We don't need to move them, there are vacant homes everywhere. Even in San francisco the residential vacancy rate is 6%. The unhoused in San francisco make up about 1% of the population, so assuming the unhoused population takes up the same amount of housing per person as the housed population, we could house every unhoused person here and still have 5% left over.
That's the worst case too, the rest of the country has a higher vacancy rate and a proportionally lower unhoused population.
I've never had a job ask for it. The most they've asked for is two forms of id and I used drivers license and passport.
Can someone explain why he stopped accelerating when he started sliding back and seemed to just brake?
I get laying off the accelerator for a bit and sliding back a bit to get out of a rut, but he just gave up.
I guess that's one advantage of stack overflow, sometimes you need a guy to tell you the entire basis of your question is dumb and wrong.
The actual survey result:
Asked whether "scaling up" current AI approaches could lead to achieving artificial general intelligence (AGI), or a general purpose AI that matches or surpasses human cognition, an overwhelming 76 percent of respondents said it was "unlikely" or "very unlikely" to succeed.
So they're not saying the entire industry is a dead end, or even that the newest phase is. They're just saying they don't think this current technology will make AGI when scaled. I think most people agree, including the investors pouring billions into this. They arent betting this will turn to agi, they're betting that they have some application for the current ai. Are some of those applications dead ends, most definitely, are some of them revolutionary, maybe
Thus would be like asking a researcher in the 90s that if they scaled up the bandwidth and computing power of the average internet user would we see a vastly connected media sharing network, they'd probably say no. It took more than a decade of software, cultural and societal development to discover the applications for the internet.
Fair enough, they seem to have less of a deeply entrenched patriarchal hierarchy than in the south. Pretty nice for the free people who were the majority.
We can't forget though that these rights only extended to freemen/women and that the slaves/thrall had no rights. The highest women did enjoy more rights then in the south, but the lowest women were treated as sex slaves who would be expected to be (TW: SA) >!gangraped!< and die when there master did. Granted the Europeans in the south probably weren't treating there serfs with much respect but I don't think they were treated that poorly.
There's probably a shit ton of nazis in Valhalla. Vikings didn't have any sort of morality about human rights, they went by might makes right. If you died in glorious battle, no matter the cause, you're going to Valhalla.
So there'll probably be a shit ton of nazis from WWII, along with russians and Americans who they fight an unending war with.
Modern nazis arent really dying in glorious battle, if they do die in battle it's after shooting a bunch of defenseless people before being sniped by a cop, not really that glorious. Most of the nazis though are just posting edgelord shit online and are just as afraid of daylight as they are brown people, no Valhalla for them.
He's term limited, so he can't run in the 2026 gubernatorial election. I guess he thinks the next step is the presidency so he's taking the buddy up to the conservatives strategy that worked so well for Harris...
Not saying the clergy are on the top, more that they shared power with secular authorities. Saying the secular authorities are on the top is like saying the president is. Yes, they have executive power and control of the military, but they need congress to legitimate the laws they enforce. If the president ignores congress and starts enforcing their own laws contrary to congress, then they'll lose legetamacy and risk a rebellion. Either by the people or by their underlings who can use it as a reason to not follow orders.
Same thing with the church state relations in the middle ages, the church provided legitimacy to the secular authorities. Without that legitimacy, the people you rule are less likely to respect your authority and more likely to rebel against it, especially if you're told your rebellious action could get you into heaven.
Why would religious authorities even have power over secular authorities?
Because they didn't want to go to hell. It's easy to think in modern times that every person in power was as cynical about religion as they are now, but back then even the lords were true believers. A lot of them were illiterate and the ones that were weren't well versed enough in Latin and the Bible to question anything the church said, so if the church said you're going to hell if you work your peasants on Saint Michael's feast day then your going to believe them.
Along with this is the church's role as a sort of mediator between the lords and the peasants. The church gave legitimacy to the rulers and consecrated the peasants labor and suffering as part of God's plan. If the lord ignored the church then the Sunday mass would change from "get back to the fields and work for your glorious lord" to "your lord has given himself to the devil" and now you have a bunch of angry rebellious subjects.
Religion can be the opiate of the masses, but it can also be the meth of the masses if you cross the church
If you work is not at least giving you coffee you need to start mailing the CEO pictures of Luigi. Amphetamines and coke would be a nice perk too while we're at it.
He already ignored a court order when he "deported" some Venezuelans to this ~~gulag~~ mega-prison. Whose to say he won't do the same next time around?