Weird premise aside, Kirk’s speech at the end about how it “must apply to everyone or it means nothing” is actually pretty stirring, IMHO.

I yearn for the simpler days when the worst thing a Republican president might do is tamper with Medicare.

My intent was to point out how ridiculous the “103% increase” line is, not to suggest the comparison was valid in the first place.

In other words, it jumped from about 0.5% to 1.5%.

deleted by creator

Looks like compatibility hacks for various websites.

Interventions - are deeper modifications to make sites compatible. Firefox may modify certain code used on these sites to enforce compatibility. Each compatibility modification links to the bug on Bugzilla@Mozilla; click on the link to look up information about the underlying issue.

User Agent Override - change the user agent of Firefox when connections to certain sites are made.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Compatibility/UA_Override_&_Interventions_Testing

May she die of an embarrassing and uncomfortable medical condition exactly 5 minutes before being released.

If social media companies exist to collect massive troves of personal info from users–and they do–then there is a valid national security concern over social media controlled by an adversary. This is distinct from the individual privacy concerns towards domestically-controlled social media.

No it’s not. There’s no bail, for example, and no plea bargaining in civil cases; jail time isn’t on the table, the district attorney isn’t involved, the standard of evidence is lower, and the rules of procedure are different.

First comes the discovery phase where both sides exchange evidence and the court settles any evidentiary questions. This phase can frequently take longer than the trial itself.

This is a civil case.

I took the ASVAB way back in the 90’s. IIRC it was mandatory then too.

Welfare and Institutions Code 8255.

But it’s beside the point if the problem is with getting them to accept services in the first place.

Housing First has been the policy in San Francisco since 2008, and state-wide since 2016.

Most shelters do in fact allow people to bring their belongings with them (within reason). Some even provide storage space, and the city provides a free self-storage facility.

Prop F addresses CAAP (cash welfare), not housing. You don’t have to be receiving CAAP to qualify for housing assistance, and you don’t have to be homeless to qualify for CAAP.

SF has been struggling with a chronic homelessness problem for decades. Offering voluntary services does not work. To put in in Trek terms, the problem isn’t the gimmes, it’s the ghosts and dims. Gimmes are easy to help because they can act on their own behalf and in their own best interests. They accept services and don’t end up being chronically homeless. The ghosts and the dims, on the other hand, are a different story.

Is sweeping their encampments an ideal solution? No, far from it. But what else is there for us to do? Let them languish on the streets? Honestly, what would you have us do?

I can’t think of any.

Certification of homeless status from the city (already acquired if they were referred to us) and proof of income (if any).

I actually work in the SF housing industry, and worked at a housing site in SF that was converted to permanent supportive housing during COVID. In that case, barely 30% of the people even showed up to their intake appointments.

In reality, getting them to accept services and help is the #1 obstacle to getting them services and help.

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.