Why do you think dogs deserve no kill shelters? Euthanizing stray dogs and other critters in urban areas is quite common throughout the world and most definitely a superior choice if you have a limited budget and would need to cut services for humans instead.
If no-kill shelters ever make sense (and some people must think they do, as these are things that do exist), then no-kill humanitarian efforts also must make sense. I find this to be self-evident because I think that humans are more important than domestic animals are.
UBI directly helps with the latter; UBI helps people avoid death.
UBI also indirectly helps with the former: By reducing the burden of taking care of pets when the bottom starts to fall out on folks' lives for whatever reason that happens, the need for dog shelters of any sort is also reduced.
Most American housing is 2x4 garden sheds where if you stomp a bit harder the floorboards are gonna dislodge and you'll literally see the mud beneath your house. Also, most people in California can't afford to buy a house, let alone something up to current building codes (which are ridiculously lenient compared to Europe). So yeah, "nice" probably just means something that wasn't built in 1970. Imagine they said "liveable" if it works better for you.
The nuclear winter thing is based on the paper where they assume that there's zero days of stockpiled grain isn't it? When in reality we could go for years with just the grain farmers keep to balance out market volatility.
On MacOS and probably on iPhone as well you can right click text in images and easily search for it.
So Apple users do the obvious low effort thing and just post images instead of text. This is toxic in a similar way to using iMessage instead of something like Whatsapp for group chats.
It makes more people buy Apple so the stock goes up though.