KRAW

In Columbus, you would be considered just a normal guy. You could easily find a community there.

Cleaning also takes less time, especially if you include all the planning that goes into cooking. Then if you consider the amount of time it'd take for the same meal to be made by other members of the household, you start to see that cleaning is actually a bargain. You also have to remember that even when you enjoy cooking, it is stil exhausting. They have less energy to clean than those who didn't cook.

Obviously there is a limit. If the cook is making an excessive mess due to doing some particularly fancy cooking out of ambition, they should probably help out. But if you regularly reap the benefits of someone else's skill in the kitchen, yes, you should help clean.

Oh, I'm aware of the irony of reviewing this as an adult male, haha.

The idea was solid, but execution was poor. Super fast pacing, storyline is very predictable and basically all development of the characters is told not shown. They basically choose to have the main conflict be magically resolved instead of writing a resolution. What really shines is the animation. The humor is pretty solid too. There's a better version of this movie, but it's not the version we got.

The amount of CPU time compiling code is usually negligible compared to CPU time at runtime. Your comparison only really works if you are comparing against something like Rust, where less bugs are introduced due to certain guarantees by the language.

Regarding "language constructs" it really depends on what you mean. For example using numpy in python is kind of cheating because numpy is implemented in C. However using something like the algorithm libraries in Rust woulf be considered fair game since they are likely written in Rust itself.

Addiction was simply an example of why a homeless person might not be able to handle money reponsibly. It was not an assumption about what made them homeless, nor was it a judgement on their character. I don't disagree with anything your saying, so I don't see the problem. And I don't refuse giving any aid. I just think giving to an organization is more likely to help a person than giving to them directly. Maybe if I was handing out in volumes of $1k it'd be enough to change soneone's like, but obvioualy most can't afford to do that.

Acknowledging crippling dependence != judgement

Do you know how addiction works?

I am not responding to all this but I cannot let this slide:

So this is another disengenous oversimplification. You will take the position that a homeless person can sustain a hard drug addiction from panhandling, yet they would not be able to afford a motel room for the night, or an extended stay, and begin their climb back into society. This is purely a moral judgement on your part.

You acknowledge that dependence is a need (which I agree with!) but you think that an addict will magically overcome their addiction when handed the money they could use to sustain the addiction? The justification you're using for handing them money (i.e. relieving withdrawal) is the same reason I don't expect an addict to buy a night at the motel over their drugs. The reasons are biological not moral. You must be operating on another definition of moral or something.

That’s kind of an impossible question to answer because the “they” is unknowable in your question.

Exactly. The easiest thing to do is ask them what they want. Personally when they ask for money, I tell them I don't hand out money and ask them if there's something else they need. It is a good way to actually have a conversation with them and get them something they need.

I also want to be clear, I'm not going to judge anyone for giving money to someone in need. It is better than not trying to help at all. I just personally believe it is better not to give homeless persons money.

What world do you live in that a fiver can buy someone a substantive quantity of hard, addictive drugs?

I never claimed this. The accumulation of multiple fivers from different people can eventually get you drugs. You're also neglecting cheaper substances like alcohol. Basically the money you accumulate from asking for money will get you alcohol/drugs faster than it will get you shelter.

You’re being completely disengenious here and asserting more moral policing.

Where have I inserted my morals here? I do not think people don't deserve help because they are addicts. I merely acknowledge that they need a different kind of assistance than my pocket change will provide.

Offering food is fine, if they are hungry and they want it. But if they decline food when that is not the type of help they need is not some admission of guilt, as it is so often portrayed to be. Often, they’re rightly skeptical of food from a stranger. Some will accept it to be polite but throw it out for their own safety. It only takes me and ~9 or so other people offering them that fiver to pay for a night’s stay in a cheap motel. Offering supplies if they refuse your food is also great to help them with urban camping, but too many supplies is also a liability where they now need to be concerned about theft. Packing light is just as much a survival tactic.

What a tangent dude. Everything I offer is always based on what they request. I do not ever give them anything they didn't ask for. If they got something that's a burden to them, it's because they asked for it. I'm not shoving food down their throat or forcing socks on their feet.

Nobody has ever gotten a home from food and supplies, but they sure as hell do with money.

Show me the story of the homeless person who accumulated enough fivers to afford rent.

My philosophy only acknowledges my help in passing as what it is: a short term relief for a complicated issue. If they use it for food, it will only last them a few meals at best. The food, however will not harm them. If they use it for socks, they will eventually wear out. Again, the socks will not harm them. If they use it for drugs/alcohol, sure it might give them relief for a while, but it might also just allow their addiction to persist. I just choose not to gamble on the last point by sending my money to nonprofits instead of leaving it up to people who are probably not in the right headspace for responsible decisions. If you want to give them money, fine. But don't chastise me having conversations with people and need and trying to help them in a way I'm comfortable with.

That is generally true, but not in this context. If you are an addict, having $50 doesn't enable you to improve your life. It just enables you to buy your next fix. I don't say this to demonize anyone, but the point is that many homeless have mental or physiological issues that make it very hard for them to spend money wisely. Handing out money is slapping a bandaid on the issue or possibly worsening their situation. Chronic homelessness cannot be fixed by a few good natured individual's pocket change. It requires actual rehabilitation, which is incredibly hard.

OK, what do you think they can do with the $50 that they manage to accumulate that will seriously benefit them?