I’m very supportive out housing the homeless as a fix, but to be clear math is on a per-day basis, it isn’t some sort of long term fix.

I hate these stupid math headlines that don’t actually make any sense.

Current deployment costs are around $1.1 million per day, housing all of those people in shelters at $45 per person works out to something like $250,000 per day.

This math calculation entirely ignores the fact that there aren’t enough shelters to actually do that.

Even if you could shave off 50% at idle, you’re talking about like $0.10 per day in power savings. Is it really worth spending any time on that?

Completely agree.

I’ve got clients who I can see immediate benefits right now, and I’ve got clients where I don’t think it’s a good idea yet. Most of those that could benefit it’s small tweaks to workflow processes to save a few FTE here and there, not these massive scale rollouts we’re seeing.

Unfortunately Microsoft, along with other companies, are selling fully scale sexy to executive when full scale sexy isn’t actually ready yet. What’s available does work for some things, but it’s hard to get an executive team to sign off on a project for testing to save only 10 employees worth of work in a 2000 person company when they’re simultaneously a) worried about it going horribly wrong, and b) worried about falling behind other companies by not going fast enough.

“Teens as young as 12“

Im pretty sure that’s now how teens work…

And your wife is irrational, and the behavior is a waste of time.

What are you trying to prove with your comment?

What do their choices have to do with your choices?

Those two things are entirely independent.

Someone else won the lottery today, does that mean you should rush out and buy a ticket?

No, because what happened to them isn’t likely to happen to you.

Just to add to the statistics, many thousands of Americans win more than a million dollars every year on the lottery.

You’re still feeling rather than thinking. It’s no skin off my nose if you choose to live a shitty life because you cant properly assess risk,. Good luck, but you’re probably going to die of a heart attack. Maybe you should worry about that instead.

Humans suck at estimating risk when large or small numbers are involved. Your brain can’t even comprehend 2.5 million people. You see a shooting on the news three times over multiple years and become afraid. That’s completely irrational.

All you’ve done is proven that your feelings matter more than the reality.

When you let your feelings control you, and they’re that far off from reality, you’re going to make bad choices.

That simply isn’t the reality for almost anyone.

And we were talking about busses, not subways.

No it doesn’t state the opposite. You are throwing out the entirety of the data just because the researchers admit that it may not be fully complete. They report exists because… their data is still mostly valid and gives important information.

Even if the real numbers were 50x the values they listed, which is absolutely absurd and obviously it’s not that bad, each year it would add up to less than 5000 attacks per year and only 68 deaths, across a country of 320 million people. Or about 1.5 people per 100,000 get attacked, and about 0.02 people per 100k die. That’s WITH me counting it at 50 times the value!

More people die to lawnmowers than that… (about 75 per year) About 5000 Americans choke to death on food every year. 45,000 die in Vehicle accidents.

There are far more common things that will injure or kill you than getting on a bus and getting attacked, and unless you are worried about all of those first and change your behavior to reduce the risk, then worrying about this one to the point of changing your behavior is irrational.

How many random (non-targeted) people were killed shopping in Austin in the last year, even if you include these 3 people?

How many people have died slipping in their shower in Austin in the last year? Or choking on food? I will bet you money both of those are much higher than the above answer. Have you stopped showering? Do you cut up all your food into bites so small you can’t choke on them then eat them one at a time swallowing before taxing the next bite?

single incidents should not validate fears when you have a population of 2.5 million people, just because extremely rare things can and do happen doesn’t mean they should change the way you live your life.

Feeling uncomfortable when your risk of something bad happening is extremely low is quite literally how you define Irrational.

https://transweb.sjsu.edu/sites/default/files/Security Perspective 2022 (08.15)_0.pdf

Here’s a study with a TON of data in it, and in the entire dataset where they looked at attacks on public transit(not just buses) from 2004 to 2021, they found 139 attacks, and 22 fatalities in the US.

Quite literally more people die in bus crashes each year, than are even injured from random attacks over this entire study period.

Being afraid of one of those attacks is Irrational unless you are also more uncomfortable getting on the bus just because of the likelihood of a crash.

Commonality has nothing to do with it, being afraid of spiders in North America is also extremely common, and completely Irrational. That’s why it’s called Arachnophobia (a phobia is a fear that is persistent and IRRATIONAL)

“everything has become very uncomfortable”

This is the problem, crime is literally at super lows for almost everyone alive in the country. You were far more likely to get mugged/stabbed/raped in the 90s than you are today, so why are you feeling more uncomfortable now?

The simple answer is because we hear about it more now. Two things are driving this, A) The population is higher, so there are more total incidents (even if the rate is lower) and B) For-Profit “News” knows that these kinds of stories get more views/clicks (and therefore make them more money) so you hear about each and every single one of them.

Feeling more uncomfortable now is irrational.

The “left” is trying to educate the populace about this, but people as a whole (working class or otherwise) are stupid as fuck, don’t understand how statistics work, and are literally being taken advantage of by these for-profit groups and politicians because of it. There’s not a lot that can be done to change that except to improve education for children, but the Right has been doing everything they can to harm education for decades now.

Tl;dr; Feels before reals

Yes and no, “we” absolutely can as long as “we” is the government doing it. Random person probably doesn’t have the resources but a well funded group can absolutely do it.

Just because the platforms are censored doesn’t mean people aren’t finding ways around things.

Is Toy Story C.R.A.P?

Your acronym sucks.

Here’s ChatGPT’s suggestions, they’re much better than your human attempt.

1. F.A.K.E. – Fabricated Aesthetic, Knowledgeless Expression (Emphasizes lack of real understanding or human touch.)

2. S.H.A.M. – Synthetic Heuristic Art Mimicry (Suggests it’s a cheap imitation of real creativity.)

3. B.L.A.N.D. – Bot-Led Art with No Depth (Points to emotional or conceptual flatness.)

4. G.H.O.S.T. – Generated Hologram Of Soulless Technique (Invokes an eerie emptiness—art without a soul.)

5. D.R.A.I.N. – Digitally Rendered Art Is Nothing (Super harsh—perfect if you’re going for a scorched-earth critique.)