Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

oecdecoscope.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 660 posts

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#651

Post by INTPenis »

CaptainFever wrote: post #583
INTPenis wrote: post #241

I'm proud of all the socialist policies here in Sweden, and our neighbors. But a lot of times these things are posted as comparisons with the US, and let's get real, there is no comparison. The United States as a country is vastly different from any nordic european country. So stop holding these countries with insignificant populations up as beacons of light. I think the problem with the US is very clear to me as an…

In this case, does socialist mean "high amounts of government intervention" and capitalist mean "low amounts of government intervention"? I think it's important to be clear about such muddy terms.

But that's also a simplification because it's a government that does anything it can to protect its citizens, to make sure that everyone gets an equal share.

I took it for granted for most of my life, and I idolized the US for all their music and cultural output. Until social media brought me more and more real stories from real Americans and I realized how lucky I was to be born where I was born.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#652

Post by saagarjha »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #623
saagarjha wrote: post #612

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The part where you like to go around being annoying and then when people get upset retreating to "my opinion is just as valuable as yours". Which I think is stupid, except this time I'm not even going to engage on that and directly say that I also agree with their position, which means that not only is your opinion dumb it is also in the minority.

This seems incoherent, how does this relate to the prior comment? And why would the number of users expressing opinions even matter? Edit: I’m not here to score points, so it seems irrelevant in any comment chain whatsoever.

Do you have an actual direction you want to take this conversation, or will you just keep asking questions like this that seemingly nobody can satiate?

What do you gain from doing this?

(Speaking in my own words again: I am going to be very, very explicit here. You have a habit of asking super vague questions which require people to do a massive amount of work for you to explain their position while you can sit and continue at little cost to you: a sort of verbal DoS. Except we're not computers, we are people, and nobody takes kindly to this. When they inform you of this you retreat to "ok, and why should I listen to you?" which is even worse. I think you should take a good look at how you communicate with other people and see if you frequently leave them upset and unwilling to continue talking to you. Maybe you should direct one of your questions at yourself for why they keep doing that, such that you have to keep replying like this: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....)

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#653

Post by cwillu »

sugarplant wrote: post #306
cwillu wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“[…] if you give them a place to stay, smoke meth all day and make their apartment and nearby apartments health hazards” You skipped a step or two in there, but I will note that if you had real health care, the homeless adhd and such would be on their vyvanse prescriptions rather than self-medicating with meth.

i like how condescending this post is while just casually asserting multiple ridiculous things. ie: nobody ever acts decadently, all meth addicts actually have adhd, staying up for 4 days smoking meth is actually "self medicating", that the healthcare in usa (one of the most lenient places to be prescribed stims in the world) is somehow the reason why they cant get a stimulant prescription. just ridiculous.

‹Luke› “Amazing, every word of what you just said is wrong.”

First, the general stupidity: I didn't assert a single thing you claimed I did.

However, there's a reason stimulant medications are monitored by a doctor: escalating dosages due to normal tolerance needs to be distinguished from escalating dosages due to use and abuse of the medication for (initially) spurts of productivity and (eventually) avoiding the need to sleep. I can assure you that you can stay up 4 days on Vyvanse™ (i.e., fancy amphetamine) just as easily as you can on methamphetamine; the difference is the doctor and pharmacist keeping you to a sane dose, even if everyone involved is winking and nudging about whether you actually have adhd.

Imagine if addicts got a limited amount of their fix for pennies with very basic oversight, instead of screwing around with random chemicals that seem to make life bearable for a short period, but which quickly result in escalating dosages, health impacts and antisocial and criminal behaviour ultimately resulting in homelessness and incarceration with all of the social and economic costs involved in that.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#654

Post by cwillu »

asdf6969 wrote: post #594
cwillu wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“[…] if you give them a place to stay, smoke meth all day and make their apartment and nearby apartments health hazards” You skipped a step or two in there, but I will note that if you had real health care, the homeless adhd and such would be on their vyvanse prescriptions rather than self-medicating with meth.

We have free healthcare in Canada but the homeless will burn down their free housing and run away with all the copper. What can we do about people like that?

Use PEX instead of copper.

You seem unwilling to say what you actually want to say. I'm more than happy to dance around it if you are.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#655

Post by MichaelZuo »

saagarjha wrote: post #652
MichaelZuo wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems incoherent, how does this relate to the prior comment? And why would the number of users expressing opinions even matter? Edit: I’m not here to score points, so it seems irrelevant in any comment chain whatsoever.

Do you have an actual direction you want to take this conversation, or will you just keep asking questions like this that seemingly nobody can satiate? What do you gain from doing this? (Speaking in my own words again: I am going to be very, very explicit here. You have a habit of asking super vague questions which require people to do a massive amount of work for you to explain their position while you can sit and c…

This still seems incoherent, I’m assuming your the same person behind ‘saagarjha’, who entered into this comment chain and raised multiple bizarre points including “… which means that not only is your opinion dumb it is also in the minority.”

I’m not going to pretend your past comment doesn’t exist.

So the number of users opining in a comment chain is relevant… how…?

Edit: If you don’t like someone else asking questions, just leave the comment chain, otherwise don’t waste people’s time.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#656

Post by toss1 »

marssaxman wrote: post #648
toss1 wrote: post #640

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>unless your small town has a demographically-improbable homelessness problem...nothing I said pertains to you. Well, the current town has no homelessness problem, but there ARE most definitely laws in place (Massachusetts 40B) that specifically seeks to override local zoning and mandate low-income housing in ALL towns. So, while we agree that what you said should not pertain to me, the people making the actual laws…

Thank you for explaining your situation. I can see why that would be frustrating! Here in Washington, the state legislature recently passed a law overriding any local zoning which would forbid multi-family housing, but the law does not apply to cities under 25K population, and its strongest provisions only apply above 75K. Oregon has had a similar law since 2019. This approach seems more reasonable to me.

Yes, those provisions in Oregon and Washington are certainly doing that better.

I had literally to take three weeks off to kill a proposed development literally in my back yard. It is a wetland habitat, so enjoys some protection from good Massachusetts environmental laws, but they can be overridden by 40B. It is also a hilly and inaccessable site, and the developer was proposing to raze the whole site and put in 300+ units of warehouse-type condos. They literally did not even have sufficient access for fire trucks because of the terrain, and would have eliminated the habitat of an endangered turtle (found by required survey/trap-releasing).

We dug hard into the laws and process, and rallied hundreds of neighbors and political influencers in town to literally make the most packed planning board hearing they ever had, but a factor of at least 10.

This ended up killing the project, for now. But the absurdity of blanket zoning overrides literally destroying highly valuable (and costly) environment to literally solve nothing except transferring some of that value to developer's pockets has not left me. I understand it is still sad to replace brownstones with 10' square garden plots out back with high-rises, but I'm fine with that, since there really isn't any wildlife habitat and there is infrastructure to move the new people around the city. I'm not fine with doing it everywhere, particularly where it will destroy habitat and where there is no good people-moving infrastructure.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#657

Post by lostlogin »

throw5959 wrote: post #526
lostlogin wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was massive turmoil for sure, but world didn’t end (I’m referencing your earlier comment, not downplaying the devastating fall). How would continual growth work? We will run out of everything.

We are not limited to Earth.

What planet are you on?

Yes we are.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#658

Post by simoncion »

mmooss wrote: post #352
simoncion wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is completely detached from reality. I find it hard to believe you are being truthful unless you're doing some sort of gotcha where you carry a gun or are some sort of jiu-jitsu master. As someone who has lived in San Francisco, CA for the past long-ass while, I agree with the paragraph that you're objecting to. I own no firearms, and can hardly throw a pillow, let alone a person. Maybe try, like, talking to m…

> my assailants were groups of folks who looked to be doing well for themselves Bitcoin bros!

_Probably_ not, no. But who knows?!?

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#659

Post by brailsafe »

cyberax wrote: post #573
germinalphrase wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW: as a Minneapolis resident, my experience is that there is active hostility and grassroots rejection of adding dense housing in neighborhoods that are traditionally single family homes. I would be curious to see how much dense housing has actually been built post-2018 relative to the historical norm, as the small number of apartment buildings I've seen go up along light rail and buss corridors have fought tooth…

It'll get worse: https://minnesotareformer.com/2023/08/31/ending-minimum-park... The usual misery pushers are already celebrating the win.

So... you want all new buildings to have parking minimums? First of all, pass, but secondly what about that article justifies your cynicism, and lastly what exactly is the root of your anger? Do you just love being isolated to the point that you think everyone else hates or should hate living somewhere where they don't need a car?

I'd be pretty annoyed about only being able to own something that had to have a dedicated parking space. What a waste.

Re: Finland's zero homeless strategy (2021)

#660

Post by saagarjha »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #655
saagarjha wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have an actual direction you want to take this conversation, or will you just keep asking questions like this that seemingly nobody can satiate? What do you gain from doing this? (Speaking in my own words again: I am going to be very, very explicit here. You have a habit of asking super vague questions which require people to do a massive amount of work for you to explain their position while you can sit and c…

This still seems incoherent, I’m assuming your the same person behind ‘saagarjha’, who entered into this comment chain and raised multiple bizarre points including “… which means that not only is your opinion dumb it is also in the minority.” I’m not going to pretend your past comment doesn’t exist. So the number of users opining in a comment chain is relevant… how…? Edit: If you don’t like someone else asking questi…

You're focusing a lot on my past comments (which I assure you were written by the same person who is writing this one) but I think the best response to your concerns is actually contained in what you've written yourself. You yourself raised the question of whether someone else's opinion can matter more than anyone else's here; i.e that opinions should implicitly be equal in standing. Not only is this false (and you have, long ago, said the same) but I also wanted to demonstrate that even if opinions were equal there are now two that disagree with you, which obviously leads us to believe that your singular opinion matters less.

This is of course a lot of words to say the more straightforward thing, which is that you are the one wasting people's time here, and they don't really appreciate that. You can't really ask people to leave a comment chain while also asking them to respond in a certain way that is very expensive for everyone else.

Post reply on HN