padmanabhan01

It's not always logic vs guts. Logic is great when you are dealing with theoretical problems that are well defined and you know the variables involved etc. In real life problems, often there are way too many variables, are time bound, things aren't as well defined. It's in those cases that people resort to gut..

//No Transferwise/WesternUnion

Ok, who set up that ATM. If not western union, there is supposedly some other company taking some percentage doing this?

Isn't government the quintessential "single place" or "platform" problem?

has there been any generation that laughed in horror and derision at anything in history till now?

what's the difference?

The same way you make sure democracy or the majority has the right "fundamental principles"..

>couldn't they have worded this a little more sympathetic and a little less lawyer?

Sure, if all the lawyers will promise not to take some statement out of context and sue them over that.. As long as such lawyers exist and that's the way the legal system works this is what can be expected out of statements from companies..

Wait. Isn't the right approach to make sure money doesn't influence litigation or legislative process, than trying to ban someone from funding another party's litigation.

If money can influence litigation, isn't that a bigger problem than a third party funding some lawsuit for whatever reason?

Most are dysfunctional. You have to specifically look only if you want functional ones.

Aren't you hijacking the topic of homelessness here then? When people say homeless they don't mean someone who is homeless out of choice and can get out of it whenever they want to?

>I recently sold everything I owned and started living out of my converted dodge caravan while I was prototyping what I wanted to build next. With an eye on my burn rate, I lived as cheaply as possible. I can tell you without a doubt that there is no natural system in place for homeless to get out of that rut, and it looks and feels dehumanizing.

I think it's reasonable to assume that anyone who has enough skills to "build things" has enough skills to get an average software job. So, just curious, did you choose to build things and be homeless instead of getting a mundane software job and not be homeless?

I think its the state violating individual human rights if what consenting adults do with themselves without violating anyone else's rights is considered illegal. I am curious to understand how it is not or counter arguments if any.