I think this is fear mongering. Last summer my father was saying it was too hot to function and we should put off the interior house project we had planned.
It was 108.
As he said this, we were at a stop light next to a Speedy Oil Change facility. Shop doors rolled open, guys in long pants, thick shirts, changing oil and rotating tires.
People that don't work physically underestimate what the human body can do.
People who spend all their time inside with AC would not do well if suddenly they had to deal with 108. But people who spend more time outside can adapt better and learn methods to help cope. Of course that has a limit, the discussion about wet bulb temps in India and Pakistan last year was about the limit of where healthy people can function. But it doesn't take that much heat to make life hard for old people.
I have family in a place that is ususally above 100 in the summer. When I go there from a temperate location I struggle. But after a week or two I am more able to help with yard work, or taking the kids out to the park. If I spend a month the high temperature becomes fairly normal.
I spent 9 months in a location where it would commonly get to 110 by 10am. I was generally outside and commonly doing manual labor. I didn't acclimate at all. It isn't a universal thing.
To this day I don't handle hot weather well, and I don't mean 110. Anything above mid 70s is very uncomfortable and I sweat profusely and get irritated. This includes sleeping, during the warmer months I always get soaked in my sleep. I drink a lot of water too but it doesn't help.
Spent a couple hours in 95 degree heat full humidity. Had partial but not full shade. Full heat stroke. Took hours to get my heart rate below 130. Many days to recover.
I’ve done more time in the sun working out (moving) and been totally fine. Difference is I drank huge amounts of Gatorade.
I run all summer in the afternoon. Up to 106°F is fairly comfortable, 107°F feels tolerable, and >108°F is very difficult. It really does feel like it falls off that quickly.
However, I have done this for years. I sweat a lot more, and a lot more quickly, than I used to. There have definitely been both long-term and beginning-of-the-season acclimation periods, and it's a bit of an understatement to say that not everyone is interested in pursuing this. The result is major trailheads being closed in certain conditions due to tourists routinely collapsing, needing rescue, or sometimes passing away. This despite the fact that there are many of us locals who are fine within our limits (that we know and have learned to respect).
Those guys in the Quickielubes have a swamp cooler going at minimum, are acclimated, out of the sun, and are still uncomfortable. The landscapers are up at 5am and disappear as the temps climb. We'll be in the half that don't end up in the ED.
Different people have different thresholds. I cannot function well above 80F in humid weather. I get dehydrated very quickly with a small frame and heat exhaustion in short order.
At any given time, yes. My thoughts above are somewhat rambling, but what I found most interesting was the adaptation over time. I'm sure that capacity for adaptation is variably effective amongst different people as well.
It's funny to see people normalize increasing temperature extremes. It's not going to help you when summers become longer and hotter over time and people become physically unable to work as a result.
The limits of the human body and our ancestor's ability to survive in these heat waves were dependent on the waves being far shorter and less intense.
There is a huge difference between one afternoon hitting 108F and then going back down to the 70’s after midnight, and a situation where for multiple days temp reaches upper 110’s in afternoon and still being in the upper 90’s at 3-4am, like it can be during a Phoenix summer heatwave
Well I sure didn't think it was comprised of 1.8 million weak ill people, hence why I thought saying HALF of the population would need medical care was fear mongering.
Can't believe I'm paying $400 for white, but even with that the overall price beats what I could get out of another dealer 100 miles away where they had a deep crystal blue on the lot. Beats paying thousands of dollars of markups for literally nothing.
I took your text and asked chatgpt to turn it into a fun poem:
I surf the web with playful glee,
Blocking ads, just watch and see!
In my browser, they won't appear,
DNS blocked, they shed a tear.
Beacons and pings, they can't track me,
URLs confused, they cannot be.
Analytics and logs, no data they'll find,
Programmatic pleas, they're left behind.
Campaign tags, I strip them bare,
UTM queries, I won't share.
Unshorten URLs, a clever trick,
Tracking hacks, they're in a fix.
Autoplay videos, I make them stop,
No more interruptions, no more flop.
Cookies, beware! I block you all,
Only the necessary ones may crawl.
Visibility API, you can't spy,
No prompts to install, no need to try.
Hidden pixels, stay out of sight,
My email's safe, try as you might.
Unsubscribe, I'll show you the door,
No more emails, I'll take no more.
Block your address, a final resort,
No more junk in my digital fort.
SMS ads, they come my way,
But I block and report, come what may.
Phone calls, ignored if not my friend,
Only contacts, let the ringing send.
Data brokers, they won't win,
I pay a company to wrangle them in.
Junk mail, it's a thing of the past,
Straight into the bin, it's gone at last.
So join me, my dear friend so true,
Block those ads, they're not for you!
Let's surf the web with joyful cheer,
No ads, no tracking, have no fear!
There is a famous app for cars on Android called Torque. I accidentally told an average apple user to download it to head his OBD2 codes.
4 fake app downloads later he gave up and said "this is why I stick to apple apps"
Lol what
How much would housing have to fall, for a homeless person to get themselves a 1br? 75%? Are there really people on the streets because they had a spare $1000 a month, but couldn't find anything, so they said screw it I'll shoot up heroine from a tent instead?
Look at it this way, there are definitely people homeless because it's not possible to afford somewhere to live on the wages they can earn. It's also really hard to keep a job when you're living out of your car. People in a situation like that often give up, or experience depression that they try to self-medicate using addictive substances.
There are two distinct sets of homeless people: the ones passing through a homeless phase (many car-inhabitants in this group; shower at the gym; they work); and those with substance and/or (usually ‘and’) mental health issues (the ones you see everywhere in SF).
The first group gets through it, finds a job or a $20 greyhound fare to somewhere they have family, or where they can afford a home on what they can earn. The second group is stuck.
Treating these as though they are a homogenous group is super pointless. For one thing, the systems in place do support the first category and make it possible for them to escape homelessness. The second group — I’ll just say this: it’s not uncommon for Hollywood celebrities, who have access to infinite money and the most people who care intensely about them to help them get into rehab, to have massive substance and MH problems, and to OD or die by suicide. If they can’t even be helped, what amount of money and skilled intervention will cure every meth addict on the SF streets plus the new ones who arrive every day? (Without violating their civil rights by forcing them to get treatment)
Who decides to be homeless instead of getting a room in Tracy CA and driving?
Or just renting a room in Tracy CA for $500 and working any menial job in town?
We have a natural experiment going on just 50 miles to the south, in San Jose. New mayor Matt Mahan won by promising "pragmatic" solutions to homelessness, including building very cheap housing for them, and putting them to work cleaning up the city
Compared to homelessness, a park of refurbished naval cargo containers with common bathrooms/kitchens would be livable, plus steel containers are really hard to destroy.
A home Depot shed isn't crazy. Just need a communal bathroom area and honestly that's about what most houses were like for most people just a century ago.
I think it’s fine but having sufficient separation from other sheds is hard because a lot of people are smoking and cooking meth/lith so fires are happening a lot.
Can anyone explain to me why a nice rich suburb will not even allow a panhandler to stand in a center divide at an intersection, but SF basically allows open air drug use?
Is it just a matter of scale? You can stop 1 panhandler, but if you had 100 people to stop you couldnt?
If that's the case, once problems reach critical mass, is there any going back?
The US is hyper-polarized. There are crazies on both sides.
The bigger the city, the more political processes select for crazies. In a village of 100 people (1) more people are involved, since individual influence is felt (2) there are fewer crazies, since you can only go 2-3 std. div. out.
In a bigger city, (1) fewer people follow politics, since there's no direct influence on their lives; civics is dominated by crazies. (2) The absolute number of crazies is higher. If you have 100,000 people, just by statistics, the craziest crazies will be crazier.
Having a small number of very bad crazies can ruin civics, since they often operate outside of civic processes. If just one person is willing to tarnish your reputation, smash your windows, or send a death threat, that can have a chilling effect.
The worst cities in the US are near-100% blue or near-100% red, since there's no moderating factor.
Transient cities also tend to be worse (where a lot of the population don't expect to keep living there in five years), since no one cares about civics. SF is the sort of place people most people move out from when they decide to start a family.
SF is close to a million people, VERY blue, and that leads to extremist politics.
Note: I'm extrapolating from what I see with cities where I live, as well as accounts from SF. I don't have first-hand experience there. But I think there are a lot of reasons why SF politics might get particularly broken.
> “Five years ago, it wasn’t like this,” he says about the people openly using drugs around us on Market Street, just outside the Urban Alchemy headquarters, where he sells souvenir photographs of local liquor stores. “Five years ago, a black guy with a pipe got arrested; now the police walk past a white guy with a needle in his arm,” he says.
So, as of the past 5-10 years there are these really progressive district attorneys who really do not like to prosecute people. I'm not going to say who generally funds their campaigns, because I'm tired of being downvoted, but you can find out pretty easily.
Freedom of speech is recognized as a universal human right throughout the world, and American political philosophy considers many rights mentioned in the Constitution as applying universally as well.
For those that don't believe me, go try to have a discussion as skeptic of accuracy of Jewish deaths during WW2. I'm not saying they're right, but there are several things you can flat out go to jail for in the several countries just for talking about.
I'm assuming your definition of free speech is the absolute variety. If so, no country, including the United States, has ever recognized freedom of speech as having no limits, making it a useless definition in the context of this conversation. There are always limits, everywhere.
But it's obvious that European countries have a concept of freedom of speech, just one you personally don't consider valid. But like the guy said, that's just, like, your opinion, man. That concept is defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, as well as the EU Charter, and probably whatever individual constitutions or bodies of law each country has. It was established before the US came up with the First Amendment, which was based on existing Enlightenment philosophy.
If your home you bought 10 years ago doubled or tripped, why can't you move? You pocket the difference, put that down on the next over priced house, bringing your mortgage principal back down to the small mortgage you were paying 10 years ago on a cheap house. Ya, the rate is higher... But if you just made $600k on your $300k house, that you've paid down to $200k hopefully atleast... And you move and buy a house for the same $900k you just sold yours for, you only have a mortgage on $200k. Yes at a higher rate. And yes with higher property taxes. But hey, that's life. Don't move if it's not worth it. But it's not as impossible as you make it seem.
that's incorrect. Generally speaking you don't pay capital gains on the first $250k ($500k if filing jointly) under IRS rules. You can also adjust the cost basis of your home by adding in any improvements you may have made to the house, so assuming you made any improvements at all, you can potentially make that exemption even higher.
One, it's insane to ask drivers to input data while driving.
Two, these are not "speed traps", they are simply officers on the side of the road. These officers are doing a public service looking for cell phone users, and for aggressive speeders.
I personally have seen them staring through regular binoculars lately more often than a radar gun. I assume they are looking for people holding cell phones. This is in Northern California.
Also, being seen on the freeway at all helps the crazies in their dodge chargers slow donw a little. If they know the cops are out, they'll keep it to 95 instead of 105.
It was 108.
As he said this, we were at a stop light next to a Speedy Oil Change facility. Shop doors rolled open, guys in long pants, thick shirts, changing oil and rotating tires.
People that don't work physically underestimate what the human body can do.