Skip Navigation
InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)ID
Posts
0
Comments
114
Joined
2 yr. ago
  • In my opinion, if Newsom is anything worth his salt, he would invest public funds into tiny homes and basically guaranteed jobs for the homeless, rather than being cool with things like:

    • living in the BART facilities
    • living in tents on the street
    • being rounded up into random buildings/facilities because Xi is coming
    • $20 minimum wage for everyone but Panera Bread since the CEO is my friend

    Newsom, literally with the stoke of a pen, could invest public funds into helping the homeless in a provable way, yet he does not. The only conclusion I can come to is that he does not want to.

    Please, convince me otherwise, but the state of, at least, SF under Newsom (and big tech, admittedly) has greatly deteriorated

  • sparked a national conversation [sparked] around gun violence as well as “stand your ground” and "castle doctrine," both self-defense laws."

    this. This, is the headline.

    The whole "black man killed by white man" is just race baity.

    You're hired

  • Feel free to explain why Newsom has been campaigning on solving homelessness in California for ~10 years but only made progress when Xi Jinping visited recently, and also why he hadn't taken the exact same actions sooner. It's the same reason, after all.

  • Delete hosted cloud. Move back to hosting your own. When every cloud is different (since it's built and configured by some random IT and DevOps people for that company) it becomes much harder to find an exploit than it is in the big 3 cloud providers. Security by obscurity.

    Cloud services targeting governments are just a giant scam (e.g. FedRamp). They are just as vulnerable as everything else, the only difference is some slick salesperson was able to land a contract by talking about how much money it would save by not having to hire "expensive engineers" directly. This is exactly where it leads, and it's not a surprise, it's a known known in big tech.

  • If Newsom wanted to he could probably solve the crisis over night, just like he did when Xi Jinping visited.

    In Utah they have been constructing "tiny homes" instead of more "shelters". I think it's a pretty good idea and, if I remember correctly, the only requirements to qualify are have the need and be drug free. Seems like a much better solution than shared spaces which often turn out to be quite dangerous for many reasons.

  • I lost mine

  • Been doing it for ~5 years with 0 scratches.... If you have an iPhone maybe they are too delicate, but I also feel like iPhones (in the US at least) don't have SIM cards since Apple has that G.I. Joe - Kung-Fu grip

  • If a man ~50 years younger than me that I don't recognize/know knocks on my door at night, regardless of his race, I would be concerned. Would I just shoot him? No. Would an 80 year old man just shoot him? apparently, I guess... But equating it to racism, without any evidence, is simple race baiting...

    The old man is clearly in the wrong, that doesn't mean he is racist just because the kid was black

  • no green spaces

    Did you look at the picture or read the post?

    There is literally green space taking up ~70% of the promenade pictured and OP says botanical garden on the roof....

    It's not a forest, but it's also not simply concrete

  • The law being challenged for those interested (commonly known as "stand your ground" law)

    21-5222. Same; defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. (c) Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.

    I personally think it is pretty obvious that there was not "reasonable" cause to shoot someone simply since they rang your doorbell, but now it is up to a jury.

    I also doubt this would be in the headlines if it was white man shooting white man or black man shooting black man. This really just seems like race baiting which isn't surprising in an election year I guess, moreso it's disappointing.