the entirety of your post assumes that homelessness is a moral failing of individuals when the entirety of what we know about community development and psychology shows that that is not the case; you can believe in this plan, but you are supported by money and ego, not by actual fact friend
No people that done want shit all over their streets, constant breakins, assaults, junkies shooting up in their back yard think this up. You should Google San Fran homeless or Philadelphia Kensington Ave.
This is like putting a bandaid on skin cancer. What you're describing is a symptom of social inequality and a terrible attitude to public health, both physically and mentally. Hiding the symptoms doesn't solve the problem.
Then by all means, tell us the solution. Because progressive meccas like San Francisco and Seattle, despite spending more and more money on the homeless every single year, can’t seem to figure out what to do either.
Because progressivism has more than one axis. SF is full of rich NIMBYs that prevent dense housing from being built.
Some ""conservative"" cities are better because "pro-business" laws allowed more units to be built so less people fall into homelessness. There are still examples like Houston though which has always had homelessness problems in spite of trying to build as hard as possible. Obviously it's not a probably with a single answer as there are people that are homeless for different reasons.
"Flip the script" seems like a fancy way for you to deflect from answering the question.
I can tell you locally we put people in jail when they defecate in the streets or shoot up in public. We also offer space at shelters for people that can follow basic rules - no drugs, no fighting, etc. In addition, our local food bank is fairly well stocked and funded, and several churches in the area have outreach programs. The end result is that I can walk downtown and never have to dodge human feces and rarely see a panhandler.
I can almost guarantee you that other people in or around your city will likely have the opposite opinion, especially if they live in an area of town that has homeless encampments. I've lived in Texas and that's been my general experience. Even deep blue Austin takes a more conservative approach to dealing with the homeless population and the end result is simply pushing their problem onto other people because said homeless population and their camps move further out of the city core.
The reality is that you see downtown being clean but don't see the other people you've pushed your problems onto. And that's a consistent trend of trying to solve the homeless issue in America through things like bussing initiatives, relocating homeless camps and so forth. No conservative or progressive city has solved this problem because it's a societal issue with the US in general.
Texas is pretty successful with banning "urban camping" despite progressive cities like Austin objecting. It might not be the result you approve but I enjoy not having panhandlers and people drugged out of their mind wondering into the traffic on every intersection near a highway and being able to walk under an overpass without dodging piles of junk and aggressive crazies.
Buddy, I’ve got some bad news for you: if you want to move everyone you don’t like to an island so that you don’t have “shit all over your streets,” you are actually siding with fascism.
When I checked the box to view percentages, homelessness seems pretty consistent with the major outliers being CA and NY. CA says 26% and NY says 16%, with most everyone else on low single digits. I'm not entirely sure what those numbers mean, though.
If you're going to talk about homelessness on the West Coast, at least give us statistics on what percentage are native to the West Coast, what percentage came from out of state and became homeless later on, and what percentage were literally homeless in another state and given a bus ticket to the West Coast because this is a fairly rampant thing.
Minimum wage in the US is $5.15/hour iirc. At 40 hours per week (which many jobs won’t reliably get), that’s ~$824/month BEFORE taxes, food, and so on. Even in the rural south where I used to live, where the cost of living is very low, many one person apartments would be $400–$500/month. That leaves maybe $400 for everything else BEFORE taxes on a GOOD month. Combine this with the fact that employers aren’t required to, and pretty much never do, provide medical benefits to this sort of employee.
Maybe you can squeak by if you’re lucky… but you have to be consistently lucky. One bad month and the whole thing can fall apart. It’s basically impossible to build wealth or savings in this situation (not to mention care for your own fucking health).
> I have tested multiple Windows games on M1 MacBook Air through Crossover
So you had x64 binaries calling a DX API that called a Vulkan API that called a Metal API all on top of a JIT translation layer to ARM on two month old hardware and it worked well?
I don't have a mac anymore, but a few months back I was using crossover on catalina, and can confirm that the DX11 translation works well. I can believe that even on Rosetta it'd still work surprisingly well.
I think it’s interesting that not many people here bring up Discord. It’s by far the most challenging competitor for the average user, IMO. Full of features and very easy to use.
Discord imo feels like 10 different spammy chat concert halls (rooms of 50+ people). Feature-wise though it has great group audio chat, and okay(a bit low-quality)-but-immediately-available video chat.
Given that there were literally millions of protestors on the streets over the summer, 20 is a pretty tiny number. Multiple people have already died from the DC attacks, just in two days in one city, with a much smaller number of people.
That’s just comparing the number of deaths, and putting aside that one was a massive distributed protest of government brutality and the other was an attempted coup.
One tased himself to death, one was trampled to death by the mob, and one was one-shot killed by the Secret Service after a clear warning to not pass through a heavy barricade.
Of these, only one was a police-action killing, and I would not call it brutality based on the video evidence.
I have no idea the story on the fourth.
The fifth death is a cop the Trump supporters beat to a pulp with a fire extinguisher.
Yes, it is also police brutality, that is correct. The people fighting the police (many of whom are police themselves, and whom some police are collaborating with) also just attempted a violent coup. So they all suck. And surprisingly, Donald Trump managed to support all of the ones doing the systematic violence AND the ones attempting violent coups.
So really, yes, it all around sucks, and we need to fix a lot. But some people are clearly hurting more than helping! Maybe when they’re gone, we can finally focus on fixing these longstanding systemic problems rather than arguing about a man-child.
And the "white supremacist terrorism" your parent commenter references kills how many?
"The DHS’s “Homeland Threat Assessment” found that White supremacy extremism accounted for more fatal attacks in the U.S. than any other domestic violent extremist group since 2018, with eight of the 16 violent reported from 2018 through 2019."
For comparison, 9/11 killed 2,977 people. So it seems there is a problem with how DHS is measuring and reporting rare events.
I think this is an instance of the biggest, most disastrous fallacy of the last half century: that a company is a social utility.
It’s not. It’a a bunch of rich people in California. If you want a public utility for communication and socializing, go help build one. Contribute to Mastodon or the rest of the fediverse. Write to representatives (or become one yourself) and propose legislation to fund a public tool that is actually owned by the people. It could even be part of the fediverse!
But asking Twitter to do any random thing someone wants because they are a big company is insane and is going to cause us nothing but pain.
But these are the services that people actually use. On Mastodon you end up with... well the sort of person who uses Mastodon. Which means that the people that run those services have some degree of de facto influence, which in turn means that they are likely to end up regulated and constrained by other powerful actors.
Today it's rich people in California, once it was rich people building railroads and pumping oil.
how is it crazy to want to apply a regulatory framework to certain industries? we do that for cable companies, ISPs, banks, publishers, food producers, restaurants, etc etc. So why not social media?
The only reason is these companies are “new” and were not viewed as much more than a toy until a few years ago and now we’re seeing the consequences of that.
I don’t think wanting a regulatory framework is bad at all (though I think in the last few decades, we have naïvely tried to regulate companies into doing things that are simply counter to their nature rather than solving problems directly, eg minimum wage vs UBI).
