Leaderboard

Editions Saint Honoré, which published the book you refer to, is listed here as a publisher not to be used on any account: https://piegesauteur.blogspot.com/2015/11/liste-maisons-dedition.html ("pieges auteur" meaning traps for author.) But you are in Brazil, right? Where the nuts come from? And according to this you have even written to President Lula about your ideas: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368242832_Request_sent_to_President_Lula Hmm.

Both predators and prey commonly camouflage by blending with a background using shapes, colors, and textures. It is relatively easy to do when the background is busy, more difficult when it is barren. This seahorse pretends to be a part of or a growth on an underwater cable.

! Moderator Note Please don't do this anymore. It's not civil, you're attacking a group, and it's off-topic.

Genady and Lorenz have made some good comments but perhaps I should answer your question more formally. The line segment does not change its geometry - you misunderstand. Lines, line segments and numbers are all three different things. Lines and line segments are geometrical objects. Numbers are not. The real number line is a representation of all real numbers, placed into one-to-one correspondence with the real line as an assembly of points. There is no other similar correspondence with other types of number. We do this because it is a useful way of visualising things, especially as a lot of geometry is taught before any of the higher mathematics necessary to fully appreciate the comparison is taught. The correspondence goes all the way to 'point set theory' where the elements of a set (also called points) can be one of three types. Interior (also called accumulation points) , boundary or isolated. Genady has already described two of these, though he called a boundary point an end point. A set which includes its boundary points is called a closed set. A set which does not include its boundary points is called an open set. An isolated point is both closed and open. As regards line segments, a line segment has two boundary points and is called an interval or line interval. An interval can be open or closed, but since it has two boundary points it may include one and not the other and we either say the interval is half open or half closed. The whole real number line is open. The line segment or interval from say zero to plus infinity or minus infinity is half open. The interval from zero to say 2 is closed if it includes both 0 and 2 and open if it includes neither. These concepts are very important when you study limits and calculus, so they have their own special notation. Here is a diagram, showing the geometric and algebraic representation of the types interval (0,2) the rounded brackets are the general form when the type doesn't matter.

That got me thinking back on trailer parks. Used to be where you went when you couldn't afford a house or apartment, but still had a job. Some of those communities became completely immobile self-contained villages, with additions and gardens and fences. They still exist, but they're endangered. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/may/03/owning-trailer-parks-mobile-home-university-investment https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/12/22/five-reasons-why-mobile-home-parks-in-the-united-states-are-disappearing/?sh=50e550354b64 Will that happen to the tiny villages? One possibility: When/if Canadian and US cities get smart enough to imitate the Europeans and ban cars from their downtown, replacing them with clean, efficient, cheap public transit, there will be a lot of vacant municipal parking lots. City services readily available, just arrange the prefabs (recycled plastic; lightweight and weatherproof) in a pleasing configuration, add some deep bins of earth for vegetable gardening and move in the people. The multi-level ones can be turned into apartments; the underground ones into hydroponic gardens and mushroom cellars. Nothing will improve as long the jillionnaires abscond offshore without paying taxes.

I think, trying to solve the problem is only complicated because we think it has to be solved within the current economic system; which seems determined to crash into the mountain, rather than land before we get there. The human race can afford to house and feed everyone...

Well, if I was dictator of the universe and in charge of solving the homeless problem, the first thing I would do is "slap some people up side the head" and tell them to have some regard for their fellow human beings. After that, I would see that those committing crimes like assault, bullying and theft are jailed (would need due process but since I am dictator off the universe, it is not necessary) and all others have a safe, clean place to get food, sleep and interact with staff running the facilities. That staff, at least some of it, should be qualified to determine the kind of help needed (psychological, medical, education, day care, change of venue, job, etc) by individuals and encourage them to seek out that help. Food service would be cafeteria style and housing would be simple (converted shipping containers, micro houses, or something else relatively cheap). Once somebody's problems have been addressed and progress toward their resolution has been made, they may move on to integrating into an actual neighborhood, hopefully, becoming a productive member of society. Of course, there are some few who will never get beyond the "soup kitchen" stage and even a few who will refuse any help but I would think it less expensive and better for all to just house those people rather than pay to incarcerate them for stealing food, peeing on the sidewalk or doing any of the myriad of other things homeless people do that we might try to criminalize. I realize the above is very simplistic but also believe it is the gist of what ought to be done. In the US of A we have something called "eminent domain". If it was considered vital enough, the government could confiscate any land/property it wants and give the owner "fair market value" (spoiler alert, I don't see that happening in the US anytime soon). Fair market value happens to be whatever the gov says it is so it wouldn't necessarily be that expensive.

We call them prisons here

One of the issues here is we haven’t seen any statistics from the OP to back up their claims. All I claimed was that you aren’t going to be selling a dwelling for less that the construction cost, whatever it happens to be, unless there is some kind of subsidy. If someone has a net cost of $100,000 to build a house, they aren’t going to sell it for less. Not if they want to stay in the business of building houses. I don’t think this math is different in Europe.

Well, one might learn that expressions of kindness in our culture are not just infrequently rewarded, but are for various reasons often shunned by those in positions of authority. And just to ensure it doesn't again get missed: Where's the due process in all of this? (last question not to you, Peterkin)

Making drugs legal doesn't automatically mean they're cheap, nor does it mean they're necessarily easier for kids to get, unless your conservative local government is either trying to make money or hire more police. Your stance assumes we're waving a wand and making the laws disappear, which isn't at all how these things work. Look to Portugal, where they took the money they used to use for drug prisons and drug police (which deals with "addicts" without helping them) and spent it on rehab, counseling, and job placement (which helped real people overcome addiction). Cheap housing should be paid for by citizens and businesses who're interested in helping real people overcome problems so they can better participate in their own economy, rather than being the double burden an addict is now (at least in the US). And this garbage about everybody slacking off all day if given the choice is just conservative bullshit. It doesn't happen to the degree you try to scare everyone with. It's always been hard for me to stomach this fearful approach to societal processes, where we pay TWICE for security AND prisons instead of simply supporting our fellow humans the right way ONCE. You folks whose countries invest in universal healthcare have no idea what it's like for your country to charge you taxes without representing your continued existence. The US taxpayers spend more on the average prisoner than the average US taxpayer earns, and the total cost of incarceration to society (lost earnings, health problems, breaking up families) is up to three times the direct costs. All because conservative thinkers don't think we're ALL worth it, because some of us are addicts or poor or foreign or melanated or not Christian.

It's a lot more expensive to criminalize people than to help them. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/

It rains here today. Our aquarium water gets partially changed: (the surface as seen from below)

An answer to your questions might lie in how Finland dealt with the homeless issue. They found that if you provide housing without stipulation, then those people tend to be able to get jobs and require less and less assistance. In addition, it turns out to be cheaper in the long run than dealing with the issues caused by a large homeless population. As a result, Finland has almost no homeless problem. In contrast, in the US, you basically need to meet certain conditions before you become eligible for housing. If you don't meet them, then tough luck.

Did it occur to you that I might be able to give a competent talk on the determination of G? Are you aware that physics and psychology are not the same thing and that Sheldrake might claim some expertise, but only in one of those areas? I know what confirmation bias is. It's trawling through google results until you find a video where someone says what you want to hear, and posting it as evidence- even though the video is by a discredited scientist working in a totally different field.

Only if you stick with the second definition.

This is how your logic goes: It's a genuine paradox: Atheist/"arelionist", whatever, state's as a matter of fact, there is no such thing as Santa. (Edit let's not get into semantics here.) So therefore, in a world without Santa, the children's books and the idea's therein have to be written by man and accepted by their fellow man. So therefore, if a lot of people, even in the face of cultural difference, say "that's an idea worth following". No Santa needed. Therefore, Santa has become a weapon for atheism/<insert word>.

Ok, congratulations for your take down analysis Now explain to me the physical interpretation of G and how that makes sense.

Sorry, I can't tell, was that sarcasm, or baloney? I genuinely can't tell.

I think cherry picking from someone else's post should be beneath both of you. iNow I was responding to a point purely about resources, including cost. Peterkin how many UK homeless have you actually met to discuss their situation with ? And how familiar are you with UK vagrancy laws ? Both of you I have not in any way said nothing should be done. Quite the reverse if you bother to read my entire posts on this subject. There are, after all, precious few of them.