It is really confusing why the government keeps getting in between doctor recommendations and patient needs. Additionally, the use of vaccines for public health outcomes are well documented, so it really is silly to let local districts override like this.
I was going to point this out and surprised you were the only comment bringing it to light. This is a completely unsourced article with one quote from the India Times???
The items he listed have extremely direct impact on YOUR ability to reduce theft. You just suggested something very broad. I might make the point that punishing criminals effectively will potentially reduce overall crime, but has no direct reduction on the crime in the article. It would be very hard to show any law which specifically targets the type of crime OP posted about, but I'm open if you have seen legislation proposed or enacted which targets this crime in a major city.
Property crime is so far down the list on police priorities. Criminals know this. Soft on crime - even if it's due to lack of resources and is "only" property crime - means more crime.
The only effective way to deal with property crime during or after the fact is with increased surveillance. The success of Meta Ray Bans may make the decision for us, but until then, it's fair to point out that this is, in fact, a conversation about how much freedom we want to give up for security.
It seems more effective and less intrusive to deal with the upstream socioeconomic causes of crime (too much inequality, not enough opportunity, an overemphasis on materiality and consumption, and an underemphasis on community and expression).
Taco Bell in SoMa and the one in Tenderloin tended to have a lot of strung out, mentally ill, or homeless persons. It was nice that they were allowed to take a seat and enjoy water or whatever food they purchased, but it also affects the cleanliness of the restaurant.
I once had someone while eating stand up and just take their pants off in the KFC/Taco Bell in Tenderloin...
When I get to a Taco Bell, I look for how clean the tables are, how well-arranged the sauce/napkin station is, and how clean the fountain drink area is. If any of those are actively a disaster, it tells me the food quality is probably going to be worse (yes yes, its already terrible)
Sounds like this is the one in SoMa in San Francisco. I used to work remotely for an office around the corner from there and would prefer to go to this TB for dinner (I'm a cheap traveler... My company doesn't have to worry about me expensing fancy meals). The issue with this one, if I remember correctly, is that there are a lot of homeless who hang out there. ("Un-housed"? "Vagrant"? I'm not sure what the proper term is, but I'm genuinely not trying to be offensive).
Taco Bell is my favorite fast food, but I'm on a boycott after an app-induced billing error that ate an entire gift card... Their customer support is atrocious so I'll just spend my money elsewhere.
Like other media, games are going the way of not caring about ownership. They just want cheapest and most convinient way to play new games. Microsoft had a point when the said the future was cloud. They simply underetimated when free money would end and are reeling over that long game.
And anyone that does, they will simply pirate the media anyway. So no loss on their end.
Is this expensive because of the components or because you feel systems were priced lower in the past and this is a small upgrade?
I think for the number of hours people put into it gaming systems are actually quite cheap. You get to have them functioning for 5-10 years with 100s of hours played. On a per hour level, it provides massive amount of entertainment.
Now, if you already have a strong PC (which you allude to) and game on that, your ROI is probably going to be a lot lower.
I see it as expensive mostly because we have not had any drop in price this generation.
For example, take last generation. The Xbox One launched at (all USD) $500, $400 without Kinect once that was an option. PS4 launched at $400. The PS4 Pro also later launched at $400, The xbox One X launched at $500.
This is a $200-$280 (including adding the drive) jump in price and the base model is still the same price or more expensive in some places than it was at launch.
On the flip side, I also do worry about what exactly we are seeing from Sony again. We know that Sony can get cocky when they are on top (See PS3, cross play, etc) and make decisions that are not good for gamers. I worry this is a sign that they are going that way again.
I actually think it would have an astonishingly high effect. It would reduce the number of cars on the road without proper maintenance, which would generally correlate with drivers who don't care enough to prioritize their vehicle's condition (and therefore other's safety).
The second order effect might be very strong.
That being said, this will never happen because in America without a car you (avg. american) lose nearly all your ability to contribute to the economy and navigate your surroundings. We can barely align on taking licenses away from people who kill pedestrians in direct fault accidents [1]
Even in some scenario where crappy-car owners are some kind of especially pernicious safety menace (a claim for which I would demand actual evidence, since I don't believe it for a minute), I can't imagine what it would be like to live in a place in the United States where there are so many cars on the road that are legally undrivable for safety reasons that their removal would make any kind of significant difference. I read "astonishingly high effect" above and wonder if you even drive in the United States.
The solution to a housing crisis is to limit immigration? Wouldn’t it be to build more dense housing (thereby spurring economic activity and lowering a primary expense of households)???
Here in Canada we literally cannot build housing fast enough. The government is targeting half a million immigrants annually, and we recently set an all-time housing starts record of only about half that number.
Sometimes it actually is immigration that is causing problems.
Same in Australia. The government keeps making big noise about these 'big' housing plans and then the number is like 30,000 new houses, which is enough for a couple months. There is zero systemic approach to this problem. I feel like I am going insane.
No, because the NIMBYs don't want that, and if the local government has power over whether dense housing is built or not, the NIMBYs will be sure to get their local legislators to prevent it.
Sorry for interrupting your religious moment. But in the real world you need capital for that. There’s absolutely no fucking reason to consider immigration a human right.
> There’s absolutely no fucking reason to consider immigration a human right.
Many articles in that document provide hints/the spirit of reasons one _might_ consider immigration a human right. I think it is easy to entertain the idea and think of potential reasons for it.
A different matter is if that is indeed the case (your point). Still, I believe there are good reasons for it: the human rights declaration points at many of them, in many different articles.
For example, here is one reason (even for self-interested people, Milton Friedman-style): equality of opportunity might give an opportunity to somebody who is more capable (who knows who is the next Einstein). It will? not necessarily. But it might? definitely, it might. That is one reason.
I a not naive in regards to implementation. But there are reasons (like the above) for considering it.
reply