towelr34dy

Safe injection sites are a socially responsible way of using resources.

It costs society money for ambulances to be running around to OD people.

Safe injection makes sense.

It doesn't promote heroin.

No one is saying: Heroin in a Healthy Manner.

They are simply saying: Let's spend a stitch in time. You don't even have to think of it as being kind, just rational.

Let's reconsider this position using some other example:

Healthy on Heroin. HOH

HOH is not BS. Here's the deal. For lots and lots of people, being not addicted to heroin is very very hard. So hard, that even though there is enormous social pressure that they've had basically from ~18 years old to however old they are, they still haven't managed to become clean for any significant length of time.

HOH is a reaction that says "What if we accepted that some people are just going to be heroin addicts, and then tried to come up with ways of being as healthy as possible given the circumstances". You may not like the packaging that HOH comes wrapped up in, and the most vocal proponents of it are often the least interested in making it palatable to you. But it's not BS.

Consider that there is essentially nothing that medical science has for people who are chronically addicted to heroin except a detox. Shit is hard, yo.

It doesn't have to be. I put together my own. Here is what I purchased:

Jarvis Stand Desk Frame Only ($445) Home Depo Door ($60) Confidence Power Plus Motorized Electric Treadmill Black ($200)

So total of $700~ for basics.

Additionally, to make it look nice I added: WireTamer Cable Trays ($20) Shelf and Drawer Liner Wood Grain (x3 for a total Of $27) LED Lights ($20) Drill-able Cable Clips (x2 for $10) Belkin Power Strip ($22)

Since the higher position meant I started getting hit by the AC stream and I also didn't like people being able to see me through the windows when standing, I added: Frost King Air Deflectors ($10) Gila Privacy Window Film ($30)

My comment was on why governments don't intervene as quickly when detecting bad behavior from important nodes. This applies to the US as to the other countries. I seem to remember a quote from some Russian book I read that went along the lines of "we crucify small thieves and celebrate the big ones".

Your comment on the bailout is something I agree with. Using a non-intervention consideration to justify intervention... has nothing to do with the validity of the non-intervention consideration.

I find it a very odd tangent to use as a reply, since it sounds like a rebuttal but doesn't address the point. It does add to it, in a way, I guess.

Actually, I'd add that this is more related to the importance of the individual or company as a node in the country's economic network.

The larger the impact on the network in terms of either magnitude or volume of souls owned, the greater the ability to get away with actions that forward individual gain over general good.

Shareholders and directors of many corporations do get prosecuted.

The disincentive for the government is always going to be the effect of removing an important node from a network. Especially when the government and people gain from the stability of the network, even if certain negatives happen.

Not to say the way we treat corporations isn't really horrible. It is. Adam Smith would roll in his grave if he knew we were justifying our corporatocracy on his writings.

I'm simply pointing out that large nodes are always treated differently because it is logical to do so. If 3 people do something and you take them out, the economy keeps up exactly the same.

But take out the head of a company that owns... er... hires 100,000 souls? Or maybe the company only hires 300 souls, but they are developing nuclear bombs, or maybe developing a new gene editing tech, or green fuel? Then we have magnitude instead of volume. You got yourself political backlash if you remove these nodes.

I believe a factor in this is the incentives at play based on a mentality.

The incentives are that if data is deleted, the person doing it can be in trouble for destroying it. The probability of getting in trouble for not deleting is low.

This is based off of a mentality of: If we need the data and delete it, we (the gov) will have less power. If we don't delete it and need it, we will have more.

I believe the flaw in this reasoning is not considering a 3rd possibility: We don't delete it, don't need it, but it falls into other (even less scrupulous hands) that can use it and gain power.

I don't see them as black and white. I said there was an issue and gave examples. I asked a question based on such examples.

Stop moving the goal posts. Stop your whataboutisms. My original post comparing #1 to #2 stands. You confound such situations. This hurts everyone.

"physical assault can be far less violating than ... verbal harassment."

...

You are the reason for the article above. Congrats. Now celebrate your victory.

Err, I was using the term "Violation of a woman's integrity".

According to you, both 1 and 2 can be described that way.

Listen you are right in part. Like when people talk about drugs being ba-a-a-a-d.

Is cocaine bad? Yes

Is the war on drugs justified by this? No

Same here. You are talking about a real problem. You are suggesting solutions that hurt everyone involved and then acting like if someone doesn't agree with you they are denying the problem.

I'm not denying the problem. I pointed out issue with an applied solution and instead of addressing them, you bring up the problem the issues were supposed to address, while ignoring the point.

So... you think it is fair to the woman in example 1 to have the same term applied to example 2?

1- The first woman's gang rape where she spent months in the hospital recuperating. 2- An upper middle class woman getting told in a loud manner "uuuuhhh girl, you're looking finnnnneeee today"

Really? You can't see the difference between 1 and 2? You can't see the need for different terminology?

That's on you. I find it silly, and I find the confounding hurts everyone involved. Including girl #2, who has a legitimate complaint, but seems ridiculous using the terminology that is used for #1.

It also creates an environment of emotions and hysteria instead of reason and logic applied to resolving problems.

I'd say there are other factors. One big one for me is confounding:

"Sex predator/Abuser" will be the label placed on a guy who violently rapes a woman, just as it will be applied to the guy who said something PERCEIVED to be inappropriate (or who might have had consenting sex with a employee)

My sister the other day refereed to a guy who cat called her as "Violating her integrity".

When there is little distinction in describing: 1- someone saying bad things 2- an act of violently forcing yourself on someone and scarring them for life 3- Inappropriate, but consensual sexual behavior It can be a little worrisome to be accused of saying bad things or of being even perceived as possibly having a relationship with someone.

IMO, never.

Rule #1: Perfection is attainable

Rule #2: The universe is not constant: Screen sizes change, browsers, screen types, technology, new competitors come up changing people's expectations, people's tastes change, you expand into new demographics/demos/sales channels which react differently than existing demographics/sales channels, etc.

Ideally this work is done with a marketing/programming/operations team all in one, so all aspects are considered, with their trade offs, to forward on a collective understanding of solving user pain points.

This seems like a prevailing attitude, but I think it is based on a debunked thought processes.

People used to think that heroin or other substances were inherently addictive in and of themselves. This was because of experiments on mice in Skinner boxes. But that is not how addiction works. Addiction is, in great measure, the result of animals being unhappy and trying to do something about it.

This has been proven both in humans and in mice. Mice, and humans, generally don't get addicted when they have good things to do.

To focus on the opioid side of our social dysfunction is just as useless as focusing on any other SYMPTOM of dysfunction.

When I hear people talking about how horrible the epidemic is, I can't stop helping thinking of a flu analogy:

This sniffling epidemic is really terrible. We should ban sniffling because sniffling people suffer, we need to protect them* if they sniffle. But let's not worry about people washing their hands... that's unrelated.

* Generally implied is that by protecting people it means putting people in cages if they disobey our social commands.

Yeap, the article has a very heavy handed one side to it.

I mean, it sounds like "Silly users don't like my smart product that no one uses" without considering, maybe, just maybe, the product wasn't good?

The author did touched on it a little by mentioning the difficulty for working parents to move their work schedule, but it seemed glossed over. I'd think changes that interfere with the the household bread earners ability to earn would be a serious consideration and a deal breaker for any proposed change.

Not to say politics aren't incredibly inefficient and way more emotive than logic prone.

The Boston Globe is owned by John W Henry.

The man operates algorithm trading systems; it's the reason he is a billionaire.

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you that I read algorithm positive news stories in his newspaper. Shocked!

Spies who become journalists are still spies. You could have a journalist suspect of spying. But that is not the same as going after legitimate journalists when there is no suspicion of spying.

The article is very clear about this being directed at journalists that are not suspect.

Why do you bring up this argument?

I mean, hit man could pose as doctors, I don't think you would argue that doctors should be patted down before going to work. Because the conflation is ridiculous.

This 'spies could become journalists' thing seems like a sophist government apologist point.

I would argue this is more to do with Portland culture of nice than anything.

I love riding, but I have been run over. No thank you. I will bike for transportation the day we implement Dutch style separated bike lanes (i.e. by an actual physical barrier, even if only a slightly raised bike lane)

Other than that, I drive my mountain bike to areas where there are no cars.

Edit: in the city I'm in now, we just 'created' a bunch of bike lanes. Which means putting paint on a continuous stretch of asphalt and expect vehicles moving at 10mph that weight 50 pounds to do just fine sharing the road with vehicles weighing 2000+ pounds and going 50+ mph. Ridiculous and a waste of my tax dollars.

It's like the Gell-man amnesia effect for news, but with authority in general (it doesn't even have to be gov, it could be NGOs, news, religion, expert establishment, etc)

I had never thought of it. But with the decline of religion, it seems faith is now directed at authority, mostly of the political but also the 'scientific' kind. Great point, thank you.

Reminds me of all those people saying how well electricians/plumbers and other tradesmen earn.

Most of the time they are looking at someone with their own PLUMBING BUSINESS and saying how easy it is to make money.

Sorry, owning a business is not easy. Doesn't matter what type. There is a lot of risk, and people need to be rewarded for that risk. That is not free money.

If we look at the average repair guy for the a property manager, who works a fixed schedule with a fixed pay check and who and does plumbing and electricity, that guy will not be earning so well.

Why do we always assume little people do things for their self benefit with no regard for their 'reasoning/explanations', but when it comes to big guys we instantly assuming their stated reasons have no ulterior motives?

The law is really blatant in it's intention; this was a move against free speech. The 'unintended consequences narrative' is so blatantly false, I'm dumbfounded how it could be seriously quoted by otherwise logical and reasonable people.

Actually, IIRC from my history classes, guns were called the 'great equalizer' because all of a sudden a child could kill a full grown swordsmen with the same easy as a highly trained warrior.

They are the people who own the country. They are the people who are invited to the Bilderberg meetings. They are those who fund think tanks. They are the people whose kids are guaranteed a seat in an Ivy league school, regardless of merit. They are also VERY unlikely to face jail time when they are accused of a crime; which is rare.

No, they are not a single entity. No they aren't perfectly coordinated. No, they aren't a single group conspiring in a smokey room.

But they are a social group. They go to the same schools, live in the same ZIP codes and vacation in similar places. They marry overwhelming among themselves. There are a few thousand families in the US with that level of power. New families reach these power levels and other families fall off, it isn't a fixed thing.

But you'll know who they are because you and I aren't invited to their clubs.

Because we live in an era of increased authoritarianism.

And the reality for those of us that don't like it is that authoritarianism doesn't appear from nowhere. It appears because of the prevailing attitude of large segments of the population.

This means that criticism towards authority is generally received with skepticism and a very high evidence standard is used to judge the 'correctness' or the 'paranoia/conspiracy' of the claim. This while simultaneously accepting authority claims with little questioning and zero, even negative demand for evidence.

I would agree the down voting is uncalled for given the good nature of the question. But given the previous explanation, I'm not surprised by it.

Edit: spelling

Or you could argue that the current climate of world peace was brought on by multiple currents including: 1- An acceleration of technology development that changed the sharing of resources to go from zero sum to a positive sum situation. 2- That nuclear weapons and other WMD have created a MAD situation, guaranteeing only minor skirmishes by super powers. 3- A variety of other factors including the integration of global supply chains, women's voting rights, etc.

But please, don't let these factors get in the way of your narrative of American exceptionalism.

Unless of course there would exist a revolving door between SEC and the companies they are supposed to enforce action on.

http://www.pogo.org/our-work/reports/sec-revolving-door.html

> This doesn't look good for him.

Can I ask what you mean by this?

Will the SEC arrest him? Ban him from being a Director of a public company?

I keep hearing about him 'getting in big trouble'. But I don't get it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it is upsetting for him to possibly be forced to pay millions in fines and maybe even be kick off one of his projects.

But that isn't a very big downside, and half of it isn't even from the SEC.

I mean, there seems to be a pattern when it comes to the misbehavior of the ultra powerful:

The upside to his action has the potential in the billions, while the potential IF caught is generally going to be a fine worth millions.

He may have snubbed his board badly enough that they make him pay for this incident by removing his control of the project, but that is a separate matter.

I feel whenever someone powerful is going to be punished the media goes crazy over every detail of the noodle that is going to be used as a whip.