That's a very interesting question. I feel like there will always be people who feel peer pressure more than others, but it'a not just that. The puritan work ethics also have a strong impact on some people to a subconscious level. All I can say is thay the more people do it, the less problematic it becomes. But it does require a good level of self-awareness.
You are absolutely right. I work at GrantTtree and hiring for purpose is definitely a fundamental part of the equation. That and trusting your colleagues and keeping an honest feedback-friendly environment. It's certainly not as simple as one might think.
Whilst the data you are referring to is correct, so is the data on climate change and the various degrees of impact that humanity will have on the hospitality of our planet for our own human race.
In other words: some things are getting better, but others are getting so much worse that it might be for nothing.
“The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation. From the desperate city you go into the desperate country, and have to console yourself with the bravery of minks and muskrats. A stereotyped but unconscious despair is concealed even under what are called the games and amusements of mankind. There is no play in them, for this comes after work. But it is a characteristic of wisdom not to do desperate things.”
There have been, and continue to be, social experiments proving that giving homeless people a house ends up being less expensive to communities and way more humane.
Maybe it's lack of understanding. Maybe lack of knowledge. Maybe selfishness. But it's doable, more efficient and decent.
Unfortunately the "but I worked for my money, so you can't give people money for free"-attitude prevents these sort of pilot programs from moving forward. Never mind that you're actually saving money, giving the homeless a better quality of life, and reduce nuisance for the rest of us.
One unintended consequence that you run into is that people for whom the program was not designed for and targeted to will actively try to consume it (e.g. an able-bodied person instead of a homeless individual with mental health issues). This, by the way, occurs today. There was a social worker from LA (I think) that talked about how big of a problem this is and how much drain on time, and resources it is in practice.
Because we live in a finite world, you're always going to be resource constrained, what happens is that you have to necessarily create a massive bureaucracy to triage and control who should and shouldn't get access to this program - which explodes the cost, and incentivizes cheating by those that don't get access. It also sets up an arms race, where you keep increasing the bureaucracy in order to control for new inventive ways that the program is abused, leading to more costs. I'm not sure if you're suggesting that property rights be given to the individual, or if staying in social housing is dependent on certain criteria being continually met. Either way, you're looking at more bureaucracy, and corresponding cheating, that again, explodes costs and creates new unintended consequences (for example, preventing able-bodied people from moving around to seek better opportunities, in the same way that rent-control does).
In other words, you'll merely recreate our present system. Writing a check is easy and if that was all that was needed, we'd have solved every societal problem a long time ago. There is no free lunch.
Do they get them of the streets, permanently? How about the neighbors?
Or how about we collectively got our shit together and realized that it is _not_ wrong to require certain things of people, and to enforce consequences when they don't obey them.
You can always make their life easier by giving them YOUR money. Heck, you could even adopt them and house them in your own home. I would respect that.
But I don't want one cent of my money to go to these kind of programs, and I think that my stand on this issue should be respected.
>I think that my stand on this issue should be respected.
But I don't think it's remotely worthy of respect. You want to live in a society like that, go somewhere with no public schools or roads or firefighters.
I'm fairly certain the non-ironclad part is in the handling and processing (testing labs screw up quite often), not in the actual methodology or ability to accurately identify individuals.
Collection of evidence is also another likely place to make a mistake. The issue is that a non-pristine sample taken from a public place (like a crime scene) may have multiple DNA profiles represented in it. I'm not highly familiar with the technology but I've read that techniques like PCR that "amplify" the DNA collected from the original sample by synthesizing copies of the DNA can further exacerbate the issue.
> One of the biggest strengths of PCR(e) for DNA typing is the degree to which DNA
can be amplified. Starting with a single DNA molecule, millions or billions of
DNA molecules can be synthesized after 32 cycles of amplification. This level of
sensitivity allows scientists to extract and amplify DNA from minute or degraded
samples and obtain useful DNA profiles. In this context, the sensitive nature of
PCR works in a lab's favor, but it can cause problems if great care is not taken
to avoid contaminating the reaction with exogenous DNA.
> Because extremely small samples of DNA can be used as evidence, greater attention to contamination issues is necessary when identifying, collecting, and preserving DNA evidence. DNA evidence can be contaminated when DNA from another source gets mixed with DNA relevant to the case.
Why not? It all depends on how important as an infrastructure CDNs will become. I know that in the States you prefer things to be privately held, but it's not too absurd imagining a future where CDNs are an essential and fundamental service to every day life for the vast majority of the population.
