|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:"They're just three lone wolves, definitely not domestic terrorism, nope. Hmmm... Hitlers Gay Secret posted:No one deserves to be shot, you fucktard. I'm pretty sure this is simply not true.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 19:24
|
|
"
|
Three whole initiatives motivated purely by spite! A new record?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 20:26
|
|
|
Runaktla posted:Guy gets shot by bean bag gun and doesn't drop knife, I hate to say it but he deserves to be shot. Knives can kill/maim as well, and sometimes better than guns (though not 20 of them lol). He was walking away and could harm somebody.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
cheese posted:Do we really not have any tools in which 12 officers who have surrounded a cornered, knife wielding suspect can disable said man safely? Like, shoot him with all the bean bags or spray him with loving sticky foam or hit him with a net gun or something? A stun gun on a pole, I don't know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
Cicero posted:They could surround him with shields and then arrest him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:A post in USPOL reminded me... How is next year's ballot shaping up? According to the article they haven't hired any signature gatherers and are depending entirely on church outreach, so hopefully they'll fall short. And reading the text, it isn't a bounty you get. You actually have to file a civil suit against the government agency or business that violated the act by not stringently policing who uses their bathrooms. I'm sure the courts will love the dozens to hundreds of frivolous suits arising from that. quote:Measures that failed to make deadlines include the initiative to convert investor-owned utilities to public utilities, and two which proposed parental notification and 48-hour waiting period for emancipated minors seeking abortions. Hooray for the parental notification failing! I get tired of voting that down time and again. Also I would vote yes on this one if it made it: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Governor_to_President_Initiative_%282016%29 quote:Amends the California Constitution to replace the word Governor with the word President. Maybe Jerry can finally be a President, if only for a little while. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
TROIKA CURES GREEK posted:Hmmm... The gently caress do those two quotes have to do with each other?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
A group has filed a civil rights complaint demanding that Medi-Cal reimbursements be increased, as the low reimbursements disproportionately affect Latinos (since Latinos are disproportionately represented on Medi-Cal relative to other races).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
Litany Unheard posted:Hooray for the parental notification failing! I get tired of voting that down time and again. Jesus gently caress I think I've voted no on that bullshit like at least every other year, if not yearly. You think they would not waste their time when it's obvious it's not going to pass.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
The CPUC has rejected the utility company proposals for the new net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0) for residential rooftop solar. This was the preliminary decision and there will be another vote and announcement expected January 28th, but it looks like the NEM 2.0 rules will be mostly identical with a few small changes: NEM customers who install after the NEM 2.0 rules start will have to be on a time of use rate, most solar customers already are but the most solar-friendly time of use rates are being ended. NEM customers will be charged a one-time $100 fee NEM customers will be charged the non-bypassable charges that all customers pay at time of use instead of at their annual true-up, this should amount to about $60 annual increase in charges over NEM 1.0 for most. People who install solar under these rules will be grandfathered in for 20 years and the CPUC will rehear arguments in 2019 for a likely 2020 decision on a third set of rules to apply for people who install after.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
fermun posted:The CPUC has rejected the utility company proposals for the new net energy metering rules (NEM 2.0) for residential rooftop solar. This was the preliminary decision and there will be another vote and announcement expected January 28th, but it looks like the NEM 2.0 rules will be mostly identical with a few small changes: This would be a pretty big issue for me. I have solar now, and February-May is when I bank a lot of negative credits to use in the summer months. If they switch to a monthly payment then that means that I'll be reimbursed at the wholesale rate in the spring months but then using more electricity in the summer months at the retail rate. As it stands now they just have a running total for the year and you pay the difference once. I believe current NEM 1.0 customers are grandfathered for 20 years, no?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:This would be a pretty big issue for me. I have solar now, and February-May is when I bank a lot of negative credits to use in the summer months. If they switch to a monthly payment then that means that I'll be reimbursed at the wholesale rate in the spring months but then using more electricity in the summer months at the retail rate. As it stands now they just have a running total for the year and you pay the difference once. The non-bypassable charges are small portion of the electricity rates, 2-3 cents/kWh everyone gets charged, which are then used to subsidize the special medical rates and low-income rates. If you're being charged 17 cents/kWh it's actually about 15 cents/kWh plus 2 cents/kWh to subsidize various special needs rates. NEM 1.0 customers are charged 2-3 cents per kWh usage at their annual true up, calculated by their net usage over that year. NEM 2.0 customers will be charged 2-3 cents per kWh at the time of use, still going onto their annual true up bill but calculated whenever they are drawing power from the utility. This difference of calculating that 2-3 cents per kWh at the time they are drawing from the utility instead of looking at net annual draw will, on average, result in $60/year more being charged for those non-bypassable charges for NEM 2.0 customers over NEM 1.0 customers. It's still worse than NEM 1.0 but not as bad as was being predicted before today's announcement. NEM 1.0 customers are grandfathered for 20 years from the date of their Permission To Operate. NEM 2.0 customers will still have an annual bill as well, being credited for generation at the same 1:1 credit that NEM 1.0 customers do, and they will also be grandfathered in for 20 years from the date of their PTO. If the preliminary ruling from today passes the vote next month, there will be a third set of rules, NEM 3.0 which will take effect for people installing after 2020 or for the NEM 1.0 customers who have hit their 20 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Thanks for the explanation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2015 23:02
|
|
|
Yeah, that's a great post. I love stuff like that. I hate the boring "this part of the state is BAD" tribal garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Yeah, that's a great post. I love stuff like that. I hate the boring "this part of the state is BAD" tribal garbage. You must be from THAT part of the state.  I'd love California a lot more if I didn't have to worry that some hick thinks I'm Muslim and wants to take his San Bernadino rage out on me. I've changed my stance on California from "if only Los Angeles and San Diego were separated from us," to if only West Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego were separated from us."
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Hitlers Gay Secret posted:West Sacramento... Whats the deal with the place? Did most of the decent paying blue collar jobs evaporate leaving behind a husk? I guess meth hasn't helped much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
I don't know if this is a good place to post this https://vimeo.com/127326957 from: http://sfist.com/2015/12/17/this_american_life_highlights_sf_af.php the kid in the jean jacket with the "techies are taking over" mantra... I wonder what the overlap is between people who consistently vote to suppressing any housing/infrastructure development, and are totally into stuff like this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
CopperHound posted:Is an interesting place. I used to commute by bike along west capital. I'd say it is an eclectic mix of zombies wondering the streets at 4 am, trashy motels, and a drat good taco truck. There is still a lot of industry along the river portions/Jefferson Blvd of West Sacramento. The Raley Field area is getting the most attention at the moment with TBD Fest, and new condos/townhouses.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Cicero posted:They could surround him with shields and then arrest him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX5CPx4RKWw
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:I don't know if this is a good place to post this Considering 89% of all SF housing is owned by overseas Chinese (who are right now enjoying California water-subsidized almond butter, suck it California!) I find the lily-white makeup of the video to be unrealistic if not outright Sons of the Golden West levels of deluded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
About 20% of SF buyers have some Chinese connection, and that drops to 10% of the bay area as a whole. China is not SF's housing problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 07:06
|
|
|
I dunno man, 10-20% seems like a lot to me for foreign buyers from just one country. In any case, the real problem is the lack of supply. Scarcity is part of what's driving these foreign purchases, because scarcity in a booming economy leads to big property value increases. More supply would stabilize prices, making property a less attractive option for pure investment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I dunno man, 10-20% seems like a lot to me for foreign buyers from just one country. Note that it's "some Chinese connection", not necessarily "a foreign buyer".
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 08:43
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:About 20% of SF buyers have some Chinese connection, and that drops to 10% of the bay area as a whole. I may have exaggerated slightly for effect. 20%, though, is a huge number, and I don't think it's somehow a bad thing. I believe in the rights of anyone to buy houses and almonds, even if they're from China.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
if you think evil China is somehow suppressing development in California you might be interested in what Donald Trump has to say about politics. it's just a racist smoke screen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Space-Bird posted:if you think evil China is somehow suppressing development in California you might be interested in what Donald Trump has to say about politics. it's just a racist smoke screen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:42
|
|
|
Cicero posted:I don't think anyone's said that foreign buyers are suppressing development, they've said that foreign buyers are benefiting from suppressed development, and contributing (along with tech money) to the increased housing prices. But both foreign buyers and tech money wouldn't be a serious problem if we just, y'know, built enough housing. Oh, totally. Basically anyone who bought in has incentive to suppress the market in order to protect their inflated investment. You know, people who throw down 1.4 million on a single storey 1300sqft home in Millbrae or whatever. those homes aren't worth that much, and only have that value due to crazy bubbles. it's just Chinese investors don't really get to vote on all the housing propositions that come up. so when people bring it up as the problem, it can get a bit annoying or whatever
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
The gas leak is now a state of emergency. As of this post 79,149.86 metric tons of methane 6,648,593 equivalent to metric tons of carbon dioxide released 748,127,187 equivalent to gallons of gasoline burned $12,331,585 dollars worth of natural gas wasted tick, tock.... https://www.edf.org/climate/californias-massive-methane-leak
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
lol poo poo, all of 30 miles from uci too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
This situation seems to have escalated from, "SoCal gas denies the claims of a leak and says everything is fine" to, "State of emergency, land-based version of Deepwater Horizon" pretty quickly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:lol poo poo, all of 30 miles from uci too. Wrong Porter Ranch, this one is in the San Fernando Valley
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:32
|
|
|
Didn't that area go up in a wildfire like 10-15 years ago? What happens if we get one before they cap the thing?
|
|
#
?
Jan 7, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
I admit to being completely ignorant of pipeline infrastructure, but is it seriously that difficult to dig up and patch the loving line? Or failing that, just shut off the flow? Yeah there would certainly be some delivery disruptions as a result, but ffs I think at this point that's justified.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Sydin posted:I admit to being completely ignorant of pipeline infrastructure, but is it seriously that difficult to dig up and patch the loving line? Or failing that, just shut off the flow? Yeah there would certainly be some delivery disruptions as a result, but ffs I think at this point that's justified. Its not a pipeline that's leaking, it is an underground storage reservoir. So its an old oil field that we filled back up with gas to store it. The well down to this storage reservoir is what is leaking and they're having to drill a second well down to block it at the source.  SoCalGas has completed step 3 and is working towards step 4.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Remember that scene in Ghostbusters, where the putz is ordering the technical guy to just shut off the Ghostbusters's containment stuff, and Egon is like "no don't that's bad"? I imagine it's that sort of situation. e. dammit that's a much better explanation. I like my ghosts one better though. We can't just turn off the leak, because ghosts. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Its not a pipeline that's leaking, it is an underground storage reservoir. So its an old oil field that we filled back up with gas to store it. The well down to this storage reservoir is what is leaking and they're having to drill a second well down to block it at the source. Oh, that's actually a really simple explanation. Thanks.  So it sounds like rather than simply diverting the flow to a new, not-leaking well, they're digging a new well into the first and then sealing both. Does that mean if they later want access to the remaining gas stored down there that they'd have to drill an entirely new third well?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Sydin posted:So it sounds like rather than simply diverting the flow to a new, not-leaking well, they're digging a new well into the first and then sealing both. Does that mean if they later want access to the remaining gas stored down there that they'd have to drill an entirely new third well? That's correct, the second well will be used to seal everything up and they'll likely drill a new well somewhere else in the reservoir to make sure weaknesses introduced during this chaos don't impact it. But of all the costs, the third well will be tiny compared to what the CPUC will hammer them on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 00:57
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:I may have exaggerated slightly for effect.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
Probably the wrong thread but this is a pretty wide range of California chat; I'm taking my parents on a road trip up from SoCal and we are due to close the day in Big Basin tomorrow evening. I'd like to stop somewhere around there for dinner tomorrow (or on the edge of tech land) and sit out rush hour before making the next leg of our trip up to Napa. We're doing the Mission Trail, essentially, and have been also sightseeing. My parents are pretty mobile for being late 60s/early 70s but I can't run them too hard. Any recommendations? Nothing crazy expensive please, bonus points for local flavor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2016 05:49
|
|
