Turning this into a discussion about "affordable housing" is missing the point altogether.
Most of these people have debilitating mental illnesses and/or drug addictions.
To assume all they need is a shiny subsidized apartment over a Starbucks and they'll put on a suit and go to work tomorrow is preposterous. In the HN utopia, they'll work remotely.
These people are chronically unemployable for a reason. Until you fix the reason, you won't solve this problem.
Instead of focusing on getting them the help they need, cities focus on things like how many tents can we allow in the public tennis courts or how many sheds can we build in the car park before we declare success.
That used to be the case. However, the current government jacked the immigration numbers exponentially over the last few years. This seriously exacerbated an already growing problem with housing affordability. Also, the huge immigration (via temporary workers and student visas) has suppressed wages. These combined we now have a housing crisis that contends for worst in the developed world.
It isn't just mentally ill people who are homeless.
You're absolutely right. And the reason isn't because you have to be that bad to be homeless, but that if you're not that ill-equipped, you're usually in the category of the invisible homeless, couchsurfing or living in your car, etc.
> Most of these people have debilitating mental illnesses and/or drug addictions.
Do they, or don't they? If that's true, the article was misleading.
I mean that's the standard trope, sure, and it makes homelessness into an intractable problem about needing hordes of social workers and clinics, but there's a lot of implication here that these particular homeless are mostly people who can't afford the available rents.
> These people are chronically unemployable for a reason. Until you fix the reason, you won't solve this problem.
That might make you feel better about not caring or doing anything to fix the problem, but you have the causation flipped around. Once you are homeless, employers will no longer employ you.
This is a problem with our economy and is a societal problem. You can keep your head in the sand, but that means you are not helping to solve it and are helping to perpetuate it by remaining ignorant of the cause.
Completely disagree. You're right that a lot of homeless people have mental health or drug addictions, but that's often caused by not having housing.
People start out well-meaning and lose their homes for financial reasons, then get unwell from years on the streets. Block off the top of that pipeline by building more homes for people.
This isn't Phoenix or SF for that matter. The temperature drops to -7C in the winter.
Will the city take the blame when these people all freeze to death because the city officially allowed them to play camp as part of some sociological experiment?
Unfortunately, the responsible thing - building a shelter - is overlooked by cities because shelters have rules. Like no drug use - which in some confusing twist of logic is perceived as cruel.
It's also bothersome that these articles find the one or two people genuinely down on their luck - unable to find work and the like. It makes for biased reporting. The 80/20 rule applies here. I guess the ones pooping on the BART and babbling gibberish are hard to interview.
> If you have SSD->LUKS->GPT->LVM->Ext4, then a bug on any of the (newer, buggier) components before your journaled FS means you lost data
And yet it's never happened to me. Dozens upon dozens of systems. Linux or Windows or Mac for that matter.
I've toted around a laptop with whole disk encryption for > 15 years and never lost data. Not once. Even after a forced power off.
I have, however, lost data to major FS corruption on an OpenBSD system with no encryption whatsoever. More than once. Still using ancient MBR and legacy boot because, well, OpenBSD.
> I've toted around a laptop with whole disk encryption for > 15 years and never lost data.
me too. Until I did. Negative anecdotes in a discussion about rare events are unhelpful.
My point is not that journaling is useless and should be dropped (I only use openBSD in things that are either readonly storage or virtualized on a host which does have proper FS). My point is that the "new setup" used by most distros introduced a lot of things that are above the journal. We have been rocking FDE for over 10yr, but the mass of people with crappy hardware and who just unplug their computers are only exposed to FDE for the past couple years.
My experience with LUKS robustness is less so, but I've uncleanly powered off many a laptop with BitLocker, FileVault, and commercial encryption with no ill effects.
> Still using ancient MBR and legacy boot because, well, OpenBSD.
All this does is tell me you're young for such a hostile tone towards recently dominant, mildly deprecated tech. It wasn't too long ago that UEFI didn't really work well. I did 3 BIOS to UEFI migrations in the last year or so, on Linux, FreeBSD and Windows, because those machines booted bios up to recently.
That's not why, it's because the most important factor for people is price and tv with ads can sell for cheaper than the one without. I would never dream of touching a streaming service with ads but I'm clearly in the minority since I'm the only one paying the premium for ad free.
Are you saying TV prices dropped sharply once they started including the adware? It sounds more like the adware is selling at the same price point normal TVs were in years past, and the ad-free were relegated to a higher priced tier that didn't previously exist.
I bought an NVIDIA Shield, but promptly returned it to the store because it will not function without signing into a Google account -- a requirement which was not mentioned on the packaging nor in the printed documents in the box. TBH kinda ultra sick of corporations having unilateral encumbrances on your rights and freedoms to use literally anything technological.
Should also be applicable if you have to have an online account with a 3rd party service to use a product, as I experienced with the NVIDIA Shield[0]
At the same time, "not agreeing with the EULA" is a valid reason to return a product to the store, as I did. Consumer protection laws would be on your side here, in the jurisdictions I'm aware of (Canada/US)
EULAs like this should be illegal. Comparable to "Warranty void if this sticker is damaged" type scenarios.
The enormous "gotcha" games being played under the guise of "if it's not illegal, we're going to exploit it" are grotesque. TVs are just one of hundreds of examples of products and services being used to invade and exploit privacy with no commensurate return on value for what's being exploited.
We need a law constraining this shit to 100% opt-in voluntary features with no dark patterns, with penalties for anything that even vaguely looks like a dark pattern. Fines and jail time time for c-suite for any violations, enough that they'll stop playing the stupid games.
Or just back to the retailer and tell them why you're returning it. If they put up an argument (which they likely won't), then at least in the US, I think you could sue to be compensated.
If you didn't see and agree to the TOS prior to purchase, and you find the TOS you discover later to be unacceptable, then I'm confident that you'd win in court.
You could say the same about Steve Jobs being a tyrant boss, but despite this he achieved God-like status in tech circles. So did Elon for that matter, before he became a pariah seemingly overnight.
Steve Jobs also had a lot of critics, so I don't see any contradictions here. Many people would disagree about God-like status of Steve Jobs. Same for Elon Musk, he didn't start doing bad things overnight, it was accumulating, until at some point, which was different for different critics, he was worthy of robust criticism.
Steve's assholarity over the years was well documented (he was known for parking in handicapped spaces in a car with no number plates, exploiting a loophole in CA law). They both contributed greatly to the advancement of technology - by telling other people what to invent - yet I never saw the same deranged, visceral hate for that man.
Jobs was really selfish as a person but he wasn't anti-LGBT like Musk. Nor getting involved in politics. He was just like that to the people around him, not the general public.
AFAIK he was only personally an asshole (parking in handicapped spaces), not advocating for everyone to be an asshole (e.g. declaring handicapped spaces a form of "wokeness" and "government inefficiency").
What you can't say about Steve Jobs is that he ran a hostile workplace environment based on sex and minority status. They are very far from being the same.
Because we live in a world where people are more upset if the government is in bed with the space-n-rocket guy than companies engaging in mass surveillance, censorship, and suppression of ideas at their behest.
Most of these people have debilitating mental illnesses and/or drug addictions.
To assume all they need is a shiny subsidized apartment over a Starbucks and they'll put on a suit and go to work tomorrow is preposterous. In the HN utopia, they'll work remotely.
These people are chronically unemployable for a reason. Until you fix the reason, you won't solve this problem.
Instead of focusing on getting them the help they need, cities focus on things like how many tents can we allow in the public tennis courts or how many sheds can we build in the car park before we declare success.