My wife has a Nissan leaf with 60 mile range for commuting, I have an old gas hatchback we can take for road trips. Before going off about how rich and privileged this setup is, the Leaf was purchased for 6k, 4k after tax rebates. Hatchback was purchased for 6k 9 years ago.
deleted by creator
It’s the concepts of a plan.
Next 4 years are going to be a wild ride.
I had a good time with a full laser load out - sickle, laser cannon, guard dog. Ammo was never a problem.
I’m not scientist, but I wonder if the can feels cooler.
Also, I definitely have been pavloved into thinking the sound of a can opening is refreshing.
But you can’t have “everyone” reject war without including warmongering fascists in the category of “everyone”.
Seeing as you acknowledge how difficult that is, are we on the same page about how unrealistic your original solution is?
No it’s not easier than everyone making the right decision for anything else, but it is the right decision.
I’m going to propose something.
The most idealistic, “right” decision, done in the wrong context, is the wrong decision.
For example, let’s say all of Ukraine rejects war. They no longer resist Russia.
Did we save the world? No. That is appeasement, and that didn’t work out to well with Hitler.
Again. Prove the worth and viability of your ideas by encouraging the ones throwing the punches to reign it in first, before applying such lofty and naive ideals to those trying to defend themselves.
EDIT: I’m not going to bother. You believe that all it takes is for everyone in the world to reject war, with no viable plan instead of hand waiving “education will fix things”. Wishful thinking at best, forced indoctrination at worst.
No shit there would be no war if everyone was against war.
Tell you what, you manifest your dream with the Russians first to get the invading forces to be against war and I’ll take you seriously. Until then, the real world will go on, with or without you.
The solution is for everyone to reject war.
Aw shucks, is that all it takes? How’d we overlook that?? We’ll get cracking on that right away.
In the meanwhile it makes sense for a country being invaded to do whatever it can for self preservation, especially in a defensive manner.
I’ve made NO false assumptions
Article states:
It is one of the largest crisis response programs in the country, with 130 employees.
Your assumption: they have always had 130 employees.
Reality: In FY 21, they had funding for 18 people, in FY 22 they had the funding for 61 people.
That sure does seem like an assumption that turned out to be false.
So when I said “even if you 8x”… I didn’t account that there could be additional workload?
That’s a good point - how did you come up with that number? Also, how did you come up with an acceptable number of diverted calls? Did you compare the value to those of the programs peers?
Taking even your infographic where they claim that they’ve done 3296 calls .
Okay, let’s make sure our homework is done again. How many people do you know we’re employed at this time? Should your analysis be qualified as a worst case value? How many folks do you think should be on call?
Moving goalposts
Lmao, it can say a lot about your approach if real world corrections to the initial values are considered moving goalposts. If your focus is on being “right” in the context of the article regardless of being wrong in the context of real life, I can see that being upsetting.
Here’s the thing. You’re the one asserting that it’s inefficient, so it’s really up to you to make sure your evidence and reasoning is right.
You keep asking for analysis from me, but I don’t need to provide my own analysis to point out the false assumptions you’ve made in yours, resulting in potentially misleading analysis. The correct action to take is to either correct the assumptions, or state that those are assumptions you are making in your analysis.
The fundamental thread behind your analysis is that 130 employees don’t divert enough calls to justify their existence, when in reality you didn’t realize that those calls aren’t the sole responsibility the group has. So how much water does the analysis even hold?
I’m not saying you’re a bad person. I’m saying you’re looking to “offer a more realistic view of what this actually is” before having a full understanding of what it actually is. The acs page linked to the article has a transparency page with regular reports like the one I shared. I’d consider those to be good primary resources. Go ham!
I’ve replied to another one of your comments.
There are many reasons why I think you’re analysis is misleading.
This infographic has more relevant info from 2023.
Also note that taking calls isn’t the only thing the group is responsible for. They do things like needle pickups, homeless outreach, etc additionally, acs doesn’t only respond to 911 calls:
While responding to 911 calls is our primary focus, ACS responders will be dispatched through additional methods, including referrals, self- dispatch, and 311 tickets. ACS will also respond to calls from 988, the national behavioral health crisis hotline, when it launches in 2022.
Taking some good news and immediately trying to portray it in a bad light is not exactly the way to push society forward. Actively looking to portray the start of such programs as “inefficient” and being a waste of taxpayer dollars can discourage other such programs from starting, which is a shame especially if the analysis wasn’t fully informed.
You’ve taken their current employee count, as the biggest department of its kind, and assumed they started with that on day 1, which is an unrealistic assumption to make without evidence.
That said I am very concerned with the influence he undoubtedly will have with our space asset acquisition policies.
Imo anyone considering a Tesla won’t really care about the price and quality, for the reasons you describe. They’re there for the brand.
Apparently Tesla’s on board with this. Their thinking, which I think is correct, is that the rebate benefits other manufacturers more since Tesla is much more established as an EV brand.
Idk what the exact definition of a full lock in is, but if you have to break a window to get someone out I’d think it still qualifies since the locks were all engaged.
Idk if I’m just old now and it’s not the parties I go to but I’m sure glad that “sexy native american” isn’t really a Halloween costume anymore.