5 ms·

I think it is an understandable reaction. They're a long history of articles like "man saves multiple orphans from the orphan crushing machine" and people go "a

I think it is an understandable reaction. They're a long history of articles like "man saves multiple orphans from the orphan crushing machine" and people go "ahhh that's so sweet" and nobody stops to ask "why do we have an orphan crushing machine and why can't do anything about that?" I think it's important to do both.

rsktaker 2y ago
Wonderful analogy
red75prime 2y ago
> why can't do anything about that Maybe because it's not the orphan crushing machine, but the lack of the low functioning orphan saving machine. Or a mix of both.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
username332211 2y ago
I get the impression that the reaction right now is more likely to be caused by someone in government turning off a lot of those orphan crushing machines recently. And the only thing to show for it is gangs of feral orphans raping and pillaging. (If I can stretch the metaphor a bit too much.) I suspect if someone did a survey, they'd find that most places in the internet have grown consistently less empathetic in terms of social policy since mid 2020.
- vlovich123 2y ago
  Did you read the article? It seems like the cycle of doom these people are in where a) there’s an impossible to navigate beauracracy b) the beauracracy is setting up zero tolerance policy to kick them out when they’re just starting to try to make their way. It doesn’t sound like the orphan crushing machines were ever truly turned off.
  - username332211 2y ago
    I did. The main zero-tolerance policy referred to in the article is someone getting into a fight with staff and roommates at a social care facility. You condemn that policy, so I suppose you think this should be tolerated to a degree? Let's say that a homeless shelter abolished it's zero-tolerance policy. Staff and other occupants can now be assaulted a few times, before someone gets kicked out. Who'd work at this facility? At this point, you aren't looking for social workers, you're looking for prison guards. They'd treat their charges with the same love and compassion that correctional officers are known for. Who'd go into this facility? Would a non-violent peaceful person even want to be sheltered there? Do you really think a facility like that will help anyone? Suddenly a zero-tolerance policy towards violence isn't such a bad idea, is it? Maybe, just maybe there is no orphan crushing machine, is there?
    - vlovich123 2y ago
      You’re seeing up a false dichotomy. For one, the fight wasn’t with staff, it was with a random roommate he was paired with. Your equating the two when they’re not equal at all. I don’t know about you but I’ve always gotten to pick my roommates. > Ronnie was always very clear about his needs. He knows he’s a volatile person. He doesn’t want to be in a shared room, especially with a stranger So perhaps listening to what the people need instead of forcing them into unwinnable situations is the right answer. If your question is how you scale personalized care in a way that’s financially sustainable I don’t know. But pretending like the orphan crushing machine was turned off, to use your words, isn’t capturing the picture as I’m seeing it. Seems pretty crush happy.
      - username332211 2y ago
        Read the article again. There was a violent incident with the staff as well. The system did listen to that man's needs. It provided him with a hotel room all to himself. Here's the result: > All seemed to be going well. But in September, Morrisette got into a fight with staff at the Monarch and was evicted. “It was devastating,” Barrows said. Because she was out of town dealing with a family crisis, she couldn’t intervene or help him lodge an appeal. > It angered her that one bout of bad behavior could cost him so dearly. Given his background and mental health issues, the Monarch should have cut him more slack, she thought.
aprilthird2021 2y ago
We don't have anything like a machine that causes homelessness though. Homelessness has existed for thousands of years if not all of human existence and we are probably the closest any society has gotten to eradicating it entirely. We are dealing with probably the hard last 10% of a hard problem. It's just not at all as if we have a terrible system that leads to these outcomes. On the contrary, we've built many systems to successfully prevent these outcomes. They're just not perfect
- mordae 2y ago
  No, we have a system that needs low degree of poverty to scare everyone into compliance. That's why they say capitalism is based in fear. That's why we have dreams of Star Trek.
- presentation 2y ago
  lol you make it sound like SF is the normal state of things when it’s one of the only places in the developed world with these issues
  - lazide 2y ago
    SF is the left wing version of the headline ‘nothing can be done about school shootings, says the only nation where this regularly occurs’. And while it is a magnet for this kind of problem, San Jose and Los Angeles have similar issues. Part of the problem being, they’re one of the easiest places to be/exist if you’re homeless. Not that it’s necessarily easy or pleasant, but compared to Chicago, New York City, or some random suburb? You bet.
    - screye 2y ago
      Nyc has more homeless people, but they're sheltered. [1] California homeless have higher rates of mental illness and drug abuse. It's this trifecta that people complain about - unsheltered, mentally ill and addicted. If we can solve any one, that feeling of abject squalor goes away. [1] - https://open.substack.com/pub/dynomight/p/homeless https://open.substack.com/pub/dynomight/p/homeless
optimalsolver 2y ago
HN readers might be interested to know that the machine's codebase was recently ported to C++ 17 from Fortran. It was a nightmare to maintain!

rsktaker 2y ago

Wonderful analogy

red75prime 2y ago

> why can't do anything about that Maybe because it's not the orphan crushing machine, but the lack of the low functioning orphan saving machine. Or a mix of both.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

username332211 2y ago

I get the impression that the reaction right now is more likely to be caused by someone in government turning off a lot of those orphan crushing machines recently. And the only thing to show for it is gangs of feral orphans raping and pillaging. (If I can stretch the metaphor a bit too much.) I suspect if someone did a survey, they'd find that most places in the internet have grown consistently less empathetic in terms of social policy since mid 2020.

vlovich123 2y ago
Did you read the article? It seems like the cycle of doom these people are in where a) there’s an impossible to navigate beauracracy b) the beauracracy is setting up zero tolerance policy to kick them out when they’re just starting to try to make their way. It doesn’t sound like the orphan crushing machines were ever truly turned off.
- username332211 2y ago
  I did. The main zero-tolerance policy referred to in the article is someone getting into a fight with staff and roommates at a social care facility. You condemn that policy, so I suppose you think this should be tolerated to a degree? Let's say that a homeless shelter abolished it's zero-tolerance policy. Staff and other occupants can now be assaulted a few times, before someone gets kicked out. Who'd work at this facility? At this point, you aren't looking for social workers, you're looking for prison guards. They'd treat their charges with the same love and compassion that correctional officers are known for. Who'd go into this facility? Would a non-violent peaceful person even want to be sheltered there? Do you really think a facility like that will help anyone? Suddenly a zero-tolerance policy towards violence isn't such a bad idea, is it? Maybe, just maybe there is no orphan crushing machine, is there?
  - vlovich123 2y ago
    You’re seeing up a false dichotomy. For one, the fight wasn’t with staff, it was with a random roommate he was paired with. Your equating the two when they’re not equal at all. I don’t know about you but I’ve always gotten to pick my roommates. > Ronnie was always very clear about his needs. He knows he’s a volatile person. He doesn’t want to be in a shared room, especially with a stranger So perhaps listening to what the people need instead of forcing them into unwinnable situations is the right answer. If your question is how you scale personalized care in a way that’s financially sustainable I don’t know. But pretending like the orphan crushing machine was turned off, to use your words, isn’t capturing the picture as I’m seeing it. Seems pretty crush happy.
    - username332211 2y ago
      Read the article again. There was a violent incident with the staff as well. The system did listen to that man's needs. It provided him with a hotel room all to himself. Here's the result: > All seemed to be going well. But in September, Morrisette got into a fight with staff at the Monarch and was evicted. “It was devastating,” Barrows said. Because she was out of town dealing with a family crisis, she couldn’t intervene or help him lodge an appeal. > It angered her that one bout of bad behavior could cost him so dearly. Given his background and mental health issues, the Monarch should have cut him more slack, she thought.

aprilthird2021 2y ago

We don't have anything like a machine that causes homelessness though. Homelessness has existed for thousands of years if not all of human existence and we are probably the closest any society has gotten to eradicating it entirely. We are dealing with probably the hard last 10% of a hard problem. It's just not at all as if we have a terrible system that leads to these outcomes. On the contrary, we've built many systems to successfully prevent these outcomes. They're just not perfect

mordae 2y ago
No, we have a system that needs low degree of poverty to scare everyone into compliance. That's why they say capitalism is based in fear. That's why we have dreams of Star Trek.
presentation 2y ago
lol you make it sound like SF is the normal state of things when it’s one of the only places in the developed world with these issues
- lazide 2y ago
  SF is the left wing version of the headline ‘nothing can be done about school shootings, says the only nation where this regularly occurs’. And while it is a magnet for this kind of problem, San Jose and Los Angeles have similar issues. Part of the problem being, they’re one of the easiest places to be/exist if you’re homeless. Not that it’s necessarily easy or pleasant, but compared to Chicago, New York City, or some random suburb? You bet.
  - screye 2y ago
    Nyc has more homeless people, but they're sheltered. [1] California homeless have higher rates of mental illness and drug abuse. It's this trifecta that people complain about - unsheltered, mentally ill and addicted. If we can solve any one, that feeling of abject squalor goes away. [1] - https://open.substack.com/pub/dynomight/p/homeless https://open.substack.com/pub/dynomight/p/homeless

optimalsolver 2y ago

HN readers might be interested to know that the machine's codebase was recently ported to C++ 17 from Fortran. It was a nightmare to maintain!