I think in one sense it can be good. Sometimes it is counterproductive to downvote someone from 1 to 0. I think this would prevent that, as the first downvote is probably the most important one.
But I agree that making any data public will allow everyone to be categorized easily. “This person dislikes this content and likes other content.”
Remember, you are giving this info to everyone. Mark Zuckerberg will be able to see what you like and dislike in all public votes.
Good trouble.
There are a ton of articles on it. The system is huge and has been around for decades. Look it up if you like. If you don’t care, don’t.
No one said it was good at all. It’s a necessary service in a big city. Obviously some shelters are very different from others. None of them are at nice hotels, but you can get your own room and a place for some of your stuff.
The major complaints are usually “it’s too small” or “they don’t let me have pets”. Guess what? There are actual apartments people pay for that are too small and don’t allow pets. It’s NYC.
I’m talking about reality in this century. You’re quoting an 1800s writer from another country. The system is a complicated solution to a complicated problem. So there’s not going to be any simple answer, and definitely not from online quotes.
This doesn’t apply because the law doesn’t forbid anyone from sleeping under bridges. Also, you can get housing for free. That’s my point. It’s the opposite of that quote. Unless you’re pro-theft or something.
Exactly. These are necessary rules for a large city. No one can camp without a permit because then parks would be unusable. The same permit is for weddings, parties, whatever. It’s pretty easy to get one for a few hours, but they will reject it if you ask to use the park every day and night.
People living outside in public parks and on streets is a really bad use of urban space. It takes public space and makes it private. That’s why the city gives out free room in old hotels and shelters. It’s a good thing people can’t sleep wherever.
Technically it’s not illegal to sleep on the street, but there are sanitation rules regarding it. NYC has 8 million people. Any problem you can think of is magnified. It’s literally a sanitary issue if you allow thousands of people to camp outside.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/26/nyregion/nyc-homeless-camp-bill-of-rights.html
In New York City, there are many rules on the books that have been used to restrict sleeping rough.
One is a piece of sanitation code that makes it unlawful to leave “any box, barrel, bale or merchandise or other movable property” or to erect “any shed, building or other obstruction” on “any public place.”
In city parks, it is illegal to “engage in camping, or erect or maintain a tent, shelter or camp” without a permit, or to be in a park at all between 1 a.m. and 6 a.m. unless posted rules state otherwise.
And on the property of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, both underground and in outdoor elevated subway stations, it is a form of banned disorderly conduct to “sleep or doze” in any manner that “may interfere” with the comfort of passengers. Nor may subway riders “lie down or place feet on the seat of a train, bus or platform bench or occupy more than one seat” or “place bags or personal items on seats” in ways that “impede the comfort of other passengers.”
Note that these rules also restrict people who have homes too. No one can have a party in the park after hours or take up a ton of space on the subway. Note also that you can sleep outside if you don’t get in the way.
someone who did not violate any of those rules — say, someone who set a sleeping bag in an out-of-the-way spot under a highway overpass and did not put up any kind of shelter — was legally in the clear, at least in theory.
Yes. They should do it like NYC, where it’s basically illegal to live on the street. The city is required by law to offer free housing at a certain quality level for anyone who needs it. It’s not amazing but you get a door that locks and a security team, plus a bathroom.
If you don’t want to sleep inside, you literally have to leave the city. It’s not cheap but it works much better than letting people live in tents.
Also, they quote $10k for “supportive housing” and show a picture of San Francisco. I guarantee that’s not accurate. The state needs to pay to house these people, but we need to be realistic about the cost.
Yeah, just like how black people were bad and the “children of Ham” or whatever. After the Civil Rights Movement, Morman God mysteriously changed his mind and said “black people are ok now”.
The funny thing is, a lot of these mush-brained first movers actually make a lot of money just by being first. They are bought out by a load of second or third place investors who end up holding the bag.
The later investors see the success of the first movers and try to replicate it, but without knowing what they are buying. At least the first investors usually know it’s speculative. When they sell to later investors the company magically becomes “established”, and is valued as if it will continue growing forever.
Nothing grows forever.
I think this is going to look like crap in 10 years. I support building your own, I just think it can be done way better.
Also, it looks like the “Central Valley” in CA extends uphill to the top of the Sierras and Lake Tahoe. Plus “Socal” is as far north as Carmel.
No. Carmel is the Central Coast. You might as well add that to the Central Valley and add some new group for the Sierra Nevada mountains that includes northern CA above Sacramento. The north coast is culturally and geographically similar to the Sierras. “Socal” doesn’t extend farther north than Santa Barbara.
The indigenous people are the shareholders, so no it isn’t.
I’m just explaining to you that all the “largest armies” on there are outliers. Wikipedia lists Iran as having only 600K active personnel:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Armed_Forces
The list is just incorrect, and I explained why. South Korea has only 51 million people. Do you really think that 7.5% of all people are in the military? No, that includes “reserves” who actually do not work as soldiers.
In that sense, every male in the US signs up for selective service at 18. Should every male aged 18 to 40 be counted as a member of the military?
But the US doesn’t literally use soldiers as construction workers to build random roads and bridges. They use private contractors for most things like that. The groups you mentioned just help out a little to practice for wartime. Most construction is done privately.
Size of the “military” on paper is meaningless from a defense perspective, which is the main purpose of a military. What matters is the amount and quality of troops that you can deploy and support in the field, and the speed at which that happens. Someone paving a road in Hunan or building drones for export in Tehran shouldn’t be counted as a “soldier” because they are not able to be deployed.
The US doesn’t count it’s construction workers or factory workers as “soldiers”.
You can’t use numbers of people to make comparisons between countries because they are misleading. Some countries use their soldiers for construction work (China) or have whole industries owned by the military (Iran). A person working on a defense industry assembly line isn’t a member of the military in most countries.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guards were put in charge of creating what is today known as the Iranian military industry. Under their command, Iran’s military industry was enormously expanded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran_Armed_Forces
Using numbers of personnel to compare China or Iran to a country like Belgium would make Belgium look like a pushover. Belgium has a tiny military but uses it’s location in Europe to ensure security through diplomacy and membership in NATO.
I promise you would be harder to invade the headquarters of NATO than either of those countries.
feels like the SL team decided they’d work on moderation tooling, then realised they don’t quite know what to do and so are looking for ideas on what should be done.
You dislike being asked to provide your opinion on an anonymous survey with optional demographic questions? And then you post your opinion on the same comment with your screen name attached? Why?
remove anything
Uh, a US Government mastodon server wouldn’t have any way to sign up and comment. I assume it would be all one way announcements.
Who cares about randos who want to talk to the president? People were posting dead bodies on Biden’s announcements on Threads.
Uh, Android is the alternative to Apple’s iOS. Android is much more customizable.