Not exactly doable since living spaces legally must have egress windows, and shopping malls… Don’t really have many outer walls for that compared to the amount of space internally they have
The trick that I teach the shorter humanoids is to subtract 1 from the multiplier of 9, put that number in the 10s column, then complete the nine and put that in the 1s column.
Then we spent some time finding the pairs of numbers that make 9. 1+8. 2+7, 3+…7+2, 8+1. I have to be explicit in this part, or they will shortcut to 3, (use fingers to count to 9) uh 6? They usually learn it in a day or two. To get them to flash to instantly know their times tables takes longer.
Housing first is a proven strategy in dealing with homelessness. The fact that every state has not adopted these policies to help eliminate the homeless population shows this is more a cultural issue than a lack of housing.
According to the Census there are a lot more empty houses than homeless people. Let that sink in and you start to realize all is not what it seems.
Until someone is safe and has their basic needs met it is impossible to work on issues such as mental health and addiction.
The solution exists but it is going to take a lot of our time, money, and most importantly a cultural shift away from blaming people to accomplish it.
If we could fix our homelessness then we would show that we truly care about our citizens rather than just paying a lip service to our most vulnerable people.
According to the Census there are a lot more empty houses than homeless people. Let that sink in and you start to realize all is not what it seems.
This particular statistic needs to be handled carefully. There are problems with both its definition and its nature. Empty housing has a fairly broad definition that includes housing that is unfinished, in the middle of repairs, or unfit for habitation.
The nature of housing with relationship to homelessness depends a lot on where the homeless people are and where the housing is. Empty housing in towns and cities that are depopulating is unlikely to be all that useful. Simply taking people from cities with high levels of homelessness, ripping them out of their communities, and plopping them down into communities that other people are leaving is not a favor.
Also, you shouldn’t just warehouse unhoused people in whatever housing is available. Many of them have mental illnesses that need good access to mental health services, transit, and jobs. Just because they’re under a roof doesn’t mean the job is done. The housing should be tailored to the various populations that it will be serving.
I encourage you to lookup up Housing First if you have not already. While it may be misleading to say there are 16 million vacant home to half a million homeless people (32 homes for every homeless person), for the reasons you mentioned, it is entirely possible house these people.
No one who knows about this issue is thinking about warehousing people. Like you said they need a stable place to live, access to services, transportation, and work when they are ready.
I’m familiar with Housing First. I mostly just didn’t want to see a misleading use of statistics left unchallenged. Statistics around housing are difficult to grasp, so I often see them used in a misleading way, usually unknowingly.
Take one statistic, the rental vacancy rate in my city, Portland. It has lately been around 4%. Given the number of homeless people in the city, that feels like a travesty. But when you start to do calculations, that turns out to be an average of 2 weeks every four years. If you have tenants moving out after four years, that’s barely enough time to do a few repairs, let the paint dry, and finding new tenants. What seemed like a loose market turns out to be a very tight market.
In the meme example you wouldn’t, but if you were trying to figure out Something like 2% of 5, it’s easier to do (2 * 5)/100=0.1 then to do .02 * 5 or .05 * 2.
My comment was mainly pointing out that you can multiply those numbers in whatever order you want.
You can work it out yourself. 6% is the same as 6/100, so 6% of 50 is (6/100)*50. Then do some algebra and see if you can jiggle it to say (50/100)*6. Then replace 6 and 50 with Greek letters so it looks more convincing.
that’s a shitload of lines of math to write out/work in your head. I learned percentages of x as: 6 * 45 / 100 = x (2.7) If you picture both as fractions, you multiply the opposite and then divide by the other number to get the missing one (x). Hopefully Lemmy renders this well…
6
x
100
45
The way I learned it was multiply diagonally and then divide by whatever is opposite diagonally to x.
The word percent is exactly that per cent, which basically means parts of hundred. E.g. 10% are 10 of 100, or 60% are 60 of 100. You can also write this mathematically as 60/100 or 60÷100, which is 0.6.
Now in general: x% are x parts of 100 or x/100 or x÷100. If you want to calculate x% of y you just multiply it: y × x% = y × x ÷ 100.
I totally remember being taught this. It’s just way easier to break down percentages in terms of the nearest 1% or 10% times the number in the percent times the number you’re taking the percentage of. You don’t have to do the math for the 1 or 10 percentage as long as you remember that a 10% means move the decimal left once and 1% means move the decimal left twice. The rest is just basic multiplication.
40% of 59 = 10% of 59 times 4.
So…
4x59=236
or
(4x50=200) + (4x9=36)= 236
10% means move the decimal left once,
Therefore 40% of 59 is 23.6
With that you can easily do more complex percentages mentally like…
62% of 35 = 10% of 35 times 6 plus 1% of 35 times 2.
Then the years go on, the kid becomes an adult and begins cooking for themselves. The first meal they make for someone else they realize (1) how difficult it is to estimate when a meal will be done (2) how much work goes into cooking, especially for a whole family and (3) how hurtful and disruptive it is when the person you’re cooking for decides they’d rather eat your food when it’s cold and gross and everyone else has already finished eating and are trying to clean up. And that’s not even incorporating the social elements of family dinner time the kid is eschewing. I didn’t understand as a kid why my parents were so adamant about family dinner, but as an adult it’s something I’m really glad they enforced.
Yeah well there’s cooking as in purely functional preparation of nutrients, and then there’s cooking as in a process of caring for others by creating a worthwhile experience of food that is needed, engaging, and delicious. The downside is this experience usually has a time limit dependent on time and others’ availability (eating hot food together). It’s sad for such effort to go to waste. The alternative extreme to this kind of nurturing is abandoning the idea that family time over meals is worthwhile and just shitting out nutrient bricks so the children don’t starve. I don’t think anyone really wins in the long run with that.
You’re right, but also remember to say it out loud.
Communication is so underrated but I guarantee most people would listen and be willing to accommodate you more if you just bring it up casually, instead of waiting until they discover it for themselves or until you blow up from being frustrated and underappreciated
I disagree with (1), especially for parents that cook the same 10-20 meals over and over. Even if the time it takes to cook a certain meal on your kitchen is different than the one stated at the recipe, you can note it down and get a reliable average after 5 tries.
It’s annoying that some parents can’t even do that to minimize the fights around dinner time and shift all the blame to the kids.
Exactly! When you’re a teenager it’s hard to appreciate these things. I know I definitely took it for granted but I at least respected my family enough to not start an online game around dinner time.
memes
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.