Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | electriclove's comments login

It was still wide then but even wider now.

Especially with the US social media trend of anti-work and quiet-quitting

Homeless Industrial Complex

Please tell me, what companies are involved in the "homeless industrial complex" and what industrial product do they produce?

They produce wealth for their executives. The Colorado Coalition For The Homeless received 122M in 2023. In 2021, the CEO made $313K. The top 6 people make over $200K a year. All of this from a non-profit.

https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/840... https://kdvr.com/news/problem-solvers/colorado-coalition-for...

I don't know that high executive salaries are evidence of anything other than theres an executive class which exists, even in the non-profit world. You'll need to come up with better arguments that there's a homeless-industrial complex, which there very much is, but complaining that the leader of a 700-person organized doesn't deserve more than a low end FAANG shows a very naive understanding of how the world works. $313k is cheap for that kind of work. A CEO for a 700-person strong tech company makes well into a million dollars a year, counting equity. Complaining that executives make a lot of money at a non-profit is like complaining that things cost money in the first place. there is a need for someone to do job X. people who do job X cost $xxx/hr. it doesn't matter the context of that job, whether it's running a business, managing armed forces, saving the homeless, or writing a web browser, that's what that job pays.

A better argument for there being a homeless-industrial complex would to say there are incentives for organizations to expand operations rather than fix problems, and then give examples where organizations didn't fix problems because it would result in their lowered funding.

The question posed was what companies are involved as part of the homeless industrial complex and what do they produce.

HN users are superb at "Moving the goalposts approaching infinity". Doubly so if it's a political humanitarian issue (homelessness).

>The Colorado Coalition For The Homeless received 122M in 2023. In 2021, the CEO made $313K. The top 6 people make over $200K a year. All of this from a non-profit.

What's the typical salary for a CEO of a for-profit company that has 122M in revenues? While I can understand why people are outraged at the prospect of people getting money from a non-profit, it's unrealistic to expect everyone to be volunteers. Besides the question of how they'd financially support themselves, you have the problem of "pay peanuts, get monkeys".

You're losing the point. It's not outrage at the amount they are paid. It's outrage at the Shirky Principle-- they are incentivized to keep the homelessness problem going and growing.

Shelter beds for half a million dollars a pop and lucrative service contracts surrounding that pile of money. LA county did an audit and some units they paid north of 830k.


It goes something like this. Well meaning people join government to solve the problem (homelessness). They can't do it on their own so they allocate money to local charities that run services for homeless, like soup kitchens and shelters. Two things happen

1. if homeless didn't exist anymore, these kitchens and shelters would have to shut down. The volunteers are fine with it, they'll volunteer elsewhere. But the permanent employees would be laid off. Understandably, they want to remain employed. So they're incentivised to not search for a durable solution to the homelessness problem.

2. The people in government realise the problem isn't getting solved, so they leave government and form their own think tanks/charities or institutions to solve the problem. They have connections in government (their former co-workers) which they use to get funding. Now there's another company in the homeless industrial complex.

I can’t stand how they shove YouTube Shorts down our throats and don’t give us a way to disable that.

I am a huge fan of YouTube overall and have been happy to pay to have an ad-free experience

IMO what Instagram has done is worse. Reels every other post in the feed, reels in stories, reels specific tab.

On top of all that, yesterday I wanted to post a 5 second video post, just a regular video post, of my dog doing something, and no matter what I did it insisted on posting it as a reel, even though at one point I cancelled the new post, went back to the "new post" view, made sure "post" not "reel" was selected, and then it still made the video a reel.

Reels in the feed is what makes me hate modern IG. There’s already a Reels tab I never tap! I’m telling you something, please listen.

To post a video as a non-reel the standard workaround is also putting a picture in the same post. You’ll see some creators with an image that just says “anti-reels slide”.

It's very subjective, but Reels are actually the only way my close friends interact with Instagram now. As Facebook did, it's gone from a platform for sharing ourselves to a platform for sharing third-party 'content'[1]

[1] stolen pet tiktoks

this is what made me finally quit Instagram. I was only following friends and family. if it had been 3 friends posts for every 1 ad and zero other stuff pushed at me I'd have stayed but the signal to noise ratio got too high and I finally got fed up and deleted my account last month.

I often want to do the same to YouTube as it's recommendations are atrocious and it provides no good ways to turn off the noise. 4 easy things I'd like.

The obvious, let me disable shorts.

Next up, separate music from non-music. 30% to 50% of their recommendations are for music when I'm not looking for music. By separating them they can give me 100% music when I want music and 100% non-music when I don't.

Let me chosoe for it to never recommend videoes I've already watched. 5-10% of their recommendations are wasted on vidoes I've already seen. That should include videos I've manually marked as already watched

Don't recommend mixes. (maybe ok in music mode of they'd separate music from non-music)

If you go to the website, you can hide Shorts for 30 days. There is an X on the top right for the Shorts section.

I do that and don’t feel like it’s being forced into my face anymore.

> hide Shorts for 30 days

Is there a name for this fucked up dark pattern of giving users a "choice" only between accepting and accepting couple days or weeks later?

If I can only hide them and not remove them on a permanent basis, that is the very definition of being forced into my face.

"Oh wow, I can not eat the poop whilst I catch my breath. This will be an enjoyable break before I am forced to start eating the poop again"

I agree. But it’s better than nothing. I wish I could also just disable it everywhere.

Thanks for this tip. I want to be able to do this on the YouTube apps on my kids’ devices

Unfortunately it only removes the recommendation of shorts but not the short tab on the bottom.

Not from search results.

Shorts pollute everything because they’re so easy to make it’s basically spam.

There are extensions to hide the Shorts. I’ve been using one for a month now and it’s been great.

There's no way to disable them in their mobile apps unfortunately without jumping through a couple hoops with something like a PiHole or using an alternative app on Android.

The alternative apps are great though. No ads, no tracking, included sponsorblock etc. I use libretube. Grayjay is also nice but a bit too commercial for me.

I don't use YouTube very often as I don't like the video format but sometimes I can't avoid it. And this makes it a lot more palatable.

Don't use the mobile app. Use https://m.youtube.com/feed/subscriptions in a browser, with uBlock Origin installed.

If you are on android just use Newpipe.

There's even one featured on the chrome web store: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/hide-youtube-shorts...

how much extra would you be willing to pay for a shorts-free experience? I'd probably be willing to throw them a dollar or two more for that.

You can get it for free by turning off your watch history.

I don't mind the short videos. What I do mind is that they co-opted the word "shorts" which means something else in the context of videos. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2024...

Perhaps not: I think your link is talking about "short movies" or "short films". YouTube's Shorts are "short videos". Movies (films) and videos are not the same thing: movies/films are a type of video, but there are many other types of video that are not movies, most notably TV shows, and also "music videos", but really anything that involves a moving picture. A "movie" (or to some, "film") these days is commonly meant to refer to a specific form of art, meaning a visualized stand-alone story that usually takes 1-4 hours to watch, and frequently gets played in a cinema.

Similarly, a "book" is a collection of bound paper pages, but a "novel" is a specific type of book that contains a story, and is usually a certain length (if it's too short, it's called a "short story").

So I think it's ok for YouTube to call their 60-second videos "shorts", as long as they don't call them "short films" or "short movies".

The term "shorts" is also part of that and is what YouTube was trying to co-opt. In the link you can clearly see the word "shorts" being used to refer to these. Here's one from 2010: https://thescorecardreview.com/tsr/review/film-reviews/2010/...

That's just context allowing for abbreviation. "Shorts" has always meant different things in different contexts.

The killer app for Shorts is the ability to view Tik Tok videos without having to directly engage with Tik Tok.

Just make a filter to remove the shorts insert.

It's obviously better to just kill anyone that steals a car. I doubt anyone would try to steal a car after a few examples have been made.

Exactly! Those greedy builder corporations should only offer windows that have bars built into them so that homes can't get broken into. They save money by not incorporating the bars in the windows by default.

So does the Flipper.. so what are you trying to say?

The function of a hammer does not extend past 'hit thing' or 'pull nail', Obviously this kind of function can't be controlled in its application as people can swing their arms however they feel which makes any sort of restriction on hammers redundant given their utility.

Flipper Zero on the other hand is a toy with no/little actual utility that enables users to perform illegal/dangerous tasks like steal cars, that would not otherwise be possible except via less accessible/illegal means.

Do you understand now?

Yup, and you get downvoted for even trying to discuss it. Need the Overton window to shift slightly so it can be discussed on HN. It is a societal problem and I hope for our future we can fix it.

Punish the kid’s parents.. (oh wait, there might be a problem here)

not hard at all. where is CPS? obviously someone isn't giving an 11 year-old appropriate supervision at all if they are driving, let alone stealing a car. there absolutely should be consequences for both the parents and the child in this situation. i'm not saying one mistake, send the kid to prison, take away parental rights. but it should be severe enough to matter, including several thousand dollars restitution.

Thanks for your contribution to the total destruction of outside roaming and play for children.

It is perfectly fine to let an 11 year old walk a couple blocks unsupervised. And if they steal a car at that point, it is not a supervision problem.

dude, i am 100% all for free-range-children.

but, somehow, i manage to ensure that none of them are stealing cars at 11

"it is not a supervision problem"

hmm. maybe i should have said "parenting issue"...

look, i am blessed to have had good kids. but i have had friends with struggles. if i had a kid that somehow stole a car (at 11) and i had to pay for repairs and meet with CPS and deal with courts and fines and maybe even juve and a lost year of school, we'd get through it.

Exactly! The people holding these views are unable to see their hypocrisy.

But people ARE saying the thieves are not at fault.. “it’s just kids”, “we don’t want to put them in jail because that would ruin their future”, “they can’t pay a fine anyway so there is no point in going after them”

"We shouldn't put dumb kids into cages and forever brand them as criminals for making one bad decision" is a far cry from "they are not at fault for what they did".

Also, insert the usual point about how many people are forced into crime by poverty and the complete lack of a social safety net in the US here.

No one is saying that, there are multiple contributors to the problem here, sure the thieves own the bulk of it, but manufacturers could fix the issue or offer a solution like a cheap install of an immobilizer.

In my left leaning workplace in my left leaning state, most colleagues do not want to assign the thieves any blame or have them face any consequences. These colleagues only want to blame and penalize the manufacturers.

I think the manufacturer should fix things so they are more in line with other manufacturers. But I also want to see some repercussions for the thieves.

Can the downvoters explain why they disagree with: "I think the manufacturer should fix things so they are more in line with other manufacturers. But I also want to see some repercussions for the thieves."

That's obviously not the sentence people are disagreeing with.

There is no way your colleagues want the thieves to not face any consequences. It's a completely different thing to not trust the justice system to give an appropriate consequence.

My colleagues never call out the thieves or call for consequences. They skirt that issue and focus their rhetoric on the big, bad companies or blame the victim (eg should have locked his bike, should have taken valuables out of the car, etc)

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact