Saik0Shinigami

Who said they're company provided? Weren't reusable bottles all the rage for a while? Employees can bring their own. Make sure you wash it at home too...

but I don’t need to provide my own analysis to point out the false assumptions you’ve made in yours

I've made NO false assumptions, there's nothing FALSE about me taking the numbers that the article gives and doing basic math with it to try and find what the real value of the service is. The numbers given show results so woefully weak that it doesn't matter if you 8x the results I got, which I've already outlined. I am not showing something in any light other than how it was presented to me, if you don't want it in that light then you need to yell at the article writer for doing a piss poor job.

when in reality you didn’t realize that those calls aren’t the sole responsibility the group has.

So when I said "even if you 8x"... I didn't account that there could be additional workload? Not at all! Oh boy I must be fucking retarded then cause I swear that's what I read in my post. I guess words just don't have meaning.

Taking even your infographic where they claim that they've done 3296 calls (both diverted calls and other sources) in Sep 2023. That's still REALLY bad. 30 day month where you'd expect workers to work about 20 of those days. 3296/130/20... a mere 1.27/working day/worker AT BEST. Or an average case load of 6 hours and 18 minutes per case. Do you think that it takes 6 hours to drive out to a house/apartment and conduct a welfare check (keep in mind that a good amount of these calls will be non-issues where they walk up to the door, knock, talk to the person for 10 minutes and leave)? Adding more information narrows down your argument that I don't have sufficient information, therefore it must be good! Yet we still come up with REALLY BAD numbers as it gets adjusted with your moving goalposts.

You seem to be completely misunderstanding my point. That's on you.

As I said. I'm all for it. But it needs to do better if it's going to stick around.

Taking some good news and immediately trying to portray it in a bad light is not exactly the way to push society forward.

Taking "good" news and assuming that it's always good even ignoring obvious problems is also a bad thing.

Actively looking to portray the start of such program

So how long then until it's allowed to be evaluated? It's already been 4, 3, or 2 years. Does it need 100 years before it can be analyzed? The fact that you think we can't look at something because it's "new" is stupid. And I didn't start my day thinking "I'm going to dunk on this program!". Instead I ran into the story saw the pure blinded "positivity" with NO evaluation of any possible negativity. I'm only offering a more realistic view of what this actually is. I never once said it's a bad program in of itself. It's clearly a beta of sorts and there's shit to work out. Claiming that it's all roses is bullshit.

which is a shame especially if the analysis wasn’t fully informed.

Until you can provide something more substantive... the "analysis" which wasn't much of one seems to have been dead on with everything I've seen thus-far, including your new document which I find dubious anyway... since it claims yet a DIFFERENT starting date than ANY other source I've seen.

Cool. Then you can give me a better figure or statistic? I mean even if we make the 33000 representative of 1 year (giving them either 1 or 3 years of ramp up time) it's still not even close to good. .24 cases A DAY is so bad that even if you 8x it it's not good.

No. You tell them to piss in a bottle. That way when they get thirsty in 10 minutes they have something to drink on hand. Efficiency.

Cops and community members have to know it is an option and utilize it.

Read the article. They divert calls to 911. This has nothing to do with cops/people knowing it's an option but the department diverting calls to themselves rather than taking up 911/police/other first responder duties. I would not suspect that it takes 2-4 years for a team that is directly tied into the system, monitoring and diverting 911 calls to establish themselves... and if they do. Then they are VERY ineffective.

I would say percentage of police calls diverted would be better.

I would agree to some extent... So how come they didn't provide those metrics? I'm left to only evaluate based on the ones they decided to provide. But a reason %diverted is bad, if 10 calls come in and they diverted 8 of them, 80% is great! except... that 130 person team only doing 10 calls per day seems quite underwhelming. So I would actually much rather the raw number of how many calls occurred during the same 2 or 4 year period overall to compare diverted/overall and make an actual fair assessment there.

Edit: I decided to do their job for them a little bit. Pesky Journalists...

https://www.abqjournal.com/clickable/its-911-new-mexicans-call-emergency-number-48-more-than-new-yorkers/article_0c465702-d507-11ee-a46d-071047195f95.html

A study found between 2019 and 2021, New Mexico residents called 911 the most out of all 50 states with 1,169 calls per 1,000 residents, according to a news release.

So Albuquerque has a population of 558,736 currently according to some random site. I'll just assume that number for 2020-2024 statically.

so 558736*1.1693 (annual), 653330 calls / year. over 4 years... 2613320

So they took 33000/2613320= 1.26% of calls over the 4 year period... double that if it's really 2 years.

Albuquerque created its Community Safety department in 2020.

with 130 employees.

the Albuquerque Community Safety (ACS) department has diverted more than 33,000 calls

So 33,000(cases)/130(workers)/4 (year)/260(~ work days a year)... each worker handles 0.24 cases a day... And that's "unignorable proof" that it's working? No offense, but this screams TSA levels of incompetence to me if we're talking about results.

But the article confuses me. It says that ACS was created in 2020, then referenced "since it started 2 years ago" (2022, article was written 2024)... the number could be 0.48 cases a day/employee... which is still very very little. By that metric half the days people are at work, they're not active on any case... at best.

I'm wholly on-board for a non-police response to some calls, or I guess in a more perfect world a social worker embedded police presence (since you just never know... a social worker on every call a police officer goes on could be interesting overall. Most cops are solo these days anyway). But this article is easily ignore-able if you're just looking at the numbers of what's being discussed.

Edit: Formatting.

Microsoft is demanding US taxpayer provide loans to bring this plant online. It has been sitting there for 50 years…

... You understand so little.

Here you go.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/09/26/1104516/three-mile-island-microsoft/

In March, the Palisades Nuclear Plant in Michigan got a loan guarantee from the US Department of Energy’s Loan Programs Office to the tune of over $1.5 billion to help restart.

https://www.constellationenergy.com/newsroom/2024/Constellation-to-Launch-Crane-Clean-Energy-Center-Restoring-Jobs-and-Carbon-Free-Power-to-The-Grid.html

Constellation signs its largest-ever power purchase agreement with Microsoft, a deal that will restore TMI Unit 1 to service and keep it online for decades; add approximately 835 megawatts of carbon-free energy to the grid; create 3,400 direct and indirect jobs and deliver more than $3 billion in state and federal taxes

Nowhere is it Microsoft demanding anything. It's the owners of the power plant itself that got the LOAN (loans get repayed btw... in case you've forgotten what the word means). And it's easily identified that the workforce increase in skilled labor means more taxpayers paying more money to taxes. And look at that! the added state and federal revenue will 2x the loan amount YEARLY.

So can you answer the fucking question now?

Oh, and you continue to ignore my point as well, so I’ll ask it again… If there are more nuclear plants… thus more production for things used to create and maintain nuclear plants. Will the cost to produce MORE nuclear energy go down?

Edit: to drill the point home though... let's say government bad, lets spend little as possible (which I'm generally whole-heartedly for)... 1.5 billion to make 3,400 high paying jobs for 30+ years... That's a fucking no brainer spend. You should WANT this spending. There's lots of shit to complain about with the government. Providing a loan that will be paid back that will make THOUSANDS of highly skilled jobs... This ain't it chief.

Yes, cost is going up because people expect mega corps to pay for their infrastructure investment lol

So you think that companies don't pay for electricity? That they're not part of the "profits" the electrical company has on the books?

Man... I wish I could just get free electricity for my company. Oh... and I pay higher rates at my commercial space for less usage than I do residentially.

But right! That's companies somehow getting some freebie from "the people".

Oh, and you continue to ignore my point as well, so I'll ask it again... If there are more nuclear plants... thus more production for things used to create and maintain nuclear plants. Will the cost to produce MORE nuclear energy go down?

show me when was last time that price of electric went down for the end consumer?

I didn't say price of electricity would go down. I was talking about the price to produce and maintain nuclear plants would go down.

Considering that electricity usage overall is on an upward trend, especially with things like electric cars becoming more and more mainstream. Also with things like inflation being a thing... It would be stupid to think that prices would ever straight up come down. However the cost to maintain more production could stifle/stunt how fast the prices increase.

Also... At my last house. Our electrical company rebated a not insignificant amount of money to each house based on usage for the year due to costs coming down for some stuff. So... about a year and a half or maybe 2 years ago for me personally?

Not sure why you'd expect prices to go down at all though when society/government is also pressuring the electrical companies to install "renewables" by the boatloads as well. There's costs associated with all that. The money has to come from somewhere.

I had this argument on nextdoor a few weeks back. Our local electric utility made some 500million in "profit". But have a mandate to be 60% renewable by 2028, and something like 80% by 2030, which 100% some time after that. If you do the math on how much the coal/nat oil plants produce, and estimate a cost for a solar farm... You realize that while it's a profit this year... it won't be a profit over time, virtually all (the math came out to like 93% of it) needs to get earmarked and put towards solar to get to those renewable mandate numbers. So yes. costs are going to keep going up if people like you act like nuclear getting spun up is a sin.

Edit: clarity

Edit: what is with this trend on lemmy the past few months of picking one specific sentence and ignoring the context of the rest of the fucking post? I even talk about "at scale". It's not hard to look at my post and think of supply/demand economics. Demand being super low because we only have handful of nuclear plants mean that a lot of suppliers just aren't around anymore. As demand goes up, in the short term market will demand price to go up. But eventually demand will continue to increase where there is a supply void and new production will come as long as other factors don't kill it. And Production at larger scales is ALWAYS more economical. This is literally econ 101 type shit.

sure nuclear would be great… but this aint for us ;)

Yes it is. Every plant that's live, means that things can be done more and more at scale, which drives down the price overall. In this narrow specific case, Microsoft will drive down the price which will make the already appealing nuclear (aside from NIMBY folk who will never give in because of their ignorance) even MORE appealing for baseload handling. Every plant, private or public will increase engineer knowledge and production of parts (increasing scale) which is better overall for nuclear.

And overall, these companies are going to increase their power load regardless. I'd rather new power production go to the better technology that won't actively poison the environment. Driving down the % of power generated by coal/oil should be universally applauded. Even if it's just new implementation of a large workload.

Serves a need. As in meets some other need. Which I've already addressed. Further I even addressed what SPECIFIC needs that it could possible be serving.

Religion isn’t the need. Social interaction and the feeling of belonging and belief are the needs. Religion can and does fill that for many.

Social interaction: https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/we-are-hard-wired-to-be-social-248746
Feeling of belonging: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/is-having-a-sense-of-belonging-important

I'm done with you. You're either purposefully obtuse, or a troll. It's people like you who ruin actual discussion with people who could actually be educated and turned away from the fictitious man in the sky. You make up shit to address that nobody said. You ignore EVERYTHING other people post just to post your own drivel. It's fucking useless and pointless. 3 seconds of googling could have saved yourself from looking like a fool.

Edit: you even go out of your way to somehow "break" the definition of clearly when in the previous fucking sentence I literally commit what amounts to the ultimate sin in nearly every abrahamic religion all while implying I somehow care about those religions. You're special, and not in the good way.