this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
414 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

59038 readers
4357 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Last July, San Jose issued an open invitation to technology companies to mount cameras on a municipal vehicle that began periodically driving through the city’s district 10 in December, collecting footage of the streets and public spaces. The images are fed into computer vision software and used to train the companies’ algorithms to detect the unwanted objects, according to interviews and documents the Guardian obtained through public records requests.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

None of that makes any sense. California and NYC have similar property values. If anything, NYC price per square footage is higher on average. There are basically no houses on Manhattan, so almost all places to live have a condo board or co-op board. It's similar to an HOA.

California always had nice weather. Homeless people only existed in large numbers after Governor Reagan emptied the mental institutions and provided few resources for the residents. They literally took away their homes. Before that, NYC had more homeless people.

https://calmatters.org/commentary/2019/03/hard-truths-about-deinstitutionalization-then-and-now/

California could house almost all of its homeless people if they spent the money. It's not even that expensive compared to the alternative.

[–] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago

Just to clarify, when comparing New York City to San Francisco, I'm talking about the percentage of the city's homeless that aren't covered by available shelters, whether state-sponsored, churches or non-profit. I wasn't talking about whether New York City has more homeless than San Francisco (which I do not know) but that the shelters in New York cover most of the homeless, while that is not true in San Francisco.

The second paragraph is about California as a whole state. And yes, we could solve our homeless problem, but landowners actively lobby against it, and our state government is about as corrupt as any of the others.

[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Other states are sending their homeless to California.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago

Same with NYC. There's no excuse besides being cheap and lazy.