I don’t understand how on earth you could come to your conclusions if you actually live in SF. Large parts of San Francisco are a nightmare in large part because of a near total absence of law enforcement. I cannot imagine what cities you could be thinking of, unless you’re thinking of the gang warfare in parts of Chicago. Property crime in SF in particular is at a comically bad level. There is a widespread institutional unwillingness to do anything that might be perceived as hurting poor people, so instead we just let grifters and junkies clean out entire stores (not kidding, we don’t enforce laws against theft below $900), shit and piss everywhere, leave used needles on our sidewalks, and contaminate all our public spaces with tent cities. And don’t forget the constant and unceasing drumbeat of car breakins! Everyone I know here has a story of crime or horror that has happened to them because of the hands-off attitude toward crime here.
When I was a kid, people told me, it’s important to have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. SF attitude toward street crime is well past that point.
I've lived in SF for the past 10 years. Yes, there's car break-ins and bike thefts. There's homeless people in parts of the mission, and the tenderloin.
Most of what you describe here isn't going to be helped by increase police presence (the areas you're describing have the highest police presence in the city, and it's been like this since forever). These things are primarily related to poverty and the hate of the homeless.
Want less shit on the streets? Give the homeless access to bathrooms. Want less needles on the streets? Implement needle exchanges. Want less car break-ins and bike theft? Have fewer poor people by making sure they're paid enough, the rents are low enough to pay, and by providing housing to the homeless (most homeless people in SF were living in SF and housed in the past).
Putting poor people and drug users in jail hasn't solved the problem in the past, and won't make them better in the future. The police spend all day taking all their shit away, making them even poorer.
No one is entitled to live in SF. The problems you describe are not caused by hate of the homeless, but the opposite - bleeding heart tolerance of their destruction of this city.
The police can't stop homeless people from living there. All they can do is force them to constantly move around the city and take their stuff away. If you dislike homeless people screaming at you because they're in a constant state of mental breakdown, this isn't the right way to solve it.
Also, get out of here with "destruction of this city". The city hasn't changed since I moved to it, and the locals I know say that in comparison to the past, the city is cleaner, and less violent than it ever has been. The crime stats in just the 10 years I've lived here have also dropped considerably.
I hope that you wake up and realize how much damage you’re doing, and how much people who hold beliefs like yours have already done.
I am one of these residents you claim say things are improving. They are not improving. I live in one of these benighted areas, have for many years, and in the last few it has been getting worse every year.
Maybe the issue is that you’re more concerned with the comfort of people who feel entitled do whatever they please - shit in the street, assault people, rob businesses, consume drugs in public - than with the safety of contributing members of society.
It is not cowardly to want to be able to walk down the street at night safely. It is not cowardly to want to not have my business robbed or my vehicle broken into. It is not cowardly to not want to step in human waste or to have to dodge used syringes on the sidewalk. It is not cowardly to want to not have to change my route to work almost every day to avoid a mentally ill person who is screaming and hitting themselves or passers-by in the head. This is not a high bar. Living without these travesties is the baseline in virtually every other city in the first world.
San Francisco is a city that spends tens of thousands of dollars per homeless person per year, a city that has shelters, needle exchanges, and one of the most liberal attitudes toward homelessness in the country. A city that has refused to enforce the law against street crime, and that has one of the highest per capita property crime rate in the nation. Anyone who can look at the abject failure of these policies and say, the problem is that we need to just give these people more free stuff and more services and less law enforcement is delusional.
I'm saying that more policing doesn't help the problem, which you're kind of brushing past here.
I also want homeless people off the street, but the police can't do that. All they can do is move them around, which makes everyone's life worse. If you want them off the street, you need to put them into homes (not shelters).
Also, please show stats that prove your point, because historical data simply doesn't support your argument. You decided to move into a high crime area, and you're pissed that "the streets aren't being cleaned up". The area you're living in used to be a lot worse than it is, but if you're in the tenderloin, or SOMA, you need to realize those areas have always been bad, and the bar to make them better is extremely high.
Maybe chose the location of your next home more reasonably next time? The part of the city I'm in is really nice (the richmond neighborhoods), maybe take the commute hit and move?
I hate to break it to you, but the police don't do this anywhere. When I lived in New Orleans my apartment was robbed and when the police came, I asked when they'd followup and the officer literally laughed at me.
With the exception of select violent crimes, the police don't investigate crimes. For those select violent crimes, the percentage they solve is extremely low.
Also, please don't confuse home invasion for burglary. I know this is some weird propaganda point for you Chesa recallers, but there's a massive difference between the two, and the former the courts do care about. I think they should take burglary more seriously, but even if the courts did, the police still wouldn't.
The core problem here is reporting to prevent CSAM (hopefully, it is uncontroversial that doing so is desirable) but rather that this makes on-device snitching on any topic a matter of -policy- rather than -technology-. It is much harder for a government to say, you must implement this large and complex feature, you must keep it secret, etc - especially a foreign government - than it is to say, here are some new hashes, please plug them in to your database that four people have access to. Or to say, please scan all images instead of just those uploaded. Even if Apple wants to right by its users, it is making it much easier for Apple to be compelled to do wrong.
“We promise” is easily forgotten. “We can’t” requires dev teams to change.
I agree about how the technology can be applied to other instances, but I feel that people who are criticizing Apple are crucially placing all the blame on Apple but not on the government that pressured them into doing this in the first place. This CSAM issue is proof that if even the most valuable company in the world can be pressured into compliance, then any company in the world could be, calling into question whether it is realistic in the first place to expect companies to act ethically while also creating highly profitable products.
For all the things that have been said about the issue, I don’t remember a single comment that has been directed at the US government, or China itself, or any discussions about how nation-states should be run and genuine introspections on what could prevent surveillance states from existing in the first place.
This is because people, for some reason, see Apple's 3-trillion-dollar valuation as being some purely self-made fortune to the point that Apple could rival these governments with their technology stance, when in reality Apple's success has only been enabled by the governments that house and profit from Apple's dominance - and now they're coming for their share of surveillance instead of dollars.
It would be great if it did, but we’ve made great strides in a lot of non-solid tumors. They are much more targetable, it is easier to get a small molecule to the problem cells. Admittedly, some tumors like GBM without a single mass remain death sentences - but a lot of blood cancers are much better than they were 20 years ago.
I mean, you know what’s happening here, I presume. The anti-vaccine faction will just lie about prior infection and keep spreading the plague. In exactly the same way as we have people forging vaccination cards now. There’s been a consistent anti-science and pro-disease stance on the right since pretty much day one. It’s breathtaking, no pun intended, to watch.
Every large company has these trainings. I personally have worked at multiple companies with very similar trainings.
With thousands of employees, a company can’t take the risk that some random college hire mouths off over Slack on something they don’t know anything about and it shows up in discovery for something in the future and is used as evidence of planned malfeasance on the part of the company. I know we don’t like Google but this is not a Google thing, it’s a “opposing lawyers will take speculation from random low level engineers wildly out of context and judges and juries are too dumb to put it in context” thing.
It would be great if this website answered the question “what is a healthy diet”, instead of trying everywhere to get me to watch some of its hundreds of videos.
I feel like this attitude is part of why nutrition science is the way it is.
People are boxed into this "healthiness is a one-dimensional scale" thinking. Are eggs healthy or not healthy? Are potatoes healthy or not healthy? Is pizza healthy or not healthy?
But reality is way more complex and nutrition science knows very little about "healthiness" (to the extent that you can distill diet into a one-dimensional scale). Scientists only claim, "X is maybe correlated with Y (in Z population)".
So this simplification, plus the lack of definitive known truth, leads people to latch onto B.S. like "eating eggs is unhealthy because eggs have cholesterol".
I don't think it's an attitude problem that people expect nutritional advice to be actionable in some way. Because at the end of the day the only decisions I'm able to make is choosing to eat or not eat something. If you can't write down a set of rules for me to follow that eventually halts and resolves to a "yes" or "no" then there's no point.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that there be a landing page that says “most healthy people should follow a Mediterranean diet” or similar.
Sure, there are food allergies - I have some myself - but this site seems like it’s trying to get me to buy the book and give the video views. I want information in text quickly. Then if I want to learn more, more information in longer text. This is how almost all valuable information is conveyed across all topic areas.
Isn't that literally impossible, because there are so many different things that a subset of people need to avoid eating? e.g., if you have a nut allergy, your healthy diet can't include nuts; if you're lactose-intolerant your healthy diet shouldn't include lactose; if you have coeliac disease, your healthy diet can't include gluten; if you have IBS your healthy diet shouldn't include anything that triggers it (which is different per person); if you have diabetes (type 1 or 2) your healthy diet can't include sugar; etc., etc. And god forbid you have 2 or more dietary issues...
Plus different activity levels make different diets healthy - if you're a professional athlete needing 6,000+ calories per day, "healthy" for you is very different to healthy for me, who sits at their desk all day.
This isn't even accounting for personal preferences like being vegan, or religious restrictions.
I think you're misunderstanding the claim. It's name a healthy diet. A single one. A diet which followed to the letter for the time span its prescribed will not cause any health problems traceable back to it. Make whatever assumptions about the hypothetical person you need and assume that they follow the diet for only as long as those assumptions hold.
There is no "healthy diet" that is universally applicable. Go back and look at the list of different possible restrictions in the parent post.
Then add the fact that many people are allergic to all kinds of different things.
Then add to that the fact that people of different ethnic backgrounds are adapted to do better with different balances of nutrients.
Any "hypothetical person" such as you describe would, fundamentally and inevitably, "normalize" one specific type of person and "other" everyone else. Claiming that "this is a healthy diet" in such a way would be grossly irresponsible, even if you then went on to list the features of a person it is "healthy" for.
Finally, even if you wanted to make such a description, the whole point of this thread is that we do not have a scientifically-rigorous-enough idea of what it would be to be able to do so with a high degree of certainty, even for a clearly-defined set of parameters for who would be eating it.
I didn’t ask for it to be universally applicable, or even broadly applicable. Or even applicable to more than the person the question imagines. I asked if we have enough information to know one single example of a healthy diet for one imaginary person who you are allowed to assume has no complicating factors.
Because if we can’t answer this much much simpler problem then we have no hope of giving nutritional advice to a population that is as varied as you describe.
I don't want to go through a bunch of training to learn how to write good software. It would be great if a website just told me which buttons to press on the keyboard.
If someone can check my math, this seems like a perfect opportunity to do a statistical test. Sample sizes are too small to say that there is a difference between previous infection and no previous infection.
A Fisher Exact Test yields a p value of 0.1923. So there is not evidence that previously infected people are safe. Similarly, if we compare the attack rate in previous infections vs Pfizer, the p value is about 0.15, so there’s not evidence one is better than the other.
This guy is not the creator of mRNA vaccines, he’s just a guy who did something slightly related with mRNA forty years ago, and is now trying to ride the wave to money. I think it’s fair to say the vaccine was rushed, but that’s because we have been having the second largest pandemic of the century. More Americans are dead from this than died in WW2.
I didn’t downvote you. I do wish we had a longer trial period, and I don’t like taking something that hasn’t been through the full duration trials. Here is what convinced me:
- we now have more than a billion vaccinations done globally, with no mass surge of negative side effects.
- virtually every politician in every party has gotten vaccinated. Including most of the people telling you not to get vaccinated.
- the vaccine produces way fewer antibody targets than the actual virus, so I would expect that if there was a long term negative effect from the spike produced by the vaccine, we would get that or worse from the virus.
- the virus is really contagious and seems to be mutating toward being more contagious over time.
- thus, you’re probably going to get it, which means one way or the other you’re probably going to make a lot of antibodies to spike protein no matter how you slice it.
> the vaccine produces way fewer antibody targets than the actual virus
This is not necessarily true. It depends. People in my family who took the vaccine and had visible side efects (headaches, fever) for a day or two have more antibodies than other acquaintances who got hospitalized with the disease.
Higher antibody levels and more antibody targets aren't the same thing.
The mRNA vaccines cause one protein from the virus to be present, so you get antibodies against that specific protein. More traditional vaccines use dead/weakened virus, which will trigger production of antibodies against multiple parts of the virus.
There’s nothing in there that’s an attack, but wow, you are an asshole. There is a good faith engagement and persuasion in there, and you respond with this?
> This guy is not the creator of mRNA vaccines, he’s just a guy who did something slightly related with mRNA forty years ago, and is now trying to ride the wave to money.
He seems to give plenty of time to people who don't seem to have any money to offer. I don't know what evidence you have to support any of your claims. For all you know he is a really good, concerned person, why assassinate someone's character like that?
If one can't attack the arguments, it's easier to attack the person I guess?
Just Google his name. You are using polite words, but not engaging in good faith. It’s not worth wasting my time further with you. I guess I should have checked your history to see that you’re a dedicated vaccine denialist.
Those subjects are not there for any meaningful purpose. Imagine having a CS degree program and teaching chemistry, physics, biology and a bunch of even lesser subjects is blatant and ignorant waste of students' money.
When I was a kid, people told me, it’s important to have an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out. SF attitude toward street crime is well past that point.