If you want to focus on the housing crisis aspect and not the policies that enable addiction, then the answer is still yes.
Capped property tax increases is a moronic empathy law based on “protecting little old ladies on fixed incomes”. It has resulted in an incentive structure that means all home owners are incentivized to block all new housing and keep the value of their homes sky rocketing.
The second level of empathy laws causing the housing issue is all if the ones that empower NIMBYs to stop housing developments.
“Preventing gentrification”, “stopping the character of the neighborhood from changing”, “delays for a 1 year impact study” are all empathy motivated laws that caused the housing crisis in Cali.
You are right. Empathy in the literal sense of only being able to relate with others that have the same experiences and interests. I appreciate that clarity.
To act like housing policy is controlled by developers, even in this contemptuous jest you exude, is delirious and is the remainder of the problem with San Francisco.
I was the person you replied to, and there was no "energy", whatever that is, in what I said. Just: you blame the state for state corruption, because we pay them taxes to not be corrupt.
Housing is too expensive for many people in many places. The normal healthy response to housing being too expensive in an area is to live in another area. Only a very small minority of people who can't afford housing in a place they'd like to live respond by becoming homeless in that place. It's simply not a rational response to housing being too expensive.
The housing crisis extends across the bay area and SF is noticeably shittier then most places int he bay area. So it's likely not the housing crisis that is the reason why SF is particularly bad.
San Francisco doesn't even have free Narcan, which many US cities do. And of course syringes will flood the streets when you don't have safe injection sites. SF needs to learn from Portugal on how to address the drug crises. Also, it just needs to build denser to accommodate housing demand.
People always say this, and yet it just seems more like SF is the tip of the spear to changes that the rest of the area faces. I remember when people were decrying the homeless epidemic in SF only for El Camino in South Bay to start having significant homeless population spring up. And then LA’s housing problem also got markedly worse. And people decry that it’s “Californian” politics only for the same problems to pop up later in their neck of the woods. These are growing systemic national and global problems with our social fabric falling apart and the response for many seems to be “take care of me first”. You even see it with the huge political backlash globally.
> People always say this, and yet it just seems more like SF is the tip of the spear to changes that the rest of the area faces.
This is not correct. SF gets a superset.
Car break-ins in SF were commonplace 25 years ago. They never became bad in the South Bay. SF just has legitimately bad policies that directly cause a lot of their issues.
The housing crisis is about the only thing it has in common with the South Bay and that’s because it is a state issue.
But keep in mind that police only ever make positive progress on policies in order to extract concessions from the city
> "I'm optimistic about the progress we've made in reducing the number of auto burglaries in San Francisco, but this is just a start," Chief Bill Scott said. "I want to thank our officers for their tireless work. The SFPD hopes to build on this progress with additional tools, like automated license plate readers, to continue making arrests and holding perpetrators accountable."
> The City has also reached a 5 year high in applicants to join SFPD, which is essential for adding more police officers back.
Oh look, the police force is becoming more politically powerful & crime is down. Wonder how that happens.
Most other cities that have large homeless populations aren’t on a peninsula so they can eventually shuffle them to places that are “out of sight, out of mind.”
We already know pollution from cars increases childhood asthma, and I imagine those pollutants could affect brain development as well.
Edit: Also I would be curious to know how dog barks affect children's brains. Of all the environmental noise, dogs are often the loudest and most jarring, anecdotally.
Motorcycles are absolutely the worst. Even when they drive as slow as possible, to make less noise, they're still noisier than some cars. This is insane. And what's frustrating is that this is considered a feature, not a bug. I don't know how we can get out of that particular culture. I'm not sure electric motorcycles would help at all.
“Loud pipes save lives” is a contentious topic that has some influence on this. Not being noticed in a car is very much less dangerous than on a bike, so it makes sense that more motorcycles are louder as for some of them, that is the goal. People also tend to ride motorcycles because they want to rather than have to, which makes them more likely to tweak their bikes and exhausts.
One of the things I like about driving an electric car is that I can accelerate stupid fast without causing a scene, but I have no interest in an electric motorcycle.
Dogs barking cannot be worse than cars, especially compensators with the pop pop pop engines or tires screeching. Live right by a doggy daycare and several busy arterials
Doggy daycares are generally run by people who love dogs and know how to work with them and make them behave. The problem dogs are the ones owned by people who don't care how they behave and just leave them outside and ignore them.
McCarthyism wasn't about foreign companies targeting US children. Do you really think this is equivalent. Please consider before responding so as not to confirm our suspicions that you're just full of shit and don't know what McCarthyism actually was. I'll give you a clue, it was about AMERICANS, in government and other positions of authority. It wasn't about foreign companies that's for fucking sure.
Magnesium is very important but of course the big confounding factor is that a higher magnesium depletion score is also a good indicator that you're consuming more processed foods and fewer whole foods.
It’s not clear to me which foods you would need to “only eat” to not have enough magnesium. Meat, vegetables, and grains all contain magnesium. I wonder if you process meat into (for example) hot dogs, you are eating meat mixed with grains, so the grain content might decrease the total magnesium.
Perhaps a high calorie diet (soft drinks, potato chips, etc…) would lead someone to eat less “real food” (meat, vegetables, and grains), and thus overall magnesium would be less.
But still, I don’t know what one would have to focus on eating to avoid magnesium.
I don't know but I could imagine the extra oxidative stress and inflammation etc. might mean your body would need more of certain minerals than it otherwise would? Just speculating, not a doctor/nutritionist/biologist.
Edit: Processed food definitely lacks magnesium to be clear, but it's interesting to think about how it might even be more costly than it appears.
Even in decentralized networks, power concentrates to the very few. We need to figure out how to democratically own and operate our platforms (and the world, lol).
