysis? Or are there other mind-bending implications?

Your only argument for why it's "worse" is that it was different when you were in school. Maybe it was "worse" when you were in school.

My point is to think about risk as a scale. There's no need to be pedantic about the analogy.

Would you send your child to school if there was a 1% chance that they would be served something that would put them in the ER? .5% chance?

If you were a school administrator, would you serve food that could put 3% of the student body in the ER? 6%?

My point is that there is a scale and if you think about it not as a binary, but as a gradient, you might be more understanding of school administrators who are trying to create a safe learning environment for hundreds of kids.

Yes, if there is a substance that's poison for one kid, they'll need to learn to take precautions. And if there's a substance that's poison for all, it should be banned from school meals. What if it's 10% of kids? 5%?

Food allergies are common these days.

Why are you expecting the world now to exist as it was when you were a child?

The world has changed in the past 20 years. The world will change over the next 20 years.

> unless they're sharing, kissing, or fighting with their food

Good thing kids never do this.

Imagine you have a school age child. If there were a 100% chance that they would be served arsenic at school you would probably keep them home. If there were a 0% chance, you would send them to school.

What "%" risk that your child would be poisoned do you find acceptable?

How can someone be "personally responsible" if there are not accurate food labeling laws?

What is the point of society if we're not going to protect vulnerable people? You're talking about "efficiency" as though society has one goal to maximize. I would argue that there's multiple goals that need to be balanced but at the top of the list would be "protect children".

Over a million people died of covid. Many more have become permanently disabled. Many of them were retired seniors but among the people who were not, they were disproportionately service workers who couldn’t wfh.

My point is that the data is messy. Smokers aren't a randomized subset of the general population.

The actual reason is probably unrelated to the act of smoking. Smokers are different than the general population in a number of ways - Smokers are addicted to an appetite suppressant and are skinnier than the general population. Since obesity is linked to poor covid outcomes that could play a role. - I'd guess that smokers are younger on average since, grimly, they don't make it into old age as often (or they quit). Age is also linked to poor covid outcomes. - Smokers spend more time outdoors and are more likely to sit outdoors at restaurants/bars.

It's definitely an interesting statistical effect but I don't think there's any actionable information in the correlation.

Why is spam always glossed over in these "principled defenses" of free speech? It's legal speech.

Maybe they even had a little "get out of jail free" card.

https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7gxa4/pba-card-police-court...