For starters, it's no longer politically viable to expect 11 people to die during the construction of a bridge. To avoid that, there's a lot of regulation in place. And a lot more that probably got in for other reasons.
I can vouch for this solution. Combined with a common secure folder for core team members, and it's a great way to share key accounts that don't support multi-user. Otherwise, we'd never rotate passwords!
We have a similar template at work, and since we made it the default (on Bitbucket you can pre-fill it), it's saved a ton of back and forth asking questions:
* Description: (What this does, and why)
* Ref: (Ticket/task link)
* To test: (Specific instructions to make sure things are working as expected)
* To deploy: (What specific servers/services to restart, and operations to perform)
It's possible, I haven't looked into the details. But so far I'm yet to see a national study that puts SF anywhere near the top. It's just more visible because addicts are on the street, compared to other metros.
That article only looks at 10 counties: "Of the 10 places we examined, San Francisco had the second highest overdose rate in 2020 after Harris County, which contains the city of Houston."
If you look at more data, you see that even in California (https://www.countyhealthrankings.org/app/california/2021/mea...), SF is not at the top (Lake, Mendocino and Inyo rank higher). I'm not saying drug use is not a problem in SF. I'm just saying it's not the primary reason why we have a big homeless problem.
SF doesn't rank anywhere near the top in terms of drug use/overdoses, a title merited by some Midwest cities such as Omaha. This would clearly invalidate the drug-addiction -> homelessness cause and effect.
The data I've seen points in the other direction: A majority of homeless drug addicts started using AFTER they became addicts. I imagine once you're at the bottom and have little hope to improve, it's easy to give in to abandon.
That takes some skill. I was almost duped like that by someone we nearly hired for a sales position, which is much easier to fake for a few months, especially working remote.
Yes, that's what we use. We initially planned it as a multiplatform approach, but on Mac we went native. We routinely get complaints about the app being old school and "ugly", but on the flip side, we didn't have to learn C#.
There's definitely a core set of drivers who can't give up their cars, for whom any price increase will just be swallowed. However there's a big swath of gray cases at the boundary.
For example, when we moved to San Francisco, we kept our car and parked on the street. After two parking tickets within the first month (because we forgot the weekly sweep schedule), we decided it didn't make sense to keep the car. We sold it, and started using Caltrain/Muni/biking for most of our trips, with a few Zipcar rentals peppered in. Without those parking tickets, we would definitely have kept our car because there would be no downside.
I envy the Tokyo system, where you're required to show you have your own parking spot in order to be able to purchase a car. No wonder their public transit is world class.
With parking requirements, families who don't have/need/want a car still have to pay the extra price for a built-in feature they don't need. When we bought our first home, it was a condo in SoMa without car parking. We loved it because we didn't want or need a car, and we couldn't have comfortably afforded a place with parking included. Especially in metropolitan environments, minimum parking requirements are the near the core among the reasons many things don't work well (public service, street safety, runaway home prices...)
And I would argue that's a good thing, save for those who overbought housing with the expectation of it continuing to rise in value. But it's not responsible to shape the housing market to favor those following the greater fool scheme.
In terms of funding those services, and specifically in the case of California, newcomers to a city bear an outsized share of the burden, because Prop 13 locked in low tax rates for long term owners. So if anything, new development would facilitate providing and improving those services. You can see that, in practice, cities suffering municipal bankruptcies are those who fail to grow steadily.
The thing I don't get is why many SFH owners don't see the benefit of upzoning their lot: Overnight, their house is much more valuable because if they choose to, they can sell to a developer who can make MORE money by building more homes. And if they choose to keep their house as is, nobody is going to force them.
In the end, it boils down to cars, though. Many people see the free parking space in front of their house as an extension of their property, and more people on their street often means they have to compete for it. Make cars optional, and everything else falls into place.
Somewhere someone had proposed a new rule that would require all parking structures to be built on level floors, with the idea of allowing a future conversion when the conditions are right. Slanted floors negate this option from the start.
The main point is that "accident" implicitly absolves the driver of fault, before any evidence is examined. If you're driving 100MPH in a local street, you may not be intentionally trying to harm anyone, but if you do, the result can hardly be called an accident.
The fact that even making a similar argument to mine, you still say "if car accidents are accidental" is very telling of how ingrained this phrase has become. (Not to pick on you, I just find it amusing.)
The problem with using "accident" as the default term is that it preempts any evidence-finding, implying that it was nobody's fault. If someone shoots their gun randomly and someone gets hurt by just being there, nobody will call it an "accident", but somehow if the weapon is a car, the driver gets the benefit of the doubt regardless of the facts.
That's odd, I don't remember a single concussion in any game for the 3 years I played. I wonder if in the US kids play more football-like? I played in Spain, where it's a fringe sport, very rare outside the amateur/college circuit.
My experience with high school rugby was that head impacts were exceedingly rare. Lots of bruises, though. The showers after a game were loud, with kids screaming their pain away.
I stopped in college because I didn't have time (or will) for the gym, and it suddenly wasn't fun to play against people several years older than you. I imagine American football would be much worse in terms because of the external protection provided by the padding and helmets. It hurts more to hit skin to skin, so you don't do it so much, and when you do, it's carefully. But in older age, and professional settings, I imagine things are different.
I am somewhat similar. The irony is that when you're riding next to traffic, a helmet offers little protection against being hit by a car. The biggest gains are solo crashes against the asphalt, with no cars involved. So if I'm riding a city bike for fun or chores, I may not wear a helmet (especially a shared bike). But if I'm riding the hills for sport, helmet on every time.
This is the relevant complaint. Not that scammers need much help collecting a list of legit numbers to spoof, but now they can tell their victim to go and check the origin number on this service and falsely reassuring them.