Readit NewsMy rational mind doesn't really believe in all of this, but if it did, I think I'd take Jacques Vallee's theory seriously. Jacques Vallee is an astronomer and computer scientist (involved in early ARPANET) who's studied the phenomenon since at least the 70s. Here's a fun paper:
https://www.scientificexploration.org/docs/4/jse_04_1_vallee...
He essentially argues that the UFO phenomenon is neither extra terrestrials nor merely misidentified aerial craft. It's something even stranger!
Also, if you find that paper interesting, here's one of this books (one of the most well-known in the anomalous phenomenon field):
https://www.amazon.com/Passport-Magonia-Folklore-Flying-Sauc...
This time, I guess it’s that conspiracies to destroy your opponents might actually be a good thing because they represent action over inaction (he more or less says as much about two thirds of the way through the interview). That seems a weird quasi-fascistic stance (Marinetti and other proto-fascists argued in favor of the same bias towards any action, regardless of its morality), but not one that’s out of fashion in our era.
Gyms are rarely purpose built facilities. Rather, theyre rented and renovated spaces. In turn, airflow in the structure is planned for light industrial or office space. Almost no thought goes into the fact that gyms are sometimes hundreds of occupants moving the air at two to three times what the OSHA or planning documents indicate. Paints with VoC's, sealants, and even offgassing plastics from gym mats or new equipment can turn the air quality from decent to garbage in a few hours.
I was once contracted to fix an air handler issue at a fitness center. The root cause was a set of 6 un-ventilated panini presses that were placed near the front desk as part of an effort to sell snacks and sandwiches. The added smoke and particulate had decreased the filter life and burned out a blower motor. The solution was either get rid of the electric grills, or start replacing 30 day filters every week.
If we actually understood that people literally died of not having enough money, or of lack of willpower to deal with a bureaucracy, or of homelessness, or of their mental state, there’s every chance that something might change.
if you actually understood the implications of following your logic, please take a moment to explain:
why do people not have enough money?
do some people waste away whatever time and money they have?
do some people fail to develop any marketable skills?
are some people just incapable of rendering valuable labor or service to anyone?
what percentage of those without money fit into that hopeless category?
what should be done about those people?
why does money exist in the first place?
how do we ensure that everybody will "have enough money"?
why do people lack willpower?
why do bureaucracies exist and what is the alternative?
why does homelessness exist?
do people in dire straits often reject help?
do people in dire straits often make things worse for themselves?
how do we force people to stop doing that?
why do people have differing mental states?
that's just for a start. then answer those questions in context of each individual life and death. but that won't be necessary if one thinks that all homeless are just "the homeless", or that all poor people are just "the poor".
but that would be oversimplification and "heavily missing information" in many cases, don't you think?
and "he died of being homeless"? why was he homeless? because society was so cruel and uncaring? sure, he had nothing to do with it himself.
the other comment is right, this path inevitably leads to judgment and speculation.
When those are the causes of death that we start to track, perhaps the world will become a better place.
> he died because he was homeless and couldn't find his way to the help he needed.
taking your approach, you'd also have to allow at least some of those death certificates to list cause of death as: "he died because he was homeless, and he was homeless because he was a drunkard and an addict who was horrible to his family and most everyone he dealt with."
or is the intent to permit maudlin sentiments only?
the commentor seemed to conflate the questions of "was it not completely legal for him to possess that item?" and "was it careless (legal or not) to show it off in that manner?"