3 ms·

Just not true.

bsder 5y ago
I suspect what's happening here is that you two are conflating different groups. If you include the invisible homeless in the group, you can probably say that the majority of the homeless don't have mental health issues. It takes functional mental skill to not be a visible homeless person. The highly visible homeless probably have significant mental health issues. Mental health issues have a nasty way of completely destroying your social network. If someone doesn't get medical help before they hit bottom, they're in real trouble. The biggest problem is that the "homeless" aren't a monolithic bloc. So, Amdahl's Law is at work--even if you completely eliminate one class of homelessness--you still have 80% of the problem left, it looks like you didn't do anything and everybody gets angry at the waste of money.
- nanidin 5y ago
  I like the reach for Amdahl's Law, but it's about how fast you can speed something up by doing it in parallel, isn't it? What's to say someone else can't be eliminating the other classes of homelessness in parallel, making the problem effectively embarrassingly parallelizable?
  - bsder 5y ago
    > What's to say someone else can't be eliminating the other classes of homelessness in parallel You both can and must address everything in parallel to actually dent the "homeless problem". That's the point. Let's say there are 5 primary classes of homeless. Even if you take one of them and reduce it to zero (and you will never accomplish this)--you're still left with 80% of the problem. Only now the people approving the checks are angry because the "homeless problem" doesn't really look any better.
    - nanidin 5y ago
      Hmm. My takeaway from Amdahl's Law is that if one has a parallelizable problem, one can keep throwing processors at it, but eventually there is a slice of overall work that cannot be parallelized. Stepping back and refreshing myself on Amdahl's Law, I can see how this relates to Amdahl's Law. I like it. Anyway, I agree with your general sentiment, and it tickles my mind. Thank you!

Just not true.

I suspect what's happening here is that you two are conflating different groups. If you include the invisible homeless in the group, you can probably say that the majority of the homeless don't have mental health issues. It takes functional mental skill to not be a visible homeless person. The highly visible homeless probably have significant mental health issues. Mental health issues have a nasty way of completely destroying your social network. If someone doesn't get medical help before they hit bottom, they're in real trouble. The biggest problem is that the "homeless" aren't a monolithic bloc. So, Amdahl's Law is at work--even if you completely eliminate one class of homelessness--you still have 80% of the problem left, it looks like you didn't do anything and everybody gets angry at the waste of money.

nanidin 5y ago
I like the reach for Amdahl's Law, but it's about how fast you can speed something up by doing it in parallel, isn't it? What's to say someone else can't be eliminating the other classes of homelessness in parallel, making the problem effectively embarrassingly parallelizable?
- bsder 5y ago
  > What's to say someone else can't be eliminating the other classes of homelessness in parallel You both can and must address everything in parallel to actually dent the "homeless problem". That's the point. Let's say there are 5 primary classes of homeless. Even if you take one of them and reduce it to zero (and you will never accomplish this)--you're still left with 80% of the problem. Only now the people approving the checks are angry because the "homeless problem" doesn't really look any better.
  - nanidin 5y ago
    Hmm. My takeaway from Amdahl's Law is that if one has a parallelizable problem, one can keep throwing processors at it, but eventually there is a slice of overall work that cannot be parallelized. Stepping back and refreshing myself on Amdahl's Law, I can see how this relates to Amdahl's Law. I like it. Anyway, I agree with your general sentiment, and it tickles my mind. Thank you!