Knightfox

I see why you thought that's what I meant, but immediately following that I list several other potential solutions to overall bad policing. You can certainly defund the police, aka stop outfitting them with weapons of war, but it will not solve the fundamental problem of hiring bad candidates to make bad cops.

This may not apply everywhere in the US, but my understanding is that most cops aren't paid terribly well. Perhaps it's ok if compared to a standard job, but when you account for the danger, required over time, and work schedule it becomes very not worth it.

A buddy of mine is a true believer type, he signed up to be a cop, went through a year of training and another year paired with another cop. PreCovid starting pay was $40k, 12 hr work schedule and every 28 days it flipped (so 28 days day shift followed by 28 days of night shift). One day he gets a call and his boss had switched him to a different district with 3x the commute without any communication. Finally a buddy of his caught a bullet in the head (and lived) from some guy who was on drugs and stole a car. He said he thought about it and for the money it wasn't worth the emotional cost.

Strangely the problem with underfunding cops is who the fuck wants to be a cop? Yeah, after 25 years and multiple promotions you might make an ok or even good salary, but being a new cop is absolutely shit. In a system where the pay isn't good, the hours are shit, and the risk to your life is high, who wants to be a cop?

The answer is either self sacrificing good guys or people who get a power trip on carrying a gun and using it. Add to it that this system is perpetuated by the type of people who pursue the job you end up with a whole department full of the type who hire these types.

So while you can defund the police, you can send them through training, you can institute new policy, but if you don't attract a better quality of person then you're gonna have the same problem over and over again.

Theoretically you could make the hours better (but that will require hiring more police to cover the same amount), you could reduce the danger (similar to London banning guns so beat cops don't carry them either), or you can pay them more.

... So was my great grandfather, but he was an old school Southern Democrat, he even voted straight ticket. I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't be fond of modern Democrats.

People forget that the Democrats of the early 1900s aren't the same as today. Remember that Republicans are the party of Lincoln, but I wouldn't be surprised if modern Republicans wanted to bring back slavery.

Hey, I'm not saying this technology doesn't have a use, and maybe if it's stupidly expensive it will be heavily subsidized. The point I'm making is that it "likely" isn't the solution to world wide water scarcity.

Another user commented that desalination is a grift, it's not, the market forces just aren't there yet to push its large scale implementation world wide. However, the idea that an upcoming technology may theoretically scale up and be the same economic scale is historically unlikely.

Historically the trajectory of this sort of technology is that it will define technology for the next 20 years (Nobel Peace Prize or more), or it will be bought up and buried by a big corporation (goodwill isn't typically good for capitalism), or it won't scale up as predicted and will be a major nothing burger.

It's complicated, typically US rates aren't a flat $/gallon. Most have flat fixed costs (meter fee, availability fees, etc) and then the actual volumetric rate charge is tacked on top of that. In my city the rate is additionally tiered, so the more water you use the more those later gallons cost. Most residential users fall into Tier 1 though, up to 4 CCF (Centicubic Foot or 748 gallons) per month, which is billed at $1.89 per CCF or $0.002526 per gallon.

So it's hard to use the rates alone as there are additionally fixed rate costs (around $10 a month) and other usage is billed differently (commercial and industrial have higher flat rates as well as higher flat volumetric rate). The result is that commercial and industrial users pay higher rates than residential.

Luckily, my city also publishes raw statistics which indicates that, all things averaged together, the water costs around $0.04 per gallon.

But furthers the point I'm making. If your water costs more than mine then the potential price of this machine is even higher and the base price is already expensive as is. If this was truly a cheap and affordable alternative for people's in need then it likely would have made that price point a major point of the article.

Just because it's cheaper than an alternative doesn't make it affordable.

EDIT: Also the article says

"the team estimates that the overall cost of running the system would be cheaper than what it costs to produce tap water in the United States."

Great point, sorry for the error!

While this is a cool development I would recommend tempering expectations. The cost of tap water is exceptionally cheap and the claims made here likely take these estimates to the extremes. The economics of scale likely don't match up.

For example, tap water in my city costs ~$0.04 per gallon, at 5 liters per hour, 0.264 gallons per liter, 24 hours per day, for 5 years is $2,312. So saying they can make it for less than the cost of tap water doesn't mean it's affordable.

EDIT: Forgot to convert from liters to gallons

I like the customer service and overall quality of the place, I've never seen a bad store. I'm not crazy about their chicken (Popeyes is better imo), it's not the best but you'll never roll the dice on whether you got what you ordered or if there is a problem. Also, from what I hear, they pay very competitively and take care of their employees (could be wrong).

I haven't deliberately eaten there in years (occasionally I'll have it if it's catered or if everyone else wants to go), because they have really terrible politics and support things I disagree with.

Also, the place has a vibe I hate, like preppy kids mixed with a church function. It just feels fake, the smiles, the "my pleasure", etc. it feels so fake it's unsettling to me. I like Popeyes because while I have to check my order to make sure it's ok, the person behind the counter is a normal person not a plastic cutout.

That’s still going to be a second residence, it may not be a $2500/month residence, but it’s not going to be free.

I think you're confused by my original reply, I wasn't saying it should be free or that they could just drive from their primary residence. I was saying that using the cost of DC housing as a reason for higher pay doesn't make sense when they don't have to live in DC itself. It's perfectly reasonable that they may have to have a place outside of DC and commute in.

So, while there isn’t a rule that says specifically “congresspeople may not sleep in their offices”, there are all kinds of rules about what constitutes housing in DC that are not met by congressional offices:

Part of the issue is that you're applying normal rules to an abnormal group. Traditionally I would agree with you that people shouldn't sleep in their work offices, but this is hardly the weirdest thing that is normal in Congress. Also it doesn't really matter if it meets the fire code or DCs building standards, Federal law has priority over local law. Even the DC Fire Code specifically says that it does not apply to any building or premises owned by the US Government.

Heck, there are a ton of special laws which Congress has passed which only apply to Congress, including prohibiting DC local government from charging property tax or income tax on Congressmen. There are even laws regarding allowances that Congressmen get which essentially says that there are quantifiable benefits of the job which cannot be counted as income for taxes.

The only rule that matters is whether Congress has specifically blocked it.

EDIT: I just double checked and the DOB link you sent says at the very top

"The Department of Buildings (DOB) is mandated to ensure public health, safety, and welfare by enforcing property maintenance codes on all residential and non-residential structures in the District of Columbia, excluding federal government buildings."

They’re not allowed to do that though. Most of them get away with it, but it’s against the rules.

Do you have a source on that, because when I googled it the only thing to come up was Jackie Speier recommending banning it in 2020. There is even a recent Business Insider which talks about Mike Johnson doing it and makes no reference to it being against any rules.

https://www.businessinsider.com/speaker-mike-johnson-sleep-in-his-capitol-hill-office-2023-11

Here is a 2015 NPR article that says there are no rules against it https://www.npr.org/2015/12/26/458207661/meet-the-lawmakers-who-sleep-shower-work-all-on-capitol-hill

From California?

How about Arlington or Alexandria?