OT. My household was randomly selected.

LOL! This is obviously an engineering forum!!!

Women do buy clothes with pockets, but they aren't for putting things in. To women all clothing is about looks. Putting crap in pockets changes their outline. Some men are the same way but they don't ignore pockets, they just carry things that don't create inappropriate bulges.

Women have pockets in their bags. Some are better at using them than others.

Optimistic for sure, but I don't see that as "simplistic" any more than anything else posted here. Did you want him to write a dissertation on the topic?

Such pockets are used to store things that are never needed. The frequently used items are tossed into the bucket.

I was about to add, pockets would ruin their smooth curvaceous figure.

Putting crap in pockets

We can't all live in your utopic leftist fantasy.

See above.

I just put mine on the charging cradle (Xi) when I come home. It never even comes close to zero, even when I use it for a hot spot during the day.

Because it fits in your pocket? I used an old phone for watching Netflix at the gym but it was too small to see without my glasses. That's the only reason I bought the 7".

If you don't know, I'll assume you're hitting from the wrong side of the plate. BTW, they do wear jeans.

I watch something else.

understand why it's done. However, following your posts you're clearly on e of those who thinks the government is out to get them, so of course you'd fight answering even innocent questions.

nt

yup

I do

After that intro? No.

NT

Ironic, since you have recent evidence that the branch of federal government that looks closely at the reality of the taxpayers' circumstances is doing a good job, effectively monitoring effects of 'monetary usage'. as well as keeping your representation in various legislatures truly proportional.

Lacking census data, one cannot authoritatively cry 'waste'.

One sure can.

NT

I went into my local SS office today, there were 23 people in the waiting room, 18 were people in their 20s and 30s, one a very obese lady was probably in her 40s. 4 people looked old enough to collect SS. Have we expanded that benefit program enough yet? Mikek

Why were they there? Did you find out any details?

I don't know. I just looked to verify, Medicaid is paid through the Social Security Administration. So I suspect they were there about Medicaid. The obese woman, probably for disability. Is that profiling? Ya, but I'm probably right. If want, you can assume they were checking something for grandma. But please don't feel they were starving, the women all had smart phones jewelry and a big purse. One guy probably had it rough, odd looking, probably hard for him to get a job, Baggy low hanging shorts, had the George Jefferson walk.

Nothing about the young people. I did talk to one 75 year old man in the parking lot that was mad because he thought he was supposed to get a SS raise every time he got an increase in his Medicare bill. Also mad because his 65 year old lady friend only got $265 a month. He was happy about something Kennedy did to SS and mad about something Clinton and Bush did. It was and interesting conversation :-/

I was there trying to learn how to maximize our take out of the lockbox.:-) Still have at least 4 years before I collect.

Mikek

Is that the criteria for getting assistance, malnourishment?

A few years back I would talk to people where I had to go to get Internet, a country store with a deli counter and a couple of booths. All sorts came in there. I recall one gal who worked there at $8 an hour I think. She had a husband who couldn't work because of epilepsy and a 3 year old who had a diagnosed behavioral problem I don't recall. She had a hard time getting doctors to take the kid's problems seriously because they just brushed aside her claims of the "demon seed". Eventually he was diagnosed with significant medical issues and so she got social security financial aid to give the kid professional help.

Seems the husband couldn't collect "SSI" which is what they call social security disability. He had applied three times and was turned down each time. So he started driving to work... until he had a seizure on the highway and drove into the median just before a overpass. He did a Dukes of Hazzard and few the car a ways. He survived with some facial lacerations that required plastic surgery just to get everything in the right place.

He got a lawyer and eventually got his SSI payments.

I'm not saying any of these people are the cream of the crop, but they don't deserve to be left to die along the side of the road. These are the people I know who you might find in the SS office waiting room.

But, a responsible government "of the people, by the people, for the people" cannot be effective without knowledge of the people.

Neither can you, or anyone, know what is effective without data such as the census provides. Ideas about 'waste' without data are ... worthless.

First of all, they are worthless no matter how much data they have.

Second of all, they do not need to know what time I leave for work.

true

that is patently not true. When I see government funds misused routinely to replace things that there's simply nothing wrong with, I do know that behaviour is ineffective and grossly wasteful. It goes on all the time here.

I and many like me have enough data to know they're real. You don't need surveys and polls and analyses to know that a library full of 3 year old desks in almost as new condition being replaced by much the same thing is a total waste.

Census data has nothing to do with it.

NT

If such collected data were to be of value it would need to include why people do things the way they do, and whether they saw any upsides, downsides & problems in the proposed new way. It normally doesn't.

NT

The question is how does one find what *is* effective.

Otherwise known as evidence based policy. It is a quaint idea that is out of fashion at the moment (as if it was ever in).

sounds like "the government" unthinking acted without evidence of need there, doesn't it?