Libra

I would build housing for the homeless. Simple rule, no muss no fuss: need a place to live? Get a place to live. Live there for free until you can get clean and/or find a job and get back on your feet. Maybe throw in some job training too, or some kind of work-study program where they can get (paid, ofc) experience while they learn a new trade to help cover gaps in their work history and such. I'm imagining apartment complexes built around some kind of combination trade school/recovery program that teaches people to be plumbers, welders, electricians, etc while helping to get and keep them clean, offer group support for reintegrating into society, the full package.

I could help a lot of people that way with $5 billion. I'd show up in places like NY/LA with large homeless populations with a greyhound bus that said 'free apartment and a good job this way' on the side or something too, and just bus 'em in as new housing became available.

I'll give that a shot, thanks.

You're right, I missed it the first time, my bad.

I take “the first 90 days” to mean the first 90 days they’re there working

That does seem to be one reading of the information available, yes. My point, though, was that it's ambiguous, so it can also be read as they work for free for the first 90 days of the program, then get offered a job where they work for $10/hr for 90 days, then get raised to a decent wage.

Re:bad faith/disparaging - yeah maybe. I've been through/around several recovery programs myself, and they always give me a scummy vibe so maybe I'm just looking for nits to pick. But 90 days free labor (if that's what's going on) is a lot less obviously-scummy than the year I initially thought it was, so. Though again with no mention of counselors or anything this still doesn't seem like much of a 'recovery program', but rather more of a 'get away from the triggers that caused you to drink' program. shrug Either way it does seem to be giving people a second chance and if there's nothing scummy going on then that's unambiguously a good thing.

I dunno the UAE's energy situation, maybe they installed a shitload of solar in the desert and are practically giving away electricity, but it still seems stupid to build anything water-intensive in a desert. I lived in Albuquerque, NM in the late 90s/early 2000s and they had a big Intel fabrication plant out there, in the desert, using so much goddamned water that they were depleting the water table. But they don't care as long as it's cheap today and probably cheap tomorrow. Expensive eventually because of resource depletion is a problem for future quarterly reports.

And if it takes just as much time to back in as it does to back out, I get why some people would rather spend that time before going in than after coming out. There is backing up involved in parking in a parking lot one way or the other, and if you've somehow only ever gotten stuck behind people who are backing in and not people who are backing out then I'd call that extraordinarily lucky, not evidence of the efficiency of backing out instead.

But yeah there are shit drivers everywhere, even ones who don't back in.

Hm, yeah, let's build a giant datacenter that needs a ton of power and water in the desert, that's a great plan.

I don't drive, but the way I've always heard it is because people care more about leaving quickly than arriving quickly.

Aside from what others have pointed out about solubility, sink drains, as I understand it, have a narrower pipe than toilet drains do, though once it gets out of the house it all goes through the same pipe either way, but I think that's a larger pipe than what's in the house.

Context matters, friend.

Stable Recovery helps the men get a job in the industry after 90 days when they graduate from its School of Horsemanship. Participants don’t have to work in the industry but the majority want to.

So it's 90 days before the job is offered, not a year, my bad. Also you forgot to include the sentence above the one you quoted:

It doesn’t charge its participants until they start earning money once they begin working on the farm.

At that point, they pay $100 a week for food, housing, clothing and transportation. They earn $10 an hour the first 90 days, then get a raise to $15 to $17 an hour.

But still there's some ambiguity here because it says the job is offered after 90 days, so do they pay $10/hr for the first 90 days they're in the program, or only for the first 90 days after the job offer? Again I think it's safe to assume no job = no pay, so it sounds like they work for free for 90 days, then work for $10/hr for 90 days, then it's $15-17 from there. Which, fair enough, is considerably less of a grift than I originally thought.

I knew a girl named Miracle when I was in grade school, but Iamamiracle is ridiculous.

Wondering the same. Heck I don't even use bookmarks for most things, I just remember/autocomplete the address, or search it up, or remember how I found it before.

The impression I got from the article is that they only get an offer of a job after they've been there for a year, and if you're not giving someone a job for a year then I think it's safe to assume you're not paying them for that year. The article isn't entirely clear about that, so I admit I'm going on a couple of assumptions here, but I think they're pretty reasonable ones (like no job = no pay.)