From the article:
> The program prioritized underrepresented populations. That includes young parents, who made up 43% of participants by the end of the period.
Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & genderqueer people, as well as those who are young+single parents or are disabled.
Find and read the actual full report for more details though.
>The program prioritized underrepresented populations.
Do you know why they did this? Transgenderism or being a woman is an orthogonal concept to homelessness. Whatever demographic you're in, if you are homeless, you are suffering and I assume are exposed to the same gender neutral dangers that arise from being homeless.
What exactly is the greater danger that would need such prioritization?
They said parents received priority. Homeless people whose children live with them are women mostly. Giving parents priority aided their children.
The report said the programs prioritized groups that are overrepresented in national youth homelessness counts, including LGBTQ+ and BIPOC youth, as well as those who were pregnant or parenting status, formerly incarcerated, undocumented, or had a history of domestic violence or trafficking, populations that are continually overrepresented in national youth homelessness counts.[1] Underrepresented was the journalist's description seemingly.
Some dangers to homeless people are gender neutral. Some are not. Sexual assault is not. But the portions of the report I read did not say immediate danger was considered.
Being transgender is a more polite way to describe being transgender.
Someone unable or unwilling to house a family member could be able and willing to pay their phone service. Someone unable to pay their phone service could be willing to talk to them.
Homeless young people are disproportionately LGBT because of family rejection.
I guess the flipside of this is, do we want poor/homeless people from groups our society dubs “overrepresented” to only be able to find help from organizations that specifically serve selected “overrepresented” groups? Are there no obvious bad sides to that?
Because you can’t really have the one without the other.
transgenderism is not a thing. transgender people are real, however.
trans people are at greater risk of violence and sexual assault (sometimes because sex work is the only way for them to survive). being arrested as a trans woman could mean being placed in a jail/prison with cis men, again, putting them at greater risk of violence and sexual assault.
Unfortunately it looks like the headline numbers may not be representative:
“The research team did not initially receive a complete participant contact list and the CBO staff
led in facilitating recruitment, resulting in a sample that does not represent all DCT+ participants. The limited
sample size further limits the representativeness and generalizability of findings. The evaluation sample of 63
participants represents only 54% of the total 117 program participants. Therefore, the study population may not
adequately represent the broader DCT+ experience. Additionally, participants who completed both initial and
exit surveys may differ systematically from those who did not, potentially skewing results toward more positive
outcomes among individuals who remained engaged throughout the evaluation period.”
the two little slide decks showing each garbage collector in action are simply wonderful, and really help communicate how this improves go's GC situation
It's also a great CS primer on garbage collection; Go has made me interested in that aspect of software engineering again, it feels importaint again unlike with higher level languages like Java / JS.
Super exciting development in the world of medicine, but the price tag is really steep. Starting at US$15.50 per pill, and you're supposed to take two pills at a time. Many will opt for cheaper options.
Disclaimer: I'm Canadian with extended insurance, so I have little perspective on drug prices.
This is to treat acute pain, probably mostly post-op as alternative to opioids. At most you'll probably get a week's worth of pills from your doc post-op, and I would say the cost is worth it if it works better than NSAIDs and it's not addictive.
In the context of post op painkillers, the cost of this pill is a drop in the bucket vs cost of hospitalization. The alternative to inflated drug prices is not having the drugs or, I guess, nationalizing the pharmaceutical companies? I don't think you'll get many takers for that plan tho.
That’s expensive today, yes, but it’s so hella expensive to bring a drug to market at all. I don’t mind a brand new drug costing $30/dose for a short term. That’s way more understandable than insulin or asthma inhalers going up 400%.
I count myself as very, very lucky that opioids don’t do that for me at all. I’ve had strong prescriptions for various short-term needs over the years and they just make me a little sleepy. They don’t feel pleasant in any way, in the same way that Motrin doesn’t give me a warm fuzzy feeling either.
So that the thief can learn your schedule and when you're home or using the car and can plan in advance to avoid being caught. Among other things, information about the exact location of an expensive vehicle over multiple days is very valuable information when you're trying to steal said vehicle.
Homeless parents are almost always women with very few exceptions. Now, in my personal opinion, "underrepresented populations" in this kind of environment refers to people who are at greater immediate risk while homeless, which obviously include women & genderqueer people, as well as those who are young+single parents or are disabled.
Find and read the actual full report for more details though.
reply