Congratulations! To anyone else looking for guidance in this area, I strongly recommend reading Getting to Yes. https://www.amazon.ca/Getting-Yes-Negotiating-Agreement-Without/dp/0143118757/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=getting+to+yes&qid=1576216449&sr=8-1
Instincts work faster than a thought-out action, so when it comes to quick reactions (like twitchy games ala SMB), actively thinking about what you're doing will often produce worse results. When you're playing the level for the first time, you're instinctively reacting based on your past experience with the game's mechanics. When you retry it, you already had time to take the level in, so now you're thinking more. As you play more, you perfect your muscle memory for said mechanic/level and eventually you get past it. I bet that if you were to write down when it happens, it usually won't be right after a new mechanic is introduced - it's not luck, it's your brain's nature.
This is actually a known phenomenon in sports as well. Professional athletes are often trained to act instinctively rather than calculate and thoroughly think about each move.
Source: as I understand it's a rather common concept in neuroscience, I've read about it in the book Incognito (great read btw, and not too long).
No, charter schools, private schools, home school, just give the money to the parents and let them decide how to get their kids educated.
Public education in Chicago is about as good as no school at all. We know that is the case with many schools in Baltimore. Worse, Baltimore spends the 3rd most in the nation for that failing education.
Charter Schools and Their Enemies https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541675134/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_aQyeGb59Q9Y9R
It is obvious you are a liberal. Why do you come to a place that is for conservatives?
Also: try to educate yourself to our point of view
I can agree with that.
Charter Schools and Their Enemies https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541675134/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_LCkiFbAFK28K5
I believe charter schools and pushing for 2 parent families in the black community would fix a lot of the problems facing it. I also know as a single father how hard it is for males wanting to be a father to get the state to support them. If I wasn’t a man of great fortitude I would have called it a day and left my daughter to escape the BS I deal with constantly from my ex.
It’s hard not to turn to crime when you can’t read o do basic math. Schools are owned by the Democrat Party.
Maybe not the type of Progressives that San Francisco has: Book: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Much exaggerated as a generalization, but applies well to S.F.
Because the crime was bullshit most likely, the us depuis of justice has an history of using bogus corruption accusation to extort money to competitors of american compagnies.
https://www.amazon.ca/American-Trap-Americas-economic-against/dp/1529326869
Do you not believe that people locked up in mental wards are force fed drugs?
The solution isn't a harder government hand, its a smart approach. Look I agree with your desire for a safer streets, id just rather achieve it though other methods. first lets try better solutions like the ones proposed in San Fransicko, then lets maybe actually allow people to protect themselves....
I agree things will get worse if nothing is done. I just think its hilarious that people think "This time the government will get taking away people rights and locking them up the RIGHT way".
There are so many other good solutions, you should give San Fransicko a read, lots of other good solutions proposed other than giving the government wild approval to force feed drugs to people.
>You know what does cause homelessness? Cutting welfare programs, making homelessness illegal so that they can't even have the chance of getting on their feet, preventing shelters from being built because of NIMBYism, etc. In short, not actually addressing the causes of homelessness, which is blatant in your post.
Incorrect. homelessness is caused by enabling open air drug markets. go read https://www.amazon.co.uk/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities/dp/0063093626 that's my source. I can't read it for you.
>The US has no record of opposing EU expansion
Reminds of the Alstom case and the book The American Trap: My battle to expose America's secret economic war against the rest of the world
https://www.amazon.com/American-Trap-Americas-economic-against/dp/1529326869
The Final Exit - This is my current strategy... I'm open to other suggestions but I really do not want to "have to" work until I am 75... and the way SSI is being threatened and likely not available when I reach 65. Perhaps UBI will be a thing but I suspect I'll have to work until I die... So the real question is how long to want to live an increasingly toil-filled life?
Die USA sind von den genannten dreien die einzigen, die einen aufstrebenden Wettbewerber mit allen Mitteln zerstören werden. Wolfowitz-Doktrin, kann man im konkreten Beispiel schön nachlesen bei Pierucci's American Trap.
This is also why the "Why don't we just give homeless people apartments" argument is stupid. You want a drug addict to die, give them a quiet secluded place to do drugs all day. This is a good read if you want to learn about what strategies really work for the homeless.
https://www.amazon.com/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities/dp/0063093626
What a crock of bullshit that is. Other nations don't have homeless problems like America because officials direct homeless, whether they like it or not, to set up camp in certain places on the outskirts of cities. Homeless typically build shanty towns, which are better than nothing. A roof over your head.
And if homeless try to go to central parts of cities and set up camp, and refuse orders to move, they get a big boot or go to jail. Even 5 European cities forcibly relocated homeless and drug addicts trying to commandeer public spaces. Officials there typically refer to homeless encampments as "open drug scenes." 2014: Open drug scenes: responses of five European cities.
> "All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent...Today all these cities have zero tolerance for public nuisance..."
To clear public drug scenes, the cities used "compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed...antisocial behaviour orders"-- all methods that left-leaning activists in the U.S. oppose.
America is arguably the most liberal country in the world in giving carte blanche to hardcore drug addicts, mentally ill and an assortment of other behaviorally challenged people occupy public spaces and act as they please. Three words summarize American policy on problem: No Mandatory Interventions.
If anyone is confused, this is brought to us by left-leaning activists. Further explanation in this book: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
> Cause your making up arguments.
Nonsense. We hear the narratives every day from soft-on-crime people.
>Free homes has nothing to do with CC theives
There's a lot of evidence that a hard core of the homeless (20% - 25%) are involved in a lot of theft, especially breaking into cars. (link on S.F above). Big constituency both in SF and LA for giving all homeless free housing. Michael Shellenburger, author of "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities, discusses this.
Big overlap between homeless advocates and criminal justice performers who DON'T want sanctions on most property crime offenders. The two groups lobby together all the time.
It's more like the legitimate problem of a lack of affordable housing and the search for solutions being harmed by progressive policies. Author Michael Shellenberger's discussion of what happened in San Francisco is useful: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities.
It is true that most places, especially Connecticut, don't have the homeless problems that S.F. does, but the book discusses the excess of criminal justice reform. That is affecting more and more parts of America. Big Sacred Cow there -- criminal justice reform.
>The steadfast, unapologetic greed is sickening...
It is not greed. Property owners would be far more willing to accept new housing near them if government would fulfill its obligation of controlling vagrants, drug addicts, vandals and other chronic petty offenders -- housed or unhoused.
S.F. is easily one of the worst cities in the nation for tolerating for public disorder. City policies seem to be rooted in the idea that * freedom to act as you please* is the highest community goal. People who think cities should have standards of civility and order are told to shut up, stop insulting the marginalized population. San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities discusses how S.F. wants to set up free housing for 8,000 homeless without imposing any rules on these people.
Author Michael Shellenburger used the term in his book: "San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Discusses that city's tolerance for drug addicts occupying public spaces.
Safe injection sites only work if there’s mental health help and treatment plans.
Or you just get a mess.
Look at San Fransicko
https://www.amazon.com/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities/dp/0063093626
Yeah, the number I first saw with respect to the cost of running the Weber and Victoria encampment (which now has a cozy new annex kitty corner!) was $25k monthly back in maybe May? The newer figure I saw was $80k monthly, so a cool Mill.
Anyone interested in reading about productive solutions should draw their attention to Michael Schellenberger's work San Fran-sicko.
I don't love the subtitle, lol, but he draws on the Dutch experience in an effort to address the absolute pox of open drug use scenes in LA. There's hope for these folks AND the community. Much love!
> all Americans irrespective of their origin country should support America in its geopolitical pursuit. This concept is universal. You support your country no matter what!
So americans should support military aid to pakistans war with india? support the war in Afghanistan? War in Iraq? War in yemen? War in syria? Support stealing companies by force? Support the Vietnam War? Support the kuwait war? Support the native American genocide? Support the Mexican cession? Support the Iranian coup? Guatemalan coup? Congolese coup? Chilean coup? Nicaraguan coup? Honduran coup? Haitian coup? El Salvadoran coup? Bolivian coup?
Just because we don't want china's to be America's next victim, doesn't mean we support the PRC over America.
Are you aware of what has been going on with San Francisco's 8000 homeless? Guy wrote a book on it. Michael Shellenburger, San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. Left-leaning activist trying to get all those people, many of whom are addicts, housed in free apartments in one of the most expensive cities in the nation
Yea, picking the best terms are a pain, someone always makes a fuss about their use, though it seems most everyone understands the basic positions, and their points of view.
Michael Shellenburger wrote a book on the problems of addiction and mental illness in San Francisco: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities. It agrees with almost all of my points. Progressives the best term?
Idealnemu sposobu samo-eutanazie sa venuje napriklad kniha Final Exit od Dereka Humphryho (https://www.amazon.com/Final-Exit-Practicalities-Self-Deliverance-Assisted/dp/0385336535).
TLDR je: Helium (alebo iny inertny plyn, napriklad zvaraci Argon - ale cisty, bez CO2). Telo nesleduje absenciu O2, ale prebytok CO2. Ak dycha inertny plyn, nevytvara CO2 a teda nevie, ze sa dusi.
Odhliadnuc od pseudomoralizovania individui, ktore si osobuju pravo prikazovat inym, ako maju zit zivot su technikality, ktore treba ohladom smrti tiez skumat, a tymi sa prave kniha zaobera.
Riesi napriklad to, aby umrtim nebolo zbytocne traumatizovane okolie (brokovnica, obesenie). Tiez napriklad to, aby umieranie nebolo zbytocne stresujuce. Detaily ako - dat si na hlavu siltovku, aby sa igelitove vrece pri dychani nelepilo na tvar, ako si zvolit polohu tak, aby bezvladne telo este vo faze bezvedomia nepadlo tak, ze sa prerusi privod plynu. Nikto nechce skoncit ako zelenina.
O tomto musi prebiehat celospolocenska diskusia, lebo (nejaka) smrt caka kazdeho z nas, a nie je mozne zatvarat oci a kricat NSFW! NSFW!
That is a notable study. Michael Shellenberger cited it. Worth looking at some summary data:
> "All of the cities had initially a period with conflict between liberal and restrictive policies...Homelessness is often prevalent...Today all these cities have zero tolerance for public nuisance..."
To clear public drug scenes, the cities used "compulsory interventions...expulsion from city...relocation centres...sanctions imposed...antisocial behaviour orders"-- all methods strongly opposed by left-leaning criminal justice reformers in the U.S.
What is striking is that these reformers constantly refer to Europe as being so enlightened on crime control -- easy on offenders. They harp that we should emulate Europe. These reformers also misrepresent what Portugal has done with drug decriminalization--they downplay that Portugal's national Commission for the Dissuasion of Drug Addiction badgers/harasses people to stop using drugs.
I'm not sure if you've read this OP, but I've heard it's good. The title sounds like it's from a conservative, but it's written by a liberal candidate running to be mayor of San Francisco https://www.amazon.com/San-Fransicko-Progressives-Ruin-Cities/dp/0063093626
Some sources put the homeless in San Francisco, one of the most expensive, upscale cities in the nation, at 8,000. A micro-condo there pencils out about $600 K. Michael Shellenberger, author of the book critical of S.F., made a reasonable point that you can't just show up in some of the worlds most expensive cities, raise your hand, and say: "I'm homeless and I need a free apartment."
Tiny house villages (NPR) are being used to house homeless in many states, permanently. They are built on city outskirts on vacant lots at a fraction of the cost of central city micro-units. Many homeless are turning them down; they demand central city housing. Often these homeless have serious behavioral issues and conflict with neighbors. It appears the Impasse on homelessness will continue.
Picked this up, but haven't read it yet: San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities - might be a good place to start.
My predictions though:
continually bloating civil service more focused on inclusion and lofty social justice goals that actually accomplishing the core things a city needs.
a widening split between very wealthy and just getting by which puts an increasing cost/tax burden on the middle.
more and more migration of non-productive people from all parts of Canada here because we keep advertising that we're going to solve their problems
ridiculously expensive to be an entrepreneur here (which we need to be more liveable): open a cafe, small business, etc.: massive costs from city
we won't see a needed return of facilities like Riverview to house those mentally ill and/or incapable of caring for themselves for some time or ever
if your head is above water now: you'll probably be fine; if you're struggling: its going to get worse unless you're actively and effectively working to get ahead; if you're drowning: you risk becoming another non-productive person that - at some point - the taxpayers here will reach a limit on how many we can support.