Author: Tangent

Posted on

There Are Enough Homes For Everyone (Greed Causes Homelessness)

This is a Learning in Progress post. Contents are brief and accuracy is not guaranteed.

Observing propaganda is useful to see how it is constructed. I just got through watching a video that claimed California is being taken over by “the drug-addled violent homeless”1 due to decriminalization of felonies and stringent building codes. In case you need the reminder: Homeless people are victims of landlords, a lack of rent control2, and a lack of social services. And the felonies in question? Minor crimes like drug possession and petty theft, the kinds of crime done by the desperate or disadvantaged. In other wods, crimes that never should have been a felony in the first place.

(They also claim that providing medical services to drug users increases harm. I remind you that the purpose of medicine is to reduce harm.)

California’s population peaked in 2020 at 39.5 million people3. At the time, there were approximately 151,000 homeless people living there4, and 711,679 housing units were unoccupied5 – enough for every homeless person to have 4 homes! (This mirrors a larger trend in the USA, where there were 16,883,357 vacant housing units in 20196, and 1.5 million homeless people7.) By 2022, California’s population had dropped by 0.5 million and there were 2.4 million more housing units (from 12.2 million5 to 14.6 million)8, which is plenty more space, despite the increase in homeless population to ~181,000 people9.

A preliminary estimate shows the homeless population in California has grown by 2% since that figure, which still doesn’t strain the available housing units10. However, the source of that claim is one of the least reliable sources available, so the real difference may be higher.

Underreporting & Accuracy

The USA has always had very reliable census data. The numbers regarding housing units all come from census data, and are accurate. The information on homeless populations that I found broadly comes from 3 categories of sources, with varrying levels of accuracy.

  1. “Continuum of Care” sources (commonly abbreviated CoC) seem to be the least reliable, first because they count homeless people at a single point of time (which ignores the magnitude of homelessness by omitting people who are frequently homeless for brief periods of time repeatedly), and second because they only count homeless people participating in a homelessness preventation program (which are often highly exclusionary, tunring away most homeless people). For example, the HUD’s CoC sources claim that in 2019 there were only 279,327 homeless people11 in the entire country instead of the 1.5 million7 I stated above.
  2. The Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) seems to still fall into the trap of only counting people at a single point in time, but as far as I can tell actually does try to come up with an accurate count at that moment in time. The 9th and 11th items in my footnotes/sources are these reports, whose numbers are close to the PIT estimate in the 7th item (so I consider them related / roughly equivalent in accuracy).
  3. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) only counts homelessness based on children during a school year. Despite this, it captures a much more realistic estimate of the magnitude of homelessness by accounting for families over a significant period of time.

It would be fair to take these sources as a lower bound, average estimate, and upper bound. Operating from that assumption, I note that the difference between the lowest estimates and the highest is about 5x, while the difference between the average and upper is 3x. I think it important to consider this when looking at the numbers presented earlier, specifically the comparison between California and the whole USA.

There Were Always Enough Homes

When I want to make a point clear, I take the estimates most against my position, and use those to prove my perspective valid even under a worst-case.

California has 1/3rd the homeless population of the entire country. The estimates I found for California match the average estimates for the USA. If we assume that the average estimate is wrong, and the upper bound is correct, there are 3x more homeless people in California than I said above.

In 2019, the highest count I found was 181,000. If we presume that there are actually 543,000 homeless people, that the 2.4 million new housing units don’t actually exist, and that 500,000 people didn’t actually leave California… there are still 711,679 housing units available for them. There have always been enough homes for everyone.

Footnotes & Sources

(Note: All resources are archived using the services linked to on Archives & Sources.)

  1. An important signifier in any conversion about disadvantaged people is how they are spoken about. A specific flag to look for is the usage of terms like “the homeless” vs terms like “homeless people”. The first is dehumanizing, the focus is on a group of “disliked things” whereas the second acknowledges these are people of a categorization. While this language usage does not necessarily coincide with how a presenter values the people being discussed, it is a hint at how they perceive of a topic.
  2. There are a billion sources that all show this. I just happened across a really detailed document about ALL of this in State of Homelessness: 2024 Edition (archive.org, archive.is)
  3. California Remained Most Populous State but Growth Slowed Last Decade (archive.org, archive.is)
  4. Page 3 of Homelessness in California (archive.org, archive.is)
  5. California Housing Statistics (archive.org, archive.is)
  6. Housing Units and Population Measures for the United States (archive.org, archive.is)
  7. Urban Vision Alliances’ HOMELESSNESS STATISTICS (archive.org, archive.is)
  8. California – Profile data – Census Reporter (archive.org, archive.is)
  9. Page 186 (printed as pg. 16) of The 2023 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress (archive.org, archive.is)
  10. Partial 2024 California Homeless Count Results Reveal a Statewide Increase of 2% (archive.org, archive.is)
  11. HUD 2019 Continuum of Care Homeless Assistance Programs Homeless Populations and Subpopulations (archive.is)

Updates:
2024-10-11: Clarified text in footnotes, added redundant archive links.
2024-10-27: Corrected heading size for footnotes/sources.

Posted on

Uncommon Knowledge: NTFS Allows Weird Filenames

The whole internet confuses NTFS and Windows. If you try to find what characters are disallowed on NTFS, you’ll probably find what Windows blocks:

But NTFS doesn’t actually have this limit. As far as I can find, the only limit is the NULL character. I don’t know of an operating system that will let you use a forward slash (“/”) in a filename, but technically it is allowed.

Not only is this relatively unknown, but it is hard to find information on because most searching will bring up results about Windows only. 😀

Sources

(Note: All resources are archived using the services linked to on Archives & Sources.)

  1. Discussion: Edge cases of file naming in NTFS/FAT/etc, Windows/Linux. The only specific affirmative answer I could find.
  2. Naming Files, Paths, and Namespaces Microsoft does mention namespaces, but doesn’t go into detail.
  3. Filename Namespaces – Concept – NTFS Documentation & the 101th page (pg. 93) of NTFS Documentation (PDF) (different formats, same source) The NTFS Project states that only NULL and forward slashes are not allowed. (The forward slash is disallowed by the NTFS project, not NTFS.)
  4. Filename – Wikipedia (Comparison of filename limitations) Mentions that Posix namespaces remove some character restrictions, but doesn’t specify details (and is also flagged as “dubious” lol).

Posted on

When Open Source Maintainers Don’t Understand Community is Important

This is just to vent frustration at a thoroughly stupid experience I had recently. A portion of that stupidity is me failing to read something correctly, but I’m just really stuck on the stupidity of the response to me asking for help:

I asked for clarification, and was told to go away.

My reaction clearly indicates that I am not undrstanding something, and I even tried to give context to where I’m coming from so that it would be easier to spot what I misunderstood, but instead I was told to go ask a bot.

And then they blocked anyone from ever asking for help again.

The public is not allowed to open issues now.

What’s most frustrating to me about this is that it coincides perfectly with another issue I ran into today where I couldn’t add an important detail to an old issue. Past conversations are useful to people looking for assistance, especially when one solves their problem and explains it. When I am blocked from replying to something with a solution, anyone in the future experiencing the same issue is likewise blocked from finding the answer.

I now know what I messed up, but I’m not allowed to pass that knowledge to the future, because I was confused and made a mistake in how I asked for help.

There’s another layer to this that is often ignored: When this is the response the average newbie gets when they first try to contribute, they are encouraged to never ask again, or in the case of submitting pull requests, encouraged to never try to help again.

When open source maintainers discourage newbies, they cannibalize the future of their software.

Okay, that’s my entire point, but I also encounted some funny things as part of this.

What is a contribution? GitHub doesn’t know!

I think it’s interesting that GitHub says the repo limited opening issues / commenting on issues to past contributers, but I am a past contributer. GitHub clearly considers issues to be contributions, as every profile has a graph showing issues as part of their contributions:

My contributions: 89% commits, 11% issues.

AI tools can be very powerful, but they can also be very stupid

Earlier today, I tested Perplexity AI’s capability to answer a few basic questions easily answered through traditional search engines, such as which insect has the largest brain and which country is the current leader in development of thorium-based reactors. The results? It doesn’t know ants are insects, thinks fruit flies have large brains just because they have been the subject of a large number of studies, and ignores India in favor of China because western media reports on China a lot more.

But you know what, I wanted to test this asshole’s suggestion to ask ChatGPT about my problem, and surprisingly, it gave a very clear and accurate response!

Note (2024-10-02): Open AI has since removed the ability to access web sites from ChatGPT, and dumbed it down significantly. It is no longer a viable tool for most use cases.

ChatGPT points out what I misread: I have to clone the repo AND run NPM, not just run NPM.

When you offer binaries for a project, they have to actually exist..

To be fair, this is a fairly recent change to the ReadMe, but maybe you should publish binaries before advertising that you publish binaries?

Getting Started: Download a release binary and run it. Simple.
The advertised binaries don't exist.

Installation and usage aren’t the same thing

It’s understandable to be confused about whether someone has correctly installed something, but after confirming that installation has worked, ignoring the question asked is unhelpful to say the least.

After confirming that I've installed it, my question is ignored.
Posted on

Learning in Progress: Equality Has Many Definitions

This is a Learning in Progress post. Contents are brief thoughts based on few sources, and have not been checked for accuracy or usefulness.

These notes are based on a section of Equality by Darrin M. McMahon. I haven’t finished reading it, and a bug deleted most of my notes from the first ~200 pages, so it is even less complete than it might otherwise be.

People are different, and this makes them inherently unequal. This has been used to justify bigotry on arbitrary differences throughout history, but declaring equality of all doesn’t make people equal either. Everyone has needs and capabilities, and the only path to equality is to have all people use their capabilities collectively to fulfill their collective needs.

Stalinism took “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” and replaced the word “need” with “work”. By including this seed of meritocracy, anyone injured, disabled, or elderly is excluded from equality. (I think every person has a phase where they see meritocracy as ideal. Fortunately, most people grow out of this phase.)

Nazis promoted equality of a few at the expense of everyone else. (How equality has been used throughout history changes. It is important to recognize that it means different things to different people.) Fascism creates a meritocracy exclusive to one class, relying on the existence of outsiders (who must be murdered1). In this way, fascism must shrink the accepted class to have more outsiders, and eats itself.

We claim all nations are equal, while propping up some, sabotaging others, and we can all see that nations are not equal. WWII’s devastation increased equality (see “four horseman of leveling” in Quotes). Post-WWII, economists claimed that industrialization forms a natural progression of brief extreme inequality that quickly brings in equality. (This is an obvious lie.) At the same time, economists claimed that it was better to make a nation wealthy than to fix its inequality, and that commerce is a leveling force. “When a rich man sells to the poor, they become equal.” cannot be true, and yet it was the predominant claim.

Quotes

  • “self-love is the great barrier to full human equality” I see in many people, especially myself, a critical lack of self-love, so this stood out to me as worth investigating further. It may not be true, or it may be more true than I am capable of recognizing right now.
  • “Christianity is Communism” If you research when and where Christianity was formed, the people were living under a form of communism.2 The ideals of Christianity are communist ideals, but have been changed and replaced by centuries of adaptation and interpretation.
  • “iron law of oligarchy” In every government, an elite few control all. There are many systems to stop this, but they have all failed so far.
  • “four horseman of leveling” – war, revolution, state failure, disease. These are all common things that have caused increases in equality by hurting everyone.

Questions

  • Does communism only work at small scales? It is implied to have only worked when implemented by communities instead of countries.
  • Does Marxism rely on individualism? The more I learn, the more I see that individualism is the biggest threat to progress. (Ever heard “divide and conquer”? Individualism IS self-division – a destruction of community. It makes us weak.)
  • What makes immigration “good”?3 From my education, I “know” that immigration has always had benefits, but what are those benefits? Why do we call them beneficial? As far as I know, the benefit has always been cheap labor (exploitation of immigrants). I want to challenge my education, and learn more about the complexities of immigration. (There is never a valid reason to stop immigration.)
  • Should we not want greatness? What IS greatness? Nietzsche argued for a constant personal struggle to achieve greatness, and against many institutions that improve equality. If seeking greatness requires sacrificing others, should we ever want it?
  • What was good/bad about the “New Deals”? They compensated for a destroyed economy, and produced infrastructure still used today, but what were the exact short-term and long-term effects?

Further Reading

  • Capital: A Critique of Political Economy by Karl Marx

Footnotes

  1. Fascism relies on exploitation of the unaccepted classes, which often literally involves mass murder, but also makes the unaccepted people leave. This is why fascists inevitably shrink their accepted class.
  2. Romans were the capitalists of their day, exploiting the people that became the first Christians. Communism is a broad and complex subject. In this context, communism is being used unrelated to the way it is used as a classification for modern countries.
  3. A partner reminds me that diversity is an inherent good, and that immigration increases diversity. (At minimum, diversity brings new ideas and perspectives into focus, and increases resiliency.)

(It’s kind of difficult to keep motivation when hard work is unceremoniously destroyed by a glitch..)

Posted on

Learning in Progress

Learning is a long and complex process, and usually involves asking far more questions than getting answers. Sometimes, having notes can shortcut the most difficult parts of learning (like reading a thick and detailed book). Of course, shortcuts come with downsides, like inaccuracy.

I’ve been publishing some of my notes in their raw form instead of trying to make a “perfect product” out of them, but these are not easy to find due to how they’ve been published, and I am disorganized.

I’ve thought of this blog as a place for well-thought-out posts only, but that basically means I don’t publish anything, and the exceptions rarely meet my own required quality. I think I can solve a lot of my issues here by being willing to post thoughts that haven’t been fully designed, like this mess (but legible and formatted based on the source of each thought):

Illegible notes based on Equality by Darrin M. McMahon.

Each of these posts will be prefixed by a quote to indicate that their contents aren’t made of fleshed out thoughts:

This is a Learning in Progress post. Contents are brief thoughts based on few sources, and have not been checked for accuracy or usefulness.

(Previously, this post was titled “Reading, Absorbing Ideas, Distillation” because I was trying to be clever with an acronym for these posts. That was stupid and confusing, which invalidates the intent of this. That’s also why the URL for this post is stupid and doesn’t match the title anymore. Cool URLs don’t change.)

Notetaking in Public

I’m stealing Nicole van der Hoeven’s idea: Post your messy in-progress notes in public.