More like, “I want a sandwich but i can’t afford one. I guess I’ll go become a porn actor or a prostitute to earn money"

Weird premise aside, Kirk’s speech at the end about how it “must apply to everyone or it means nothing” is actually pretty stirring, IMHO.

Your replicator is probably too small to replicate larger components, which would be a major inconvenience at best or a showstopper at worst. And industrial replicators are even harder to come by than starships.

Then there’s getting access to the replicator patterns for sensitive or dangerous components. Dilithium chambers, weapons, Mercassium composite for shield generators, etc. are classified by Starfleet.

Then there are substances that can’t be replicated, such as verterium cortenide for the warp coils. I don’t think it’s explicitly stated that VC can’t be replicated, but we know that Voyager had to find some to refit their warp coils, they couldn’t just replicate it. Also dilithium.

And finally, there’s antimatter. Building a starship won’t do you much good if you don’t have gas for the tank. Antimatter does not occur in large quantities in nature, and probably can’t be replicated (or at least not safely.) So you’d need some sort of industrial base to produce it, further complicating your plans.

I yearn for the simpler days when the worst thing a Republican president might do is tamper with Medicare.

My intent was to point out how ridiculous the “103% increase” line is, not to suggest the comparison was valid in the first place.

In other words, it jumped from about 0.5% to 1.5%.

deleted by creator

May she die of an embarrassing and uncomfortable medical condition exactly 5 minutes before being released.

I took the ASVAB way back in the 90’s. IIRC it was mandatory then too.

Welfare and Institutions Code 8255.

But it’s beside the point if the problem is with getting them to accept services in the first place.

Housing First has been the policy in San Francisco since 2008, and state-wide since 2016.

Most shelters do in fact allow people to bring their belongings with them (within reason). Some even provide storage space, and the city provides a free self-storage facility.

Prop F addresses CAAP (cash welfare), not housing. You don’t have to be receiving CAAP to qualify for housing assistance, and you don’t have to be homeless to qualify for CAAP.

SF has been struggling with a chronic homelessness problem for decades. Offering voluntary services does not work. To put in in Trek terms, the problem isn’t the gimmes, it’s the ghosts and dims. Gimmes are easy to help because they can act on their own behalf and in their own best interests. They accept services and don’t end up being chronically homeless. The ghosts and the dims, on the other hand, are a different story.

Is sweeping their encampments an ideal solution? No, far from it. But what else is there for us to do? Let them languish on the streets? Honestly, what would you have us do?

I can’t think of any.

Certification of homeless status from the city (already acquired if they were referred to us) and proof of income (if any).

I actually work in the SF housing industry, and worked at a housing site in SF that was converted to permanent supportive housing during COVID. In that case, barely 30% of the people even showed up to their intake appointments.

In reality, getting them to accept services and help is the #1 obstacle to getting them services and help.

Ask Robespierre how that works out in the end.

Some people need practical advice.

-George Carlin

The TOS doesn’t say anything about crimes like murder, and of course you can’t waive that anyway.

What it does say is that any disputes arising out of the use of their website are subject to arbitration. If the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable because they posted the menu on their website, then that would be a dispute arising out of the use of their website.

The plaintiff doesn’t say that Disney owns it, though. They are basing their argument on the fact that Disney posted the restaurant’s menu on their website. The website is also under the Disney+ TOS. So, if the plaintiff is correct and Disney is liable then the TOS probably applies.