protist

Towin Mak, a representative from the educator center that owned the robot, explained to TDM that the incident happened as the robot was leaving the area. The woman stopped in the middle of the walkway to check her phone, and because the robot couldn’t get around, it simply waited behind her, he claimed. That’s when she noticed the robot with its lights on, startling her, given the late hour.

If I discovered a robot standing silently behind me on the street, I would also have a lil' freakout

But what they're proposing here isn't something like the VA/feds deciding someone gets a guardian, all they're proposing is giving physicians with the VA the power to refer people into the guardianship legal process in state courts, specifically Virginia. Potential wards would still be subject to a full vetting by county-level guardianship investigators who are typically attorneys, and then be appointed an attorney ad litem, and then go before a judge to argue their case, and then be subject to regular judicial follow-ups to make sure things are on track.

They're not proposing tearing down any of the existing guardrails to protect people, nor are they attempting to federalize this process. Do I trust the Trump Admin? Absolutely not. But I see no shenanigans with this one

None of those rules apply at any of the housing programs we work with. People sign leases and have their own apartment. There is no curfew, no expectation of sobriety, it's 100% free for those with zero income and ridiculously low rent for those with income, and they're welcome to have guests as long as they don't stay there long-term. They also have food pantries and laundry on site, as well as case managers and mental health support whenever someone needs it.

Brother, yes, we have. I have a list of people I can name who we helped house in my city through public housing or permanent supportive housing vouchers and who 1. refused to move in and lost the opportunity, 2. moved in but later decided they'd rather be on the street, or 3. were evicted due to behavioral issues. Most of these people would not meet guardianship criteria, but some definitely would.

So I work with people experiencing homelessness, and can tell you with authority that there are often times when we know someone meets criteria for guardianship and would genuinely benefit from it, however they have no known next of kin and the alternative state-initiated process can take years.

Based on what I'm reading, they're not talking about seeking guardianship for someone just for being homeless, they're talking about people who have debilitating medical or psychiatric conditions, which often co-occur with homelessness. I think this is a good thing, and I wish my state would support enhanced guardianship capacity for the civilians who need this.

I notice the title posted here has been edited to remove "some" homeless veterans, which was already doing the heavy lifting as clickbait for the NYT. This effort is clearly not aimed at homeless veterans, but some homeless veterans may be impacted if they meet guardianship criteria.

they should not be in a position that they have to make that choice

I actually agree with this. They shouldn't have to do this, but have to because they're being attacked by much more powerful countries, and this is one of the only ways they can strike back that can directly impact and influence average Americans.

Next try Eraserhead and report back