Arabic script as written in Iran (and Pakistan I think) is in a different style than most of the rest of the world. The style is called Nastaliq (the more common one being Naskh).
Yes I think that’s what it is - only the writing on the map uses a horizontal baseline whereas the real script uses a sloping baseline so it looks weird here.
Nice edit where you cut out all the “progressive” stuff to make the same lie that the shooter is right wing because you want to do anything you can to avoid admitting that extreme left even exists lets alone is capable of assassination.
Yes, those are Kimmel words, and when he said them, everyone already knew the facts about his gay lifestyle and trans boyfriend and that he murdered Kirk out of hate. It’s nice to see that you picked up his torch regardless of how little rational sense it makes.
>Somebody using violence for political means is exactly aligned with Charlie Kirk's spoken words.
Cite it. In whole context, but video is preferable. The guy had a decade of being in front of the camera, post any the hateful video, it should be easy! Show us the hate, if not the justification for his own murder of course.
I'm reminded of how time pieces such as sundials changed societies, and how some ancients almost lost their minds due to this new development.
“The Gods confound the man who first found out
How to distinguish the hours---confound him, too Who in this place set up a sundial
To cut and hack my days so wretchedly
Into small pieces
! . . . I can't (even sit down to eat) unless the sun gives leave. The town's so full of these confounded dials . . .”
― Plautus
Finally someone who understands me. Whatever becomes measurable, becomes controllable, which is the antidote to freedom, wildness, life (to some extent)..
My favorite Samuel Delany story is about a woman in a village who invents writing, and teaches it to all the children. She makes a rule that you're never allowed to write down people's names, as it will inevitably lead to keeping records comparing people, and thus leading to strife...
I believe it's in Tales of Neveryon, 'the tale of old venn.' The whole series is extremely incentive and goes on some very different directions... The Tale of Plagues and Carnivals in 'Flight from Neveryon' was also particularly mind blowing.
Being able to have simplicity of working on a task until it is done when society didn't have these per hour scheduling concepts. I remember hearing this referenced when learning about Amish and Native American cultures. Essentially, this is what were doing. When it is finished, we move on to next. No arbitrary start/stop time because some hand on a dial is pointing at a certain number.
Note that Plautus was a comic writer, so you have to take it with a grain of salt. I'd treat is like a Seinfeld observational humor joke -- realistic but exaggerated.
Kinda interesting to ask what would have gone different if the infrastructure was in place to make electric cars 'good enough' as far as charging infrastructure.
As I understand it, the core problem back then was the batteries would mass half the car and lose a third of their maximum capacity in just 500 charging cycles.
Back when cars were new, there was no infrastructure for petrol either, that was something you got in tiny quantities from a pharmacy. (The diesel engine can run on vegetable oil, but I don't think Mr Rudolf Diesel himself ever did that?)
Infrastructure requires demand, and energy density and convenience of a contemporary battery versus gas engine means that no one was going to demand batteries when ICE was an option. We only figured the downside much later.
Being invented doesn't mean that they became commonly used. Many ancient inventions took thousands of years to rollout and be adopted by the vast majority of humans.
Perhaps, but the quote also doesn't read to me like someone ranting about a new invention, just one that he wished had never been invented. Just like I might find myself occasionally cursing whoever invented the idea of an office building, even though it predates me.
The Mediterranean was a tightly connected civilizational region, so if a certain invention was in use anywhere, it would spread at the speed of a sailing ship to the rest of the coast.
Already prior to the rise of the Roman Empire, there was a massive network of Phoenician and Greek colonies that would trade with one another constantly, from Cadiz to the Levant. The sea was a highway to them.
Amazon did not exist, but cunning merchants absolutely did, and they knew how to make money by selling attractive goods.
I don’t really get what this comment is suggesting. It is seemingly sarcastic, because obviously Amazon didn’t exist at the time. But Amazon didn’t invent the concept of long distance trade…
I do believe that time keeping, computers, and other technology are overused and overly relied on. (There is also damaging other stuff due to these technology, which is another issue. There are other issues too; these are clearly not the only thing.) They have their uses, but should not be excessive at the expense of anything else. If they fail, then you won't do unless you know and have not destroyed the older possibility, and if they do not fail, then you may be trapped by them. You should not need to know what time it is to sit down to eat, or to wake up and to sleep, etc.
In my town there used to be a lot of single-room units (there are of course none now), and my understanding is that the primary residents were migrant men working pretty much all day. They'd just crash in the rooms, all their meals and social events would be out in town or at their work place.
I feel as though there would be a different tenant in the modern era. Some would be migrant young men trying to save every dime, but many would be those suffering mental illness, and they'd fill the unit with tons of stuff. Can you imagine how much more stuff Americans have these days than they did back in say 1900? I genuinely think that the volume of stuff/garbage would be a legitimate fire or structural hazard. No landlord would want that. Back in the old days landlords had a lot more ability to force out any tenants they didn't want.
Yep the article shows a photo of a neatly kept room, the reality would be a bare mattress on the floor, piles of dirty clothes, trash, and hoarded posessions.
Drug-addicted and mentally ill people do not know how to keep even a moderately organized living space. Our city has tried "housing first" and it's been a disaster. The units are filthy, damaged, and the buildings don't pass minimal standards when the housing department inspects them because the "tenants" and their associates have destroyed them.
I do believe most SROs had a "no visitors" policy so that might help somewhat but there would have to be strictly enforced requirements about not trashing or abusing the property.
One of the last SRO left in Chicago is about 2 blocks from my house. They have extremely strict cleaning requirements and a no visitors policy. It seems to keep the damage to a minimum. I think the biggest issue there is how many of the residents really need aged care but can’t afford it.
> Yep the article shows a photo of a neatly kept room, the reality would be a bare mattress on the floor, piles of dirty clothes, trash, and hoarded posessions.
This is exactly the kind of fact-free demonization the article described as responsible for the elimination of SROs which caused the explosion in homelessness.
The average/median/typical recipient of EBT or welfare or whatever only receives it transitionally for less than a year. Yet at any one time the system is 90% lifers or at least long term users. Because anyone who isn't a lifer is in and out quick. Same problem mental institutions have.
I pulled those numbers out of my ass and you can play with the numbers to change the proportions but the problem still stands. At any one time the system is going to be somewhat saturated with the "problem people".
Now, I don't think that's a problem. If someone thinks they can develop and profitably run SRO housing with a bunch of those people then good for them. But that makes some people feel icky about it.
Those aren’t the ones who housing-first advocates are building units for. The theory is the crazy people on the street will suddenly be not-crazy when they get an apartment
The vast majority of homeless people are homeless for economic reasons, like the loss of a job or household income, and the largest growing population of unhoused people are entire families.
The ones built in my town were for the “chronically homeless” these are people who are likely addicted, mentally ill, or very antisocial. They have burned every bridge they may have had and even their family has written them off. You can’t give someone like that an apartment and expect they will take care of it without extremely close supervision.
The lack of the ability to sleep securely and the lack of a place to store your possessions are enough to drive someone crazy. Sure, some people might be homeless because they're incurably insane, but plenty of people are insane because of homelessness.
> Drug-addicted and mentally ill people do not know how to keep even a moderately organized living space.
Which is nonsense and a damaging stereotype. Drug addicts and mentally ill people exist in all areas of life and many are successful - more so than you or I.
Secondly, I'm challenging you on:
> The theory is the crazy people on the street will suddenly be not-crazy when they get an apartment
Because in fact there is now a great body of evidence that shows that housing-first, that is providing housing with no pre-conditions, is in fact extremely effectively at treating both uncontrolled addiction and untreated mental illness.
Yep, this is exactly what would happen. Anyone who has worked in industries adjacent to these types of people knows how it is.
At this price point, you're essentially only going to be renting to people who are currently homeless, which is great from a societal standpoint. However, you can't ignore the fact that substantial portions of the homeless community, and therefore your potential tenants, are either drug addicts and mentally ill people.
1 out of every 10 of those people will cause more property destruction than could ever be recouped in rent from the other 9. It just doesn't work for private landlords.
I bet those landlords could build housing that was sufficiently resistant to property destruction, which those renters would be happy to pay for at a sufficient rate - everyone would be happy. But it's the myth of consensual housing: isn't there someone you forgot to ask? The housing regulations would (and do) absolutely forbid anything that fit this niche.
Of course it’s legal to interview tenants in the States, a landlord should simply avoid violating the Fair Housing Act in a particularly flagrant manner while doing so. (E.g., they should avoid documenting in writing that they’re refusing to rent on the basis of familial status! This parenthesis possibly based on a true story.)
Give it another couple years and I’m sure the courts will dismantle the FHA. Then landlords will have to find something else to complain about.
You're right. The town has speculated it to be the case and doesn't want housing for situations like this. Real estate investors also speculate it, and they'd prefer to cater to those with more disposable income.
Single-room units would bring down the cost of housing for everyone, but those with influence and money have decided that we don't want it in our community.
This piece made a big impact on me when I read it like five years ago, and if I recall correctly there was a young doctor there who was one of the few interviewed who stated that the bomb's use was possibly a war crime. He did like 48 hours in the hospital as thousands upon thousands of burned and dying walked from afar to the completely overrun clinic.
> […] and if I recall correctly there was a young doctor there who was one of the few interviewed who stated that the bomb's use was possibly a war crime.
Was the dropping of the bombs any worse than the fire bombings that had been taking places for months? LeMay didn't seem to think so.
I completely agree that ICE, or anyone, having my tax info is a violation of my privacy and is of course total BS. However, as a legal worker in the US, I don't think ICE violating my privacy will push me toward the black market. Wouldn't moving from the legal workforce to the "black market" be a big risk on my part?
Isn't it the norm for elected officials to want to keep tax dollars in their district? This Dush guy might be misguided somehow in the larger scheme of things, but wouldn't he just be reflecting his constituents' desire to directly benefit from the taxes they pay?
There are huge benefits derived from economies of scale that can be built at the appropriate levels of government. You can end up wasting a lot of resources by trying to do things too locally or not locally enough.
I live in a rural area and it would bankrupt our county if we had to maintain all the miles of road (far more per taxpayer than urban areas) if the state wasn't doing so much of it. The state uses expensive machines to do much of that work efficiently. It wouldn't make sense for our county to buy that equipment and have it sit unused much of the time. So the county would be less efficient at it. And that's before we get to things like duplication of administrative roles around that work.
Sometimes that means urban areas are helping fund some of my local roads. And sometimes that means I'm helping fund their public transport. When done well, we all get far more for less tax money.
The most affected counties (Bucks, Montgomery, and Delaware) have average incomes twice that of the counties Dush represents (Crawford, Erie, Washington, Greene).
So Dush's voters aren't paying much in the way of taxes.
Yes, they're in two comparably large and affluent German cities (although each of these cities has numerous clubs), but when it comes to sport club success I think city details is just one factor. Ownership wealth and dedication, current management issues, and recent luck are important factors.
For example, Boston has way more championships in US "big four" sports than every US city except NYC, but there are 24 larger cities in the country. There are just a ton of factors at play (pun intended).
