This is also fake. Those are all incorrect.

Ignore this dude. His account is a month old and 90% of his comments are negative.

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.

Because different layers protect you against different things. It’s like how you have anti-lock brakes, a seatbelt, an airbag, and crumple zones on your car. You don’t just have one thing to protect you.

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.

He’s not going to beat his wife’s friend. She’s the only one who puts him in his place.

I’m saying that info is readily available to doctors in real life. They are literally in the hospital and know what the socioeconomic background of the patient is. In real life they would be able to guess the same.

Biopsies are small but still invasive. There’s risk of infection or reactions to anesthesia in any surgery. If 100 million women get this test, a 5% false positive rate will mean 5 million unnecessary interventions. Not to mention the stress of being told you have cancer.

5 million unnecessary interventions means a small percentage of those people (thousands) will die or be harmed by the treatment. That’s the harm that it causes.

That’s actually really smart. But that info wasn’t given to doctors examining the scan, so it’s not a fair comparison. It’s a valid diagnostic technique to focus on the particular problems in the local area.

“When you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras” (outside of Africa)

This may shock and amaze you but…

there is more than one user for your product. If you don’t know that, it sounds like you either haven’t done a user survey or you haven’t created the correct user profiles (based on that survey).

Creating a “perfect UI” without asking users what they want is not good UX. It’s just masturbation. The user survey tells you that people want A B C, etc. and in which order. You should know exactly how your changes are going to be received when you release them.

Imagine a restaurant that doesn’t ask you what you want. Instead the chef tells you “This is the best food possible” and just makes what they want. That’s what developing without a user survey is like.

Not like that. A server name that can be authenticated. Like when you receive an email from your bank (in the metadata), you know it’s legitimate. Each organization can set up their own server to host things they vouch for. With ActivityPub it can be viewed elsewhere with the guarantee that it’s from a trusted source.

It’s called a “name”.

Why would anyone pay for the service? Having a “name” is free, and that dumb worldcoin only works for people. It can’t work for governments or businesses.

ActivityPub is actually a good way to authenticate things. If an organization vouches for something they can post it on their server and it can be viewed elsewhere.

generative AI makes it very easy for anyone to flood the internet with generated text, audio, images, and videos.

And? There’s already way too much data online to read or watch all of it. We could just move to a “watermark” system where everyone takes credit for their contributions. Things without watermarks could just be dismissed, since they have as much authority as an anonymous comment.

The indigenous people are the shareholders, so no it isn’t.