Without looking it up I’m guessing I’ve had my P1S for 3 or more years and I’ve never had a single issue with it, to the point where I wonder what issues your friends have?
You can use their slicer (which works well!). If you don’t want to, you can use one that sends through their Bambu Connect software, which Orca Slicer doesn’t want to support for…reasons. Or you can use it in LAN mode. Or you can just transfer the gcode via an SD card or flash drive like ye olde days.
Despite the tone of the other reply to your question, they are absolutely the easiest printers to work with. I don’t love their new multicolor solution for how slow it is compared to other options, but that would be the only real fault with their newest line.
Entry level motherboards used to be just fine to use. The last time I was shopping, they all had a random deal breaker in terms of a missing feature. Maybe I’m just pickier now, but I doubt it.
False, and harmful. US HUD says it's ~16% of homeless people, other sources give different numbers, but it's certainly not a majority, let alone anywhere near 100%.
The biggest problem, unsurprisingly, is housing cost. The US GAO states that a $100 increase in median rent correlates to a 9% rise in homelessness. Rents have gone up a lot more than that.
> US HUD says it's ~16% of homeless people, other sources give different numbers, but it's certainly not a majority
"Homeless people" is a broad category that includes people temporarily living in vehicles, bouncing between family members, or sleeping on a friend's couch. It also includes people who are about to lose their home, young people living alone.
But when everyday people use the term, they usually mean, specifically, visible homeless people - i.e. people who are homeless long-term, sleeping rough on the streets or in parks, etc.
The two groups are pretty different to each other. I would be very surprised if the rate of drug addiction in the second group was the same as the rate of drug addiction in the first group
I personally have close to a dozen friends who have spent between 2 and 6 weeks of their life (but not longer) living out of their car in a state of actual temporary homelessness. Almost always due to financial issues.
Temporarily living in vehicles is absolutely a thing.
> I would be very surprised if the rate of drug addiction in the second group was the same as the rate of drug addiction in the first group
But that's a far far weaker claim than the one above.
If the rate is 90% or higher in the second group, then we get close to the claim being true. (Though still a subset rather than the circles being the same; lots of people with drug problems have homes.)
Walk down the makeshift tents on the sidewalks of downtown San Francisco and tell me with a straight face that only 16% of those people are addicted to drugs.
Sorry. But you're either misinformed or actively malicious here.
> US HUD says it's ~16% of homeless people
It absolutely is close to 100% of _unsheltered_ people. Some social workers helping the unsheltered homeless are now saying that they have not seen anybody who's _not_ on drugs or who is not mentally ill.
> Hundreds of studies - including our own - show economic pressures are the primary drivers of homelessness, that housing people ends homelessness, and that targeted financial assistance helps people at risk of homelessness stay stably housed
Also, the cited study blatantly does not show the numbers ("close to 100%") you claim it has, even leaving that aside. You're also now equivocating between drugs and mental illness, as well as between drugs and alcohol. And you're not taking into account the direction of cause and effect (e.g. which came first, the homelessness or the addiction).
I understand that you're also referencing anecdata from social workers. In those cases, there's an inherent bias: people with a drug problem are going to be harder and more memorable cases, which makes them feel like a larger proportion than they are. People homeless for economic reasons are likely to loom less large in people's minds than the times they dealt with someone who had a drug problem.
I already read the entire thing. You may stop accusing me of bad faith or insufficient research at any time.
> Page 5, Figure 4.
Thank you for confirming that you cited a chart listing 75% of unsheltered people and called it "close to 100%". I gave exact numbers from the studies I referenced; you exaggerated yours.
A more relevant figure from the study is figure 2: 51% of unsheltered people (and 6% of sheltered) say that substance abuse is a cause of their homelessness. Also see figure 3 for other relevant causes.
That's leaving aside, again, that you are still equivocating between drugs and alcohol. I would suggest looking at statistics for how many people in the general population drink to excess, if you're going to cite statistics on how many homeless people do. But, of course, "drug addict" is the more evocative and stigmatizing phrase, which makes it harder to get people help.
And in any case: yes, of course there's a difference between sheltered and unsheltered, not least of which because we do a poor job of helping people who simultaneously experience drug addiction and homelessness. There's an obvious correlation there, but a major part of it is "drug addiction prevents getting help from shelters". (And I would venture a guess that homelessness makes it harder to get help with drug addiction, though I haven't specifically looked up numbers on that one.)
There are many attempted claims in this thread that people "don't want help", and none of that is supported. How many people refuse help, versus how many people can't get the help they need based on the structure of what we provide?
On top of that, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48057738 for a more nuanced point about lagging indicators: the right interventions happen much earlier in that downward spiral.
That is nowhere near the same as a claim that homelessness, in general, is a problem of drug addiction, or that the Venn diagram is a circle. That claim is actively harmful towards efforts to build systems that actually help people.
> You failed to do a basic search to verify your claims. Instead, you clutched at the first number that popped out in Google Search.
False. Stop assuming that people who come to different conclusions than you have have not done thorough research.
And also to add to this: OK, assume that you won the point. 75-80% is totally not "almost 100%" and only 65% of people become homeless because of drugs.
So what next? Building more housing won't help drug addicts that are _already_ addicts. Even if you believe that it might prevent future homelessness (spoiler: it won't), we _already_ have hundreds of thousand of hard-drug addicts.
> Thank you for confirming that you cited a chart listing 75% of unsheltered people and called it "close to 100%".
I already said that the study is from pre-COVID time, and puts the lower bound due to its conservative methodology.
And yes, I consider it proving my point, even that conservative estimate shows that for the vast majority of unsheltered homeless the problem is not in housing availability. It's mental health and/or drug abuse.
> A more relevant figure from the study is figure 2: 51% of unsheltered people (and 6% of sheltered) say that substance abuse is a cause of their homelessness. Also see figure 3 for other relevant causes.
Self-reporting, again. It's also kinda beside the point. Right _now_ the unsheltered homelessness is a drug problem however it began earlier.
Unless you just want to wait until all the addicts just die of overdoses?
> There are many attempted claims in this thread that people "don't want help", and none of that is supported.
I cited another study. There is also the experience in Seattle or SF. I guess you live somewhere in a town where the worst substance abuse is someone getting a bit too much booze?
Portland tried to decriminalize drugs and add voluntary treatment options. Their drug treatment hotline apparently helped 17 to enter treatment. Not percent, people.
> On top of that, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48057738 for a more nuanced point about lagging indicators: the right interventions happen much earlier in that downward spiral.
Yes. We need absolutely relentless pressure. If you're caught doing drugs, you need to have only two choices: treatment or jail. You can then get into housing, but with random mandatory drug screening. Constant, unyielding pressure with 100% certainty of consequences.
For people who are NOT on drugs, I fully support emergency housing assistance, job training, and/or help with getting disability status.
> That is nowhere near the same as a claim that homelessness, in general, is a problem of drug addiction, or that the Venn diagram is a circle. That claim is actively harmful towards efforts to build systems that actually help people.
No. They are people who are actually not blinded by the ideology and CAN SEE THE FUCKING PROBLEM in the first place.
> False. Stop assuming that people who come to different conclusions than you have have not done thorough research.
Eh. Apart from sleep/scheduling it's probably the worst part about babies. We just had our first boy and we're adjusting to the whole penis spraying piss everywhere...thing. I didn't realize just how far they could spray. Also, somehow the back of his clothes keep getting wet while he's fully dressed in and in a diaper which completely boggles my mind.
Personally I'm really bad with smells, though. Even with hundreds (thousands?) of diapers changed I still really have to focus on not losing my lunch on the bad smelling ones.
i’m assuming you’re the mom? ;) Yes the pressure starts off strong, can easily fly onto their face lol. happened to me…fun times.
> somehow the back of his clothes keep getting wet while he's fully dressed in and in a diaper which completely boggles my mind.
We just solved this recently with our baby boy. I can try to offer some tips. He likely needs a different diaper size, or (more likely), his penis isn’t correctly facing downward when putting the diaper on. 1st secure one side, and before you secure the other, peek at his penis (looking into the diaper from the side - near his hips). Make sure it’s pointed straight down and adjust if necessary. then quickly strap the other side. Basically you want the diaper to gently and firmly keep that penis pointed down all day. When boys are about to pee, the penis becomes briefly erect. If the diaper is not firmly holding that penis down, the penis can easily drift sideways and shoot urine in a weird direction. When this happens the urine can leak around the hips and up the back - instead of going into the absorbent pad. A quick test - when you change his diaper, is his penis still pointed down? If not then that’s the issue. If it is, try other troubleshooting steps.
Two things that helped us:
1) "activate" the diaper [0], they are tightly pressed for transport and have to unfold the fabric to soak well.
2) Make sure the side guards are up, tight fit around the legs and a short pull around it to adjust them and not have the guards folded under the seam also helps.
> Yes the pressure starts off strong, can easily fly onto their face lol.
Into their face? Try onto the ceiling or a 6-8ft arc in any direction. One of my coworkers warned me so I usually had the situation under control but my wife had only ever changed girls (young cousins and kids she babysat), thought she was prepared but wasn't.
I think our baby boy peed on his face once when getting changed and decided never to do that again. While I think our daughter might take it as a matter of pride to pee and poop while being changed, after the diaper is off.
Also, if he’s still healing from birth, that problem solves itself over time as swelling reduces and it starts to naturally point in the preferred direction on its own
We got a top hat plus potty for ours. We put her on after every diaper and it’s surprising how often they go! After a while they know to hold it until they sit in the potty
I just tested this newest Grok on image captioning NSFW images and it probably did better than Gemini (the only other API that even allows it), for what it’s worth.
reply