1. The silent majority of homeless people that are suffering and with the proper services could get back on their feet, but they are not actually having a day to day impact on the general population. Cutting helpful services for these people is terrible, and the longer someone goes homeless the more issue they may have getting out later. Housing prices also have more impact in creating this type of homelessness.
2. The loud minority of homeless people, often in need of serious mental help that they very well may refuse, who have a negative impact on the community - disruption in the libraries, needles on the street, etc. There are places where the prevailing sentiment is refusing to remove these people when they are disturbing important community spaces or to arrest them for crimes like openly using hard drugs and peeing in the public fountain. This sort of tolerance shouldn't be conflated with robust access to resources, but unfortunately it does seem to be by policy makers.
So yeah, many homeless people go to cities where they will have access to services, and that is more relevant to statistics. Some homeless people go to cities where they know they will more easily be able to obtain and use drugs, steal, etc. Those people are a tiny fraction of the total population, but it doesn't take many of them to start to have a noticeable impact on a local area. This is where we see the more visceral negative reaction to homelessness in west coast cities coming from.
Though I'm sure there are people from other areas of the country amplifying this problem for their own political agenda rather than care for the community or the homeless, it's definitely a real feeling amongst residents in certain areas of SF too, and it doesn't come out of nowhere.
It'll probably depend on where you live, what type of person you are, and what communities you're a part of; teenagers will see them a lot different from tech bros; others get really excited when seeing a new model. I mean the first people with smartwatches or Google Glasses were the center of attention (positive or negative) for a while.
In my own communities (work), I'm one of the few with an iphone, most have Android.
I do recognise it; large iPhones and Apple Watches are still about twice the price of the competitor. And people with Android phones are considered poor here.
Where is "here"? Wouldn't you say that any party making those sorts of judgements (iPhone users are sheep/Android users are poor) aren't worth listening to? Isn't that more of a reflection of "here's" culture than the individuals choice? Is it not that an individuals choice to buy something is more than just a cost decision?
If you keep your phone 3 years, then that phone costs you a dollar or two per day and that’s within reach of many people. Lots of us keep the phone much longer than that and if you do plan on keeping the phone for a long time, Apple has a better reputation for supporting 5 year old devices than any budget Android maker. Apple’s hardware also has a pretty strong resale value. Apple phones are probably less expensive overall than lots of Android phones.
Taking a school trip to Tunisia was a huge eye-opener how liberally people can interpret driving rules. Think of: tourist bus driving on the wrong side on the road to avoid traffic. On a highway, exiting from the left-most lane without signalling etc. Interestingly, they told us that this is still nothing compared to how it is in southern Tunisia - Sfax. I don't really want to go there, I value my life too much.
Not to mention failing to stop at the clearly marked lines at intersections. They seem to stop either a car length behind the line or a car length over the line in the crosswalk.
Also related to both, cutting corners (literally) when making turns, american drivers seem to have a real problem with tight turns. One reason why it’s risky to stop over the line incidentally, as a car making a shallow turn is very likely to step into your lane if they don’t take an over-wide turn instead.
These are not necessarily the same thing. In Indonesia, people completely ignore lanes, and instead fit cars and other vehicles into the available space as if it's a tetris game. But they have a lot of mopeds and surprisingly few accidents, because when it's that crowded, they go slow.
Exactly! It's amazing how few people understand this. Signal is the perfect example, there's a lot of technical magic wrapped up it, but my Dad can use it.
It's funny how common jailing-breaking iPhones used to be, I did mine immediately when it would come out and everyone else I knew did too. Now I don't know a single person that does.
You know what, that’s a great insight. I got the iPod touch precisely because it could be unlocked to be a pocket Unix with shell. 15 years later, it still is and isn’t. Like, lol not at all ha ha. It was a giant, near irrecoverable mistake to computing freedom.
The burden of proof justifying posting stolen materials from the laptop belonging to the family member of a politician is not on the person asking if this is in bounds, it is on the person defending obvious muckraking.
> The article said that more than 50 former senior intelligence officials, including five CIA chiefs, had signed a letter saying the release of the emails “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
And that’s why our intelligence apparatus is not a trusted source. Individuals within this institution are willing to game their status for reputation and sell it to the highest bidder. Look how the Pentagon is handling the leak of the Ukrainian papers, not to mention corporate journalist condemning the leak.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.
>I'm trying to tell you that your writing is unintelligible.
You're free to ask me what point is giving you trouble.
>I don't believe you. You know all his talking points by heart.
Trump vomits more foul content than any person I know. But okay. Gatekeep hating Trump. Weird flex though.
>See my first point.
Nice dodge. I'm starting to think I pulled all the wind out of sails since I wasn't just some run of the mill trumptard. Do you admit that? I'm giddy with anticipation.
>I still don't believe you, and I'm bored with this, goodbye.
We've banned this account for breaking the site guidelines egregiously.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
That includes remaining respectful at all times, avoiding flamewar, name-calling, and snark, as well as other things you'll find there.
> His father flew him on Air Force 2 to China to make private equity deals.
Shouldn't have happened if he was doing business there. Also, again, where is your proof? I Googled it but all I could find was a claim Trump made while campaigning:
"We have found no evidence to contradict that, and Trump hasn’t provided any. We also found no evidence that Joe Biden used his position as vice president to enrich his son."
But considering Trump's son in law was doing this while in office:
”In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.”
The google bubble strikes again? Maybe it's only showing you what you want to see. Try DuckDuckGo it seems less prone at ideologically memory holing news stories.
> Come on, wake up and smell the coffee. The business partner Bobulinski also considered it to be meaning Biden in an interview in mainstream media.
Again, this is not proof. You clearly want this to be true, therefore you don't need evidence. I can't "wake up" as you have, because I don't have the motivation to believe it the way you do. True things are awarded the title of true because they can be proven, with evidence. Not because they confirm the beliefs you already held.
Whoever Bobulinski is, you are quoting his public statements, which aren't under oath, where there is actual penalty for lying. He did sit with the FBI, but then he made a tour of right wing media making unrelated statements (as far as we know), which makes this a politically motivated PR campaign, nothing more. If he had given the FBI something to act on, they would have done so. They have no qualms about influencing elections:
> ”In 2013, Hunter flew aboard Air Force Two with his father, who was then vice-president, on an official visit to Beijing, where the younger Biden met investment banker Jonathan Li.”
Right, he was on the plane. That's what is confirmed. You made specific accusations that appears to have come from Trump himself, which it goes without saying is not a trustworthy source. Who confirmed nature of the "deals" he made? What were they, when did they occur, and how do we know Joe Biden was involved? Actual evidence please.
Regardless, it has raised questions about conflicts of interest and impartiality. Its a broader problem than just the Bidens or democrats, we see this shit under every president. The whole US political system is steeped in this corruption and influence peddling.
If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, and is in a pond with a bunch of other ducks, do we really need a court case to prove its a duck?
Do you not see how this is editorializing? They refuse to cover story having to do with the son of the Democratic candidate. And they pretended the story was not real.
1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.
2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.
> 1. The data/emails were most likely stolen and the media was trying not to make the same mistake as reporting DNC hacked emails, which was a Russian intelligence operation.
This is a complete assumption on their part if that happened. Instead of researching and taking time to assess the finding, they assume foul play. Why does it happen conveniently when the Democrat Joe Biden would suffer from investigating this clearly? Why would they assume it was stolen? Why would they assume it was Russian disinfo? Do you not see the clear profile of ideological politicing at play here? It's all conveniently explained away and meanwhile they get to keep playing politics and pretending to be bipartisan.
> 2. Hunter Biden is not a politician, unlike the Trump kids (who are all hopeless cocaine addicts but no one seems to care) he never worked in the White House. And there's 0 proof Biden was a part of any of Hunter's bullshit. So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.
So being a cocaine addict is newsworthy when it's the Trump kids but not when its a Biden kid?
>So outside of muckraking and dirty politics, there was nothing newsworthy about it.
Strong disagree. This is exactly the thing that muckraking should uncover. Again, if this was about a Trump kid, everyone would want to know and investigate it. Including you and me.
Not to mention the morality of cutting soup kitchens and shelters just so your state's homeless become someone else's problem.