I wholly agree with you first paragraph.

But the 1% stake the Chinese government has in ByteDance is a golden share.

From The Economist:

More stunning are the terms of these investments. ciif’s 1% stake in a ByteDance subsidiary gives it the power to appoint one of three board members in a unit that holds key licences for operating its domestic short-video business.

To what extent the CCP will exert control or what ByteDance has agreed to is unclear. And who knows if any of that matters.

Two and a half imperial bushels

If [I buy wheat] at Wrexham, [I must order] by the hobbet of one hundred and sixty eight [pounds] [76 kg]. But, even if I do happen to know what a hobbet of wheat means at Wrexham, that knowledge good for Flint is not good for Caernarvonshire. A hobbet of wheat at Pwlheli contains eighty-four pounds [38 kg] more than a hobbet at Wrexham; and a hobbet of oats is something altogether different; and a hobbet of barley is something altogether different again.

Tad
Dash
Smidge
A bit
Just a moment
Monarchical Inch
A peck
A hobbit

Don’t worry. They’ll get over and then speed up so you’ll have to do 90 to pass them.

They’ll double down on condescension, derision, and dismissiveness in order to maintain a rhetorical higher ground while never doing any work to substantiate their point.

Inevitably, they’ll distort your question to something you’re clearly not saying and answer that. It’s all very predictable and still frustrating. The only thing left for them is to ignore your question because they don’t have answer to it.

That’s only if you think the only thing that changed was 110. Clearly, it was not.

Portugal never mandated treatment. It require a hearing by a local board made of experts including medical personelle. The quote you cited is clear about this, but you state otherwise. And the quote correctly notes that Oregon does have this or some of the other additional measure.

More importantly, what is missing from the quote, is the boards rarely ever forced people into treatment. The article you quote goes on to state the following:

The sites include social workers and mental health professionals to encourage people to enter treatment. The goal is to start people on a path to health — even if they don’t start treatment immediately, said Brendan Saloner, associate professor of health policy and management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

“The entire kind of logic of the rooms is very much designed around: ‘Let’s bring these folks indoors, they’re using drugs. They are here in our community,’” he said.

If that quote didn’t drive home the central principles, this one should:

“The key innovation of Portugal is having services that people need when they need them,” he said. “And I think that a lot of the bones of that could kind of come together in Oregon, but it’s going to take resources, time and patience.”

We didn’t do that. Forcing people into treatment was never the solution.

People continually seize upon this 1% figure. The subtext, and explicitly your’s, is “addicts are addicts and they won’t get help if you don’t force them.” The reality is much more complicated and individual than that. It varies from individual to individual and where they are in the addiction and recovery events. Addicts are often in the grips of multiple, complicating issues include mental health and trauma. They usually lack the education and framing to see that clearly and the addiction can be the way they cope. Many want help, want to change, don’t know how to, don’t believe they can, and when do, them moment passes all too quickly.

The solution, of course, is to make them go to treatment. But this does not work and continued thinking that it will is a mixture of hopeful naivete and willful ignorance.

Then, of course, the subtext continues. “People who don’t realize that addicts need to be forced are naive and waste money and time being too gentle with these addicts.”

You cited an article from OPB published in 2022. Here is a more recent article from OPB exactly 2 year later. From the article:

The Legislature, the court system and the bureaucracy under two governors ignored or rejected proposed solutions as seemingly straightforward as designing a specialized ticket to highlight treatment information. They declined to fund a proposed $50,000 online course that would have instructed police officers on how to better use the new law. They took no action on recommendations to get police, whose leaders campaigned against the ballot measure, talking with treatment providers after decriminalization passed.

Police hit the streets with the old traffic citation that said nothing about treatment making the ticket disappear.

Oregon has made it’s decision. I, for one, think it’s for the worse.

The decriminalization started pretty soon after the measure was passed. The disbursement for the fund was delay and, apparently, a mess. Building something takes time and handing buckets of money to existing facilities who have only ever run on a shoe string budget was doom to be overwhelmed.

The citations were for a maximum of $100 or complete a health assessment in 45 days by calling the addiction recovery hotline. The problem here is the citations were never alter to include the phone number to schedule an assessment.

Getting help, as I understand the prevailing sentiment of those who work in the system, is the constant signal that the system exists and won’t screw you over. When you’re ready, we are here.

From the press release:

Established in 2020, the RBG Award has previously recognized women of distinction, including HM Queen Elizabeth II and Barbra Streisand. The award was expanded this year to include trailblazing men and women. “Justice Ginsburg fought not only for women but for everyone,” said Julie Opperman, Chair of the Dwight D. Opperman Foundation. “Going forward, to embrace the fullness of Justice Ginsburg’s legacy, we honor both women and men who have changed the world by doing what they do best.”

Oof…

You are the voice of authority. Your words can wound.

It was on page 80 of the supplemental PDF. They mention that in the article.

It what made freedom fries doubly absurd. Not even close to the freedom cut.

Generations aren’t about hard lines of division. For example, if some was born in December 1979 and another in January 1980, they would have more in common than with someone born in 1975 or 1985.

I was born six months before the millennial cutoff, but I find many of my touchstones align with millennials than with Gen X and then I have some that line up with Gen X.

Ultimately, the utility of generational analysis is degraded with pieces like this. There seems to be something useful about looking at how certain aged people relate to events, but trying to ask about “How millennials are ruining the work place for Gen X” isn’t a good use of that analysis.