Whole Foods has superior quality pecorino, the one with the black crust.
The last 10% quality improvement is the hardest to achieve without good ingredients, even if you can make it work otherwise.
3,433 karma · joined September 27, 2010
The last 10% quality improvement is the hardest to achieve without good ingredients, even if you can make it work otherwise.
Often I see developers creating new APIs ad-hoc all the time instead of curating and enhancing the one they already have.
We are still early in AI.
Mauritius is not China. Not that I am suggesting for this to happen, but what are they going to do if the UK just decides not to leave after 99 years?
..let’s assume that a specific area of our inner body is “micro-cooked” constantly, the body will certainly try to repair that area with higher frequency and therefore there would be a higher risk of cancer, wouldn’t it?
But they are, because this is city that has established a record $1B+/year budget to solve the problem, without setting up a rigorous process to be accountable on how that money is being spent, with corruption cases (and arrests) linked to the recipients of those public funds [1][2].
Quite unique, indeed.
1 - https://www.nationalreview.com/the-weekend-jolt/californias-...
Perhaps caused by the unpredictability in SF of often finding “bad” in “good” parts of town, with unpredictable drug addict behavior on top, which adds to the unpredictability of the bad experiences.
Anecdotally, my family got assaulted with a hammer in a “good” part of town, while carrying our 6 months old in a stroller. The individual was visibly on drugs. There is no amount of “bad” in other cities that results in hammering and smashing the back window of a car - assaulting a young family and traumatizing a newborn - for nothing. It’s unwarranted violence, it wasn’t even a robbery. I travel 150k miles a year all over the world, including 3rd world countries, and I have only felt unsafe in San Francisco.
And I have a lot more examples like this one. A friend of mine got assaulted with a baseball bat in SoMa by an individual that wanted to steal their dog for drug money, for example.
The whole town is a social experiment where we put families and working individuals into a drug den and see what happens.
Here is yet another source from the U.S. Department of Justice [2]: "During the period from 2006 to 2010, 52% of all violent victimizations, or an annual average of 3,382,200 violent victimizations, were not reported to the police.".
Realistically speaking it is hard to measure unreported crimes given that by definition they are - after all - unreported. And yet the fact that some data is not collected or it is hard to collect, doesn't mean that the data doesn't exist.
> Is it so hard to believe that your political aliance is just wrong on this?
I could be asking you the same question, based on your stance.
[1] - https://www.csustan.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Universit...
[1] https://nationalpolice.org/main/not-letting-cops-enforce-law...
For sure they don’t need more drugs.
In San Francisco there are open-air drug markets that nobody shuts down, where illegals are selling “death” 24/7. Of course San Francisco is a “Sanctuary City” so they don’t collaborate with immigration services to deport the drug dealers, let alone shut down the drug trade.
Of course keeping to feed their addictions with public money doesn’t actually help them and they eventually die on the sidewalk by over dosing or other drug-related complications. Hundreds of them die every year, it’s really despicable.
San Francisco has a large network of no-profits that exists with the sole purpose of trying to “help” the homeless population by encouraging “clean” use of drugs (they distribute needles and other drug accessories), and they are the recipients of 1B+ of funds every year from city hall [1].
Many of these no-profits are plagued with corruption [2], the Mayor itself and people in her circle have been investigated/arrested [3], but nobody does nothing because they are afraid to lose the ultra-liberal vote. Now that the tide is starting (very slowly) to shift, we are seeing politician’s big talk to clean up the city, so far with poor results and no action.
Of course with more than a billion dollars on the line every year, some people started to wonder if these no-profits really want to solve the problem (they don’t) to keep the money flowing, and the pockets of corruption ongoing.
An interesting book to read is San Fran-Sicko [4] which analyzes this phenomenal in ultra liberal cities. It’s so bad that kids are accidentally ingesting Fentanyl at the park [5].
Even being a moderate democrat acting rationally will earn you the label of “fascist” by the ultra progressives.
Ultimately, this will be remembered as a very dark era in the history of San Francisco and everyone involved has blood on their hands, including the voters and supporters of these ultraliberal policies that lead to death and desperation.
[1] https://www.hoover.org/research/despite-spending-11-billion-...
[2] https://sfist.com/2024/02/23/scandal-plagued-sfpd-partner-no...
[3] https://www.ktvu.com/news/former-sf-official-agrees-to-plea-...
[4] San Fransicko: Why Progressives Ruin Cities
[5] https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-au...
Like the Romans say, de gustibus non disputandum est.
If I came across something like this in the wild, I wouldn’t think much of it, either.
> you can't just move them effortlessly to new locations.
Turns out we are exactly where I said we would be in this conversation.
We can allocate the homeless to numerous other existing towns without having to build new cities, and most importantly without having to build expensive shelters in places where land is already very expensive, like the coasts.
Where they have friends and family is irrelevant because nobody is entitled to live where they want, unless their families host them. I have friends in Paris that doesn't mean I can demand a flat there. Plus many of them are drug tourists that are from out of town, and those also happen to be the most dangerous ones.
With that said the small minority of homeless that are genuinely looking forward to being re-integrated into society must be given treatment, housing and support. This is a small minority, unfortunately.
1) Someone says we need housing.
2) I say: great, let's build it!
3) Someone says: but cities are not building enough housing, we need to invest more.
4) I say: great, let's build it anywhere in the US, where it is cheaper too. Population density in the US is very low.
5) Someone says: not like that! Homeless want to live in places like San Francisco, you can't relocate them.
6) I say: nobody can choose to live where they want if they don't have the means for it. <- WE ARE HERE.
For as long as we keep ignoring this, we are stuck in nuances.
These people don't want to get better, so we need to mandate treatment (and give them one of the many available supportive housing units after accepting treatment) or - if they refuse treatment - relocate them where they cause no harm other than themselves. Might as well call it a "government-assisted suicide" campus, because this is what it already is in every major American city nowadays. Today, we are literally letting them die on our streets.
Nobody in modern public discourse is complaining about homeless in the context of a regular Joe bad on his luck, who after a while - with dignity and hard work - goes back to a stable life. We should give our all to him and homeless like him.
Otherwise, I would like to apply for a supportive housing unit penthouse on 5th avenue please.
[1] - https://www.theday.com/state/20230529/thousands-of-nyc-apart...
More than half suffer substance abuse. Accounting for the fact that many of them would deny admitting to drug use when asked, this is probably a conservative number and the percentage is much higher. Also this is an US average, and it doesn't take into consideration "drug tourism" in cities like San Francisco, Portland and Seattle where drug use is literally the main goal thanks to easy drug access, therefore the drug-related homelessness ratio in some places is much higher.
They also probably take into account both housed an unhoused homeless, with the nuance that unhoused homeless are more likely to be druggies and to refuse shelter. Therefore the percentage of homeless population we see every day in our streets (which is the subset of homeless more likely to affect our day-to-day lives) have very likely an higher percentage of drug use.
Finally, the US actually has another problem: we can't fill up the supportive housing units fast enough! New York has empty supportive housing units [1]. This suggests that the total number of vacancies might be even higher, as more units are added to the system regularly.
[0] https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/homelessness/
[1] https://www.theday.com/state/20230529/thousands-of-nyc-apart...
It’s time we stop deceiving the public.
In San Francisco when we give homes to drug addicts, the first thing they do is ripping the sink out to sell it and buy more drugs.
There is a serious drug epidemic that needs to be addressed simultaneously as we try to help the super-minority of legitimate homeless that are bad on their luck and need 2-3 months to find a new job and get back on their feet.