sparkeda national conversation [sparked] around gun violence as well as “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine,” both self-defense laws."
this. This, is the headline.
The whole “black man killed by white man” is just race baity.
You’re hired
Feel free to explain why Newsom has been campaigning on solving homelessness in California for ~10 years but only made progress when Xi Jinping visited recently, and also why he hadn’t taken the exact same actions sooner. It’s the same reason, after all.
That is a really cool resume item, ngl
Do you mind me asking the languages/frameworks backing it? (e.g. JavaScript/Node)
With the new bullshit ruling by SCOTUS
FTFY
Describing someone using their race isn’t racism
Making the story about race rather than “this old man shot this young man for seemingly no reason, old man bad” is, in fact, race baiting
If Newsom wanted to he could probably solve the crisis over night, just like he did when Xi Jinping visited.
In Utah they have been constructing “tiny homes” instead of more “shelters”. I think it’s a pretty good idea and, if I remember correctly, the only requirements to qualify are have the need and be drug free. Seems like a much better solution than shared spaces which often turn out to be quite dangerous for many reasons.
If a man ~50 years younger than me that I don’t recognize/know knocks on my door at night, regardless of his race, I would be concerned. Would I just shoot him? No. Would an 80 year old man just shoot him? apparently, I guess… But equating it to racism, without any evidence, is simple race baiting…
The old man is clearly in the wrong, that doesn’t mean he is racist just because the kid was black
Welcome to Lemmy 😂
I’ll probably be in the minority, since this is Lemmy after all, but how is this “news”?
This is basically: reporter I hate said something I hate.
Is this Jesse’s regular MO? Yes.
Is Jesse garbage? Yes.
Is this news? No.
The law being challenged for those interested (commonly known as “stand your ground” law)
21-5222. Same; defense of a person; no duty to retreat. (a) A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent it appears to such person and such person reasonably believes that such use of force is necessary to defend such person or a third person against such other’s imminent use of unlawful force. (b) A person is justified in the use of deadly force under circumstances described in subsection (a) if such person reasonably believes that such use of deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to such person or a third person. © Nothing in this section shall require a person to retreat if such person is using force to protect such person or a third person.
I personally think it is pretty obvious that there was not “reasonable” cause to shoot someone simply since they rang your doorbell, but now it is up to a jury.
I also doubt this would be in the headlines if it was white man shooting white man or black man shooting black man. This really just seems like race baiting which isn’t surprising in an election year I guess, moreso it’s disappointing.
Hiding what?
AIPAC - American Israel Public Affairs Committee
Seems obvious from the name, no?
If they are still using Facebook, they most likely have a limited understanding of the internet, and have no idea what query parameters are, so they think the full “link from the Google search bar” is required
Mod: moderates according to community guidelines and is cordial when responding to post removal inquiries
You: “wOw YoU aRe sUcH a ZiOniSt!!!”
Alt title: ISPs attempt to avoid infrastructure upgrades unless paid for by others; points fingers.
Nothing new tbh.
Classic result of a business man in charge of a software company.
LPT: work for a company where the decision maker comes from an engineering background, not a business background.
You’re welcome.
I recently sat in a call with someone ~50 y/o helping someone ~25 y/o…
“Open vim and change xyz” met with “What’s vim…?”
I don’t think I’ve ever laughed so hard while feeling overwhelming sadness at the same time 😖
Hands on 10 and 2 while operating the 2 ton death trap!
Make your own instance
I missed your response, my bad, but I think others have touched on the major point with some pretty good analogies, but I will give you a full response since is a valid question. DISCLAIMER: I am a Software Engineer, not a real estate expert, although I was raised by a real estate expert.
Imagine you are Apple and own “Apple Park” in Cupertino, California.
Apple does not own the property “out-right”, they have a mortgage on the property and buildings similar to the average home mortgage, but much more expensive. When you “own” the mortgage, it is up to you who occupies the building, which often is done by contract. When you “own” a building for the purpose of giving your own employees a place to work, you often enter in a contract with “yourself”, but most often as a “subsidiary” signing a contract with a “parent company”.
Let’s say that a subsidiary is “renting” the entire building, but also, 90% employees work remotely. Although you, as the subsidiary, are still “paying rent to” the parent company, you as a subsidiary are losing money by paying for an office space that is mainly unused. So sure, it could be said that the parent company “isn’t losing money”, however, the subsidiary is since the office is unused and still being paid for. The subsidiary can’t just stop renting the office, since they are in a legal agreement with the parent company. This pushes parent companies to enact “return to office policies” so that subsidiaries are paying rent on “required office space”. Having “butt’s in seats” also helps with maintaining building value as one can prove “hey look, my office building is in demand”, even if simply artificial demand through subsidiaries.
Most office buildings, especially if for tech, cost in the hundreds of millions depending on location. If you think tech companies buy them outright rather than mortgage them with the company and assets as collateral, that is incorrect.
In other words… If you have a mortgage on an office building with no one in it, the “market” looks negatively upon that, which brings the building’s value down, but not your mortgage payment and interest. Therefore, you are paying more on your mortgage than the value of the building. Similar to buying a car with a car loan, using the crap out of it, and then not touching it for 5 years and expecting it to increase in value. (Car is a bad comparison as 99% of them lose value the second they leave the lot, but is easiest to compare)
In my opinion, if Newsom is anything worth his salt, he would invest public funds into tiny homes and basically guaranteed jobs for the homeless, rather than being cool with things like:
Newsom, literally with the stoke of a pen, could invest public funds into helping the homeless in a provable way, yet he does not. The only conclusion I can come to is that he does not want to.
Please, convince me otherwise, but the state of, at least, SF under Newsom (and big tech, admittedly) has greatly deteriorated