keneda7

>>And just to be clear, you're agreeing with somebody who claimed that SFPD is defunded and is only acting differently because they are currently defunded.

I responded to you, you responded to someone claiming "The police aren't defunded in San Francisco. They have consistently gotten budget increases."

I pointed out the police have been defunded depending on the time span you look at. I also pointed both of you misrepresenting the data pretending it was the overall budget when it was in fact the employees wages.

>>You're also saying that 3 out of 4 isn't consistent.

I disagree with you. You claimed a link said there was a "$27.5 million to fund police overtime in 21-22". Could you point specifically to where that is?

One does reference a 27.5 million proposal and says "The Budget and Appropriations Committee of the Board of Supervisors approved a $25 million budget supplemental Wednesday to fund police overtime in San Francisco. It next goes to the full Board of Supervisors on March 21st." No where does this say that this is being added to last years budget. In fact the article is from March 2023.

Even if it was for 21-22, if original budget allocated less money than the previous year, they defunded the police that year. Rushing to add in extra funding AFTER the budget was done so people can pretend it never happened does not erase the original budget that defunded them.

So I still see it as 2-2 even with your added 22-23 data which is not consistent in my eyes.

>>After all, why stay in a city when everything is closed when you can get the same experience cheaper somewhere else?

If someone is moving due to cost that is displacement in my eyes. If there was not a cost, they would stay.

You claimed there was no evidence, I offered evidence now you say oh no that evidence doesn't count because it doesn't fit my narrative.

So just be clear you are claiming there is 0 defunding but then admit by your count there is one decrease which is also known as defunding?

Also based on the timeline for 21-22 they defunded, then recognized the need more money because you know they defunded from the previous year so then allocated more funding.

The article I linked didn't have 22-23.

Not the original poster but here is an article on SFs population

https://sfstandard.com/research-data/san-francisco-bay-area-... From 2020-2022 SF (city) -65,522 SF Bay Area -249,389

Its also worth noting the SF (city) decrease was -7.5% or number 1 amongst all US counties with more than 100k residents.

Pretty hard to argue there is no displacement happening when it leads the country.

But yet again here you are arguing my point for me. The residents of SF caused this. If the current renters don't care enough to do something about it by voting in different politicians/policies are they not to blame? The population of SF (city) is ~815k. The voting portion of that population could vote in different politicians if they wanted too. They have not. Hence once again we are back at SF being the way it is because of the residents voted and continue to vote it that way.

Also please remember the homeowners are residents too. The are exercising their right to vote the things they want. If the renters are not exercising their right because they just don't care or are not political active that is the RENTERS issue. No one else's.

>>The homeowners gradually took over through the dot-com era and again in the latest boom... there's no one (in numbers) left that cares enough about SF to stop them.

So what you are saying here is the residents of SF that are renting and not owners do not care enough to try and fix the issues. Or to put it another way, SF is the way it is because the residents refuse to do anything about it.

It is crazy to me how many people just straight up lie on here.

The article the poster linked to does not show the overall department budget, rather that was spent on employees' wages. I don't see you or the other poster mentioning this at all though. Here is an article you can see the overall budget of numerous police departments including SF

https://abc7news.com/sfpd-budget-defund-the-police-departmen...

18-19: 629.8M 19-20: 692.3M 20-21: 667.9M 21-22: 657.4M

I believe I see one increase and two decreases. Between 18-19 to 19-20 the departments funding increased. While the department had funding decreased from 19-20 to 20-21 and again from 20-21 to 21-22. Now whether or not this defunding (funding decrease) was due to "defund the police" or some other factor I cannot say. However I can say for a fact that the narrative police were NOT defunded is wrong. I have provided 2 overall budgets that show they were defunded for two separate time periods.

Its also worth noting we are not adjusting for inflation or cost of living increases.

I'm still a little confused by your point. Your last comment seems to support what I and the other poster was saying.

The residents (home owners new or old and renters are included in residents) caused this issue. You refer to them voting themselves into this mess as a bad habit. But who has that bad habit? The residents of course. Hence I lay the blame at the residents feet. I know numerous people that saw the writing on the wall and moved away from SF because they knew the end result (where we are today) of path the other residents were voting for.

A quick google search (number of renters vs number of home owners in SF) says SF is 65% rental household. Not sure how accuracy of that but lets assume its reasonably accurate. That would mean the renters have a larger voting power than the homeowners. If the renters choose to vote against their interests or not vote for decades in my eyes they are to blame.

I think you may be the one missing the dots. The comment you responded to is pointing out that cycle you list (gentrification -> disparity -> flight -> neglect) is a direct result of the residents actions. They are the ones that elect the politicians and vote on propositions. The residents made a choice to go the route they did. What you see is a direct result of the residents' choices.

I live within a couple hours of SF and I got to say I 100% agree with the person you responded too. The residents of SF caused the mess they are in.

I believe this comes down to the difference in the US vs EU. The US focus more on the probability of something being harmful whereas the EU focus more on the possibility of something being harmful.

edit: to explain more. There is always a possibility that a meteor is going to crash through my roof and kill me this instant but the probability of that happening are very very very tiny.

I see this repeated a lot. Are you trying to be technical and say the money wasn't physically printed? If you are doing that, you are being ridiculous. But if you are not trying to be technical could you please provide some proof? Another responder was nice enough to give you the M2 money supply numbers which 100% support what you are saying didn't happen.

No you are just straight up lying now. If a person entered the country with a visa or visa waiver and overstayed their welcome then they entered the country legally. The vast majority of person enter the US without authorization are not the ones enter the US legally because they in fact have authorization. All of the ones entering the county without authorizations are the ones that do not have a visa or visa wavier or asylum and hence entered illegally and broke the law.

Your ridiculous claim because you are not arguing in good faith at all and will most likely edit your post:

"For the last 20 or so years, the majority of persons entering the United States without authorization entered legally on a visa or visa waiver and then overstayed their allotted time."

Also the asylum number (in 2022 25k admitted, 89,461 added to the wait list, 750k on the waitlist from all of time) is currently way lower than the 2.76 million caught illegally crossing last year. Seems like way way more people try to illegally enter.

https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+asylum+seeker+in+u...

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/migrant-border-...

I will give you some people could be in the US without have entering illegally but that is not what you claimed. You left off the word some in your statement.

But you mislead in your post by leaving that out?

Could you please provide evidence that population growth adjusted this number to under a record high? Until then I am going to actual believe the real numbers and not how you feel.

As in today 2023 yes they are going down. That is because Title 42 is being used again. However according to this article last year was a record high.

"In fiscal year 2022, federal officials along the southern border stopped migrants over 2.3 million times, a record high."

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jan-6-arrests-new-accusations-s...

If you have a valid rx is it still illegal for you to order the overseas drugs?

Ah that makes sense. Thank you for explaining.

I'm a little confused here. You say being in the US without permission is not a crime. But that means you crossed a border illegally to get here which is in fact more than a non-criminal civil case.

It is stated in the first paragraph. "for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both."

You don't go to jail for civil cases.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1325

I actually paid for resharper for many years. However when I switched over to VS22 I decided to give it a shot without it. As its definitely still lacking compared to resharper I have been using ChatGPT to fill in the gaps. If I get charged for ChatGPT I will most likely go back to resharper as you said its IDE integrated and ChatGPT is not atm.

Completely agree. If they start charging for what I am using it for I would switch back to resharper. If I'm going to pay I may as well may it as convenient as possible and integrate it into VS.

I've been waiting for an article like this. As a software developer I completely agree with them.

Often when I mention I use ChatGPT I get strange looks. Its like people automatically assume I am going to ChatGPT and saying "Build me a software that does x". I personally see no value in asking it something like that. Its the simple questions that save me 10-15 minutes of reading through google results. For example I often time ask it to rewrite statements into linq or to compare two ways of doing something. Its not correct 100% of the time but it is correct often enough to save me 10 minutes multiple times a day.

Those are pretty damning statistics to be honest.

Just so I know I am understanding you correctly you believe that more that 1.5% of the cases did have merit and if those cases would have been handled outside of the whistleblower legislation they probably would have been more successful?

Based on the statistics you provided that seems like a reasonable assumption. Do you happen to have any stats on the percentage of successful cases using more conventional proceedings. I feel like its probably a pretty hard metric to track.

You hit the nail on the head but you did not actually say it. The current system is NOT part of the legal system. We are not arguing about the legal system. We are arguing about the administrative system these administrators/professors put in the place. The exact ones ruining students lives on a whim.

If you want to say the professors/admins get the right to challenge ones accuser then they can no longer be involved in the process at all. Furthermore there needs to be criminal charges and jail time involved in any situation its warranted that is found true and the same for the accuser if it is found false. However this is NOT how it is. The staff are the process. Judges, juries, and executioners. Until that changes, my opinion is: no they do not get the right to face the accuser.

Curious how you feel about anonymous whistleblowers?

But the reverse is also true. Professors have the power to ruin a students career before it even starts.

I am a product of public schools and two state colleges. I saw tons of professors that used their personal feelings of a student to determine their grade. Sometimes this would work in the students favor, sometimes it would work against the student. Until no professors are doing that (I would say from my experience over half are) there absolutely needs to be anonymous reporting on faculty.

What you are advocating for it a system where professors can do anything they want and them simply blackball the student who makes a legitimate complaint and have all their professor friends do the same.

I am not sure for how much longer that will remain true. Mercedes seems to be getting closer and closer.

https://www.theverge.com/2023/1/27/23572942/mercedes-drive-p...

I addressed it in the last post. Let me try and explain it in simpler, easier to understand steps that doesn't force you to use critical thinking. SBF was breaking the law and he knew it. He wanted a get out of jail free card so he went and donated money to politicians/groups willing to help. His behavior shows that he was willing to find politicians that he thought may be able to help him down the line. The donation records show the left appears to be the side more willing to do this as that is where 2x more money went.

Again you insult me rather than having a discussion.

I apologize if I misunderstood your original comment. I read it as you saying SBF hedged his bets by giving equally to both sides so they both are just as guilty here.

In my original response I was pretty clear I was specifically saying we only have SBFs word that he donated equally. I mean that is the sentence I wrote. You responded by insulting me, implying I do crack, and saying the article has the proof from the prosecutor. Which is funny because the article does not contain a single piece of evidence that shows he donated equally to both sides. I guess maybe you didn't actually read my first comment and were just chomping at the bit to be able to insult me and call me a drug user?

You then accuse me of spreading partisan fud when in fact that is exactly what I pointed out you doing. The idea that he donated equally to both sides (which is how I interpreted your first post and clearly listed as the thing I called out in my response) is partisan fud.

As for you last point. Yes the fact that he donated 2x times as much to the left than the right is absolutely relevant to his behavior. Its completely reasonable to assume he donated to the people he though would be able to help him in the future.

Making illegal donations is not the same thing at all as donating equally to both sides. The indictment does not say he donated equally to both side like you are trying to imply in your post.

He hedged his bets 2-1. For every dollar he gave to the right he gave 2 to left. I have provided the evidence to support this. You have not and cannot refute this.

Pretty hard to have a discussion with you when you try and push a political narrative rather than discuss things in good faith.

Yet we just have to take SBFs word for him donating equally the both sides. I do not find him trustworthy. I also would point out that his parents are both involved in left pacs. I'm sure he has no reason to lie.

Of the donation we have evidence of he seemed to donate equally to candidates on both sides but heavily favored the left when it came to PAC donations.

Summing up the PAC donation from the link below give us:

Left: 44.8 Right: 23.2

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/recipients?id=D000073694&cy...

Okay that makes a lot more sense. Based on your response, your argument is more about the way/method they are negotiating with the employer not the act of negotiating itself.

My previous comment had asked this also: Is it okay for a company to offer and employee more than they are making at another company or is that a gross and extortion mentality as well?

In my eyes employees are paid based on their worth to a company. If company x says I am worth more than company y, but I like working at company y more, is it gross and wrong for me to say "hey company y I really love working for you but I think my labor is worth more than you are paying me. For example company x has offered me more money of the same job responsibility."?

I in no way have a extortion mentality. Rather I believe I am being under compensated for the work I do and to show this I have gotten quotes for what my skills are worth to other companies in the field.

I would equate the above to shopping around for quotes for a home upgrade. Typically people want to get multiple quotes to see what the fair market value of the work is.

Could you explain this a bit more please?

It appears you are saying an employee negotiating for a better salary is a gross and extortion mentality?

If so I have to say I 100% disagree with you. Negotiating is one of the last tools workers have left. Would you say a company offering to hire someone for x more than they are currently making is a gross and extortion mentality too?

Any explanation here?

From what I can find, eggs are considered one of the super foods by most people.