Maybe SF spends its money more smartly. People complain about the homeless problem in SF but never seem to stop to think that perhaps we have more homeless because there is less incentive to not be homeless in SF. NYC has lower homelessness because the winters are shit and the police are hostile. In SF, the weather is great and police let you shit in the street without much of a confrontation. Is there seriously any question why the rate is higher here? The homeless are treated pretty decently. SF has more homeless because it generally treats them better than the rest of the US, not worse.
"Is there seriously any question why the rate is higher here? The homeless are treated pretty decently. SF has more homeless because it generally treats them better than the rest of the US, not worse."
No, there is not a seriously any question.
It's (relatively) warm in San Francisco, year round, and social mores are (relatively) welcoming to aberrant behavior. These people exist and they're not going to disappear, therefore they have to go somewhere.
There is actually a quite nice A/B test already in place in the United States. Minneapolis/St. Paul is culturally almost as liberal and progressive as northern california and have an extensive social services and support network for all manner of social circumstances. Also it's literally deadly to be homeless for 2-4 months of the year. In all of my years living in downtown Minneapolis (and other years living in suburban twin cities) I witnessed a very, very low level of homelessness.
It's worth noting that homelessness =/= rough sleeping. For every person you see sleeping on the streets, there are several who are squatting, living in vans, crashing on couches etc. Hidden homelessness is much more difficult to identify, so the headline statistics on homelessness rates can be misleading.
NYC has lower homelessness because it spends a ridiculous amount of money on the problem and has more public housing units than anywhere. People who claim to be homeless get priority for placement.
Right now, so much focus is on this problem that backlogs for section 8 and other housing are dropping in the broader region because clients are moving to NYC.
> Numerically, statistically, per capita, any way you want to slice it.
Per capita SF might beat NYC (couldn't find good sources and honestly I'm a little tired at the moment) but "Numerically" and "any way you want to slice it" NYC wins hands down. In 2015 it was estimated that San Francisco had 7,539 [1]. NYC, on the other hand, had 60,456 in 2016 [2].
I couldn't find many sources that differed much than these figures I found even though they're about a year separated.
New York City is unique in that they have a court mandated obligation to provide accommodation. The advocacy people use a factor of the shelter population to calculate the total population, which may or may not be accurate.
I'm not trying to minimize the problem. The fact is those encampments are all over and people is indicative that functioning people can't get placement in SFO. You can't just say "NYPD are jerks" and call it a day like the previous commenter.
I guess I'll chime in here. I normally don't talk about homelessness as I had a distant cousin (grandpa's sister's son) that loved to be homeless. So my opinion will be quite negative/biased.
But yes you are right about SF. This cousin of mine would regularly leave his family and travel around the US hitchhiking for one or two years at a time. He spent most of his time in Cali, not sure which city. He said it was great to go there for the winter as at that time senior citizens (he was not a senior but he would pass based on looks) could get free public transit tickets. So after a long day of panhandling or drinking, he'd get on a nice warm bus for a night and sleep.
He seemed to be part of some kind of "homeless elite". There was nothing wrong with him physically or mentally (other than severe stubbornness) and it was the same with this group of friends he would regularly meet up with. They would all be in Cali for the winter. They'd bum money on the street pulling in $100+ a day and spend it on alcohol where him and his buddies would sit around in an alley socializing over how everyone is stupid. After winter they'd all disperse to Chicago or the east cost (not sure about NY). He'd randomly run into his buddies throughout out the Spring and Summer months in other cities as well.
He talked favorably of Cali and the east cost. There were some overpasses in Texas on I10 and I35 that he mentioned were also where the cool guys hung out at, can't remember were exactly. But he didn't really like Texas much. In Austin he would be quickly arrested for "vagrancy". This would happen in San Antonio too, but before the cops would haul him off he would call my grandparents about 20 miles away to come pick him up.
I stayed off and on at my grandparent's house while going to college for 4 years. I had the pleasure of rooming with him many times. When he would show up, my grandma would wash his bag of cloths, but it would stain the inside of the washer black, so she'd have to wash 'em a few more times and then eventually wash the washer by hand. His first shower hot off the streets was also a doozy too. The walls would be caked with globs of this white jelly type stuff. I can only assume it was from massive amounts of built up dead skin that washed off. But it would glob up in the drain, and along with his long uncut hair, clog everything up. It was totally gag-tastic cleaning it out. The last few times he came around, I was too annoyed to deal with him again so I convinced the pastor at a local small church to let me sleep in their gym at night for a week(even though there was a mouse and scorpion problem there, I didn't care).
He was a cool guy, had some hilarious stories and you could hold a conversation with him for hours. He once told me he didn't learn how to read until he was 28. Said he taught himself. I asked what motivated him to do that and he said he wanted to be able to read the captions next to women in porno mags. Both my grandparents and his mother dumped a lot of cash into him but nothing helped. He would always get mad at something a leave again. One of the more memorable times, he was living with his mother for a bit (I think the cops grabbed him in Dallas and his mother was close to there) but he got mad at her for some reason and started to leave again. She gave him her car, some cash, stuffed the car with clothes, food and a TV. He drove off in it but it broke down about 10 miles down the road. He just left it there and hitchhiked to Dallas where he stayed for a month or so before getting picked up again.
He died about a year ago actually. Probably 55. He spend his last few years living in some low incoming housing (for free) near Dallas. His last year was spent with him having various hoses hanging out from his abdomen. He would have to go to the hospital for the doctors to drain fluids out of him from failing organs. He didn't seem to mind though, he thought the hoses were stupid and kept drinking until the end.
Hard to say how much he cost society (from a government perspective). He seemed to pay his way most of his life. Only the last few years did he get any kind of government assistance.
By my understanding that would make him your first cousin once removed [1]. He's either your dad or your mum's cousin, you're one generation away from them so he's a first cousin once removed.
"Both my grandparents and his mother dumped a lot of cash into him but nothing helped."
I believe about 2% of people are like this.
They want to 'live free' kind of thing. Some of them are lucky and inherit money. Some live smartly-cheaply. Others are like bums.
I have a cousin who is 35 and still lives at home, way out in the country, he doesn't have his drivers license. He does nothing. Always has. His father is 'cheap wealthy' (he has money but you'd never know it). He does nothing, and won't do anything.
But that's the big problem about the American approach to this problem (IMHO).
The problem is not homlessness, some people can choose to live out of our society rules and I don't see any problem about it. We also built a society that has failed to many people, I can see how someone could prefer to roam freely rather than having to work 80 a week to be able to afford a shitty life anyway (ask people who serve food).
So what need to be addressed is not homelessness itself, but the causes that bring people to homelessness against their will:
- Mental illness (including depression)? Subsidised healthcare for those who cannot afford it.
- Addictions? Subsidised treatment and a reinsertion program.
- Done something wrong in the past? Forgiveness.
- Young person without studies? Subsidised education.
Being European, I see in the American mentality this kind of way of thinking like "if he is poor is because he is lazy and didn't work hard enough, so he deserves to be poor and suffer".
I think that in the first world countries we are rich enough to ensure that the human rights of all our fellow citizens are protected.
>"Being European, I see in the American mentality this kind of way of thinking like "if he is poor is because he is lazy and didn't work hard enough, so he deserves to be poor and suffer"
Where do you "see" that?
I am curious have you visited America? Have you spoken to Americans that live in cities that have acute problems with homelessness? Have you visited those cities yourself?
I can assure you that what you "see" in the American mentality is not the predominant or prevailing view. Its actually quite a complicated problem that involves mental health, bad circumstances, social programs, drug addiction, child abuse and a host of other nuances. Its very easy to over simplify from an ocean away though.
I have visited California several times for work (and tourism) and I tend to hang out on forums where most of the users are from the US. And now I live in Japan, which helps me to have an "external view" on my own European culture.
One of the things that surprised me the most the first time I visited the US was one particular conversation with a sensible, well educated person. She literally told me:
"I don't care if someone is not able to pay to a medical treatment. If that person didn't plan well their life, is their mistake. I am not going to pay the medical costs for them."
Of course, this is just one person, but my feeling is that this a predominant way of thinking in the US.
> Being European, I see in the American mentality this kind of way of thinking like "if he is poor is because he is lazy and didn't work hard enough, so he deserves to be poor and suffer".
I'm Australian and I've picked up on a similar American Stereotype.
I think the "people are poor because they are lazy" stereotype comes from American television. Any show from the US featuring ostensibly 'working class' Americans will at some point in its life bring up the 'American dream'. This idea that if an American works hard enough they can become rich. From there the negative corollary is obvious - "if you are poor you just aren't working hard enough".
The American approach to things like education and health care seems to exemplify this stereotype. American society in general does not seem very egalitarian. It's easy to form the opinion that American's don't care about poor people.
But please don't equate panhandling with homelessness. Just four examples: vets who haven't reintegrated into society (PTSD, disability, etc), teens kicked out or escaping bad situations, women with children escaping bad situation, people with mental illnesses.
I am not sure I understand where you took your numbers from.
Regardless, you compare apples to oranges. I believe it is HIGHLY incorrect to compare the number of homeless people from cities located in DIFFERENT countries.
Comparing to the US, Canada has much stronger social policies including financial aid and free health care that lead to a smaller number of people sleeping on the streets who ended up there because of financial troubles and losing their home/livelihood.
Quebec province is even better in this sense. In Montreal specifically, our hobos are mostly drunks and young people who had troubles at home.
Here are the numbers of people experiencing homeless state on a given night:
I am not sure I understand where you took
your numbers from.
The links I listed give 3,016 homeless people for Montreal and 6,686 for SF. Dividing by their populations, you get the per-capita rates I gave.
I believe it is HIGHLY incorrect to compare the
number of homeless people from cities located in
DIFFERENT countries.
Yes, I'm sure country has an effect, and we can't count the entire SF vs Montreal difference as being due to weather. Similarly, different cities have different institutions and are otherwise, so figuring out the effect of weather is pretty hard.
Depends on the perspective. I've had family who rolled their eyes when I'd tell them about seeing homeless people just walk up to trees and start pissing or drop their trousers and shit in trash cans, by bushes, on the sidewalk, etc. Invariably the ones who visit marvel at my relatively tame descriptions afterward. I'm sure the homeless find it quite a positive that they can relieve themselves without much interference, while I find it a net negative.
Influence is like money. You have an equal right to pursue it, but no right to some quantity of it. Some people have more of it, others less. If you want more, you're gonna have to work for it first.
4 now, though the first one is going on display at their headquarters. I believe the second one is going to be examined and undergo ground testing only (might be wrong on that). So that leaves just the third and now this one as candidates for re-flight.
The high velocity drone ship landing (#3) landed too hard and was deemed unusable for launch duty (Edit 1: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/731984739012251648), so realistically, it's likely just two of the four so far.
That's not what he said. He said SpaceX will start testing with the booster that took the most damage, because if it works well then there is high chance that the others will work too.
The problem isn't that it landed hard, it's that it had to slow down very quickly. That's going to be the case for any GTO launch, including today's flight.
From what I understand there was heat damage around the engines.
Edit 2: per user mikeash, it's definitely flyable (i.e. I'm wrong), but it'll still be grounded to aid with testing efforts. Thanks for the kind correction, Mike! https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/734274360588926976
"Max damage" doesn't imply unflyable. A later tweet clarified that it's capable of flying again. They'd rather keep it for extensive testing, though, as an example of the most extreme conditions. It won't fly again, but not because it's too busted.
I would think if damage was within tolerances (even at the maximum of such), they'd be willing to relaunch. Implications from the tweet and subsequent conversations are that the damage exceeded thresholds to guarantee safe future flight, which is why they'd use it for testing on the ground.
I'd still read his tweet as meaning it's "too busted" to fly, but I suppose it's up to each person's own interpretation. Your point is well received.
Yup, user mikeash linked this soon after and clarified it for me, so I expressed my gratitude for his far more graceful and generally polite correction of the error in my comment. heh
Ah good, thanks. That might have been the one I was thinking of then that was just going to be examined. This flight though was also a high velocity landing so it might have similar issues if that's the case.
Wouldn't you agree that a multi-billion dollar market cap, millions of daily tx volume, and a pretty decent price of $400, all of which keep growing in the face of so much "credibility losing", counter it rather nicely?
Humans are folly but the technology speaks for itself.
Can you explain why the signature matching one in the blockchain disproves the theory?
I imagine the signature must also be somehow related to his private/public key pair otherwise his blog is just junk cryptography and would have been easily debunked anyway?
At this point there are many people who simply have bitcoin. Maybe they bought it a long time ago, maybe they bought it recently. The acquisition time isn't really a factor anymore, it's been around long enough that people simply have it, and they would like to be able to spend it directly.
There are not many people specifically acquiring bitcoin just to pay for steam games with it, where it will be converted right back. Maybe some to test. Questioning the value as a result of the "usd -> btc -> usd" transfer isn't really applicable because it just generally doesn't apply anymore.
Not sure we read the same article. The author did not dismiss #1 as a plausible motive. He dismissed it as the likely motive, to give Apple the benefit of the doubt, from fear about what it would mean about them otherwise.
"Door number two. What Schiller probably meant to suggest was that Apple’s targeting old PC users who simply haven’t felt compelled to update yet but could afford to."
He said the second thing is what "What Schiller probably meant". Maybe this shouldn't reasonably be construed as a "dismissal". This interpretation is more generous towards Apple than supposing they mean to overtly mock the poor, and I supposed the author meant that this would be beneath them.
