|
Raskolnikov38 posted:so happy the CA GOP is a mess and people like dead reckoning have very little voice in the state government im glad for people like dead reckoning and pete wilson being stupid enough to try with prop 187 and have it backfire so hard they've become complete marginalized since then like their evil ideas backfired so hard it's delicious
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Telsa Cola posted:That sounds like the exact type of sound bite that is taken out of context and makes scientists and academics wary about talking to the press. I actually know Lucy, and yeah, it almost certainly is. Like, thats the correct answer for a worst case scenario, but worst case scenarios aren't the likeliest scenarios. Not to say the big one won't be bad, but this is a very different state than it was for the Loma Prieta EQ, there has been a ton of work done for reinforce important infrastructure and buildings. Not enough, but still, tons of work
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
The worst fallout from the next big quake will likely be in the suburbs. There are million lovely tract homes and McMansions practically on top of the fault these days and many of them are in exurbs far from emergency services, surrounded by brushfire country, and with only a few connecting roads. It could be bad.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 19:46
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:So you're just a horrible person huh?  Because "you disagree with me, so I bet you think all taxation is theft" didn't deserve anything more. Duckbag posted:Interstate commerce and healthcare intersect in interesting ways that I don't know much about, but I haven't seen much of an argument for why it would be a deal breaker. Pretty much everyone I've read discussing why the Vermont plan failed brought up the fact that it's a state that's not used to such large social programs and also most Vermonters live about an hour drive from an out-of-state hospital. As for negotiating with providers, California has 12% of the US population. Vermont has about 0.2%. Isn't it reasonable to assume that one will have a whole hell of a lot more leverage than the other? Interstate commerce is a problem because it means the state level health care market has a very low barrier to entry and exit. It is hard for a doctor from Canada to pull up stakes, get citizenship in a new country, get board certified in a new country, and set up a new practice. On the other hand, if you tell every MD and nurse in Cali that they need to take a 40% pay cut in the name of cost controls, they can just move to another state, some of which already have reciprocal licensing agreements with the Medical Board of California. The same applies to drug pricing and other cost sources; if California demands that drug companies pay rock bottom prices, the drug companies can simply choose to not sell in California and survive on the other 88% of the market. Once California commits to single payer, it creates an entitlement: the state commits itself to having to provide certain drugs to its citizens, but the companies producing them are not obliged to sell to California. In fact it may be in their interest to avoid undercutting their prices in other markets, and either way, California has to blink first. Furthermore, California would not be a unified market. For example, everyone with VA benefits would be part of a different pricing scheme. Even assuming California manages to successfully negotiate as a bloc, it's not certain that sufficient cost savings sufficient to make the plan affordable could actually be realized: the CBO studied an attempt to repeal the "non-interference" clause, which would have let Medicare negotiate directly with drug companies, and found that the effect on prices would be "negligible." Ron Jeremy posted:Could that be softened if only primary care were included in universal single payer st first? Kind of like how well baby checkups are free to make sure everyone goes? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 19:57 on May 23, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 19:52
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:The worst fallout from the next big quake will likely be in the suburbs. There are million lovely tract homes and McMansions practically on top of the fault these days and many of them are in exurbs far from emergency services, surrounded by brushfire country, and with only a few connecting roads. It could be bad. Where are you getting this information? Single and 2-story wood frame houses are quite earthquake resistant.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 20:02
|
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Where are you getting this information? Single and 2-story wood frame houses are quite earthquake resistant. I would imagine the city would have it worse with all the old buildings.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 20:29
|
|
Have you seen my apex seals? I seem to have lost them.
|
You're right, I'm more worried about fires though. SoCal frame houses have a terrible track record with fires and fires are frequently the main danger in big earthquakes. A lot of downed power lines in fire season with roads disrupted could get out of control very quickly.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 20:30
|
|
|
I guess that depends on how new the neighborhood is. Underground power lines and early 2000's homes have fire sprinklers.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Isn't Pechanga literally built on top of the San Andreas Fault? EDIT: No, it's San Manuel that on the San Andreas. Instant Sunrise fucked around with this message at 01:09 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:I would imagine the city would have it worse with all the old buildings. Yes, kind of like dam safety, retrofitting is seemingly always lagging behind because the people responsible are playing cost-benefit RPG. When Anderson Dam was full this year, it was hard not to think of the situation as Russian Roulette. That bad boy is an earthen dam right on top of a fault, uphill from San Jose.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 21:21
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:You're right, I'm more worried about fires though. SoCal frame houses have a terrible track record with fires and fires are frequently the main danger in big earthquakes. A lot of downed power lines in fire season with roads disrupted could get out of control very quickly. They're also much more spaced out, fires aren't that big of an issue.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 21:34
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Even assuming California manages to successfully negotiate as a bloc, it's not certain that sufficient cost savings sufficient to make the plan affordable could actually be realized: the CBO studied an attempt to repeal the "non-interference" clause, which would have let Medicare negotiate directly with drug companies, and found that the effect on prices would be "negligible." quote:Section 2 of the bill would strike the clause of the noninterference provision that prohibits the Secretary from interfering in those negotiations. It would retain the clause that prohibits the Secretary from requiring a particular formulary or price structure, and it would allow PDPs to negotiate prices that are lower than those obtained by the Secretary. I don't think that's the knockout blow you're claiming it is.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2017 21:35
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:They're also much more spaced out, fires aren't that big of an issue. And a lot of the space in between is full of dry chaparral. This is just a gut feeling thing for me and definitely not something I've researched in depth, but SoCal gets at least one devastating wildfire most years anyway and an earthquake in fire season has the potential to not only start several fires at once, but it could also seriously damage the road and water infrastructure needed to seriously fight them. The SoCal portion of the fault runs right through the Inland Empire in regions that are already incredibly dry and, what's more, have grown very quickly over recent decades (often with building standards going unenforced), and infrastructure -- especially water infrastructure -- that has struggled to keep up. San Bernardino, in particular, is practically right on the fault, so a major quake could potentially knock over even "safe" buildings and create a nightmare firestorm at the same time. I also worry a bit about the North Coast because there are a lot of little towns along the fault that are quite far from emergency services and climate change has made the region much more susceptible to wildfires than it used to be.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
The wild urban interface is a huge and growing fire risk. A regular conflagration in that space can kill dozens and that's with fully functional water, transportation and communication infrastructure. The increasing number of days per year we will spend in high fire risk increases the likelihood a major earthquake occurs during high fire risk.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Shouldn't things like backburning (I think that's what its called) be emphasized in areas most vulnerable, so just in case there is another 1906 type earthquake it doesn't end up burning half the state down in the process?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 02:48
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:Shouldn't things like backburning (I think that's what its called) be emphasized in areas most vulnerable, so just in case there is another 1906 type earthquake it doesn't end up burning half the state down in the process? Untrained people setting backfires to protect their property without regard to an overall plan for managing the fire is maybe the worst possible idea.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 02:59
|
|
|
Yeah, that's probably what Panfilo meant. Untrained people.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:06
|
|
|
Well of course, why wouldn't we assume the worst possible interpretation?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:08
|
|
|
Well I mean the alternative is that he's a layperson who thinks he's in a position to give CalFire and local FDs/EMSAs his opinions on how to best manage fires. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:34
|
|
|
Where did you get the impression that he was doing that?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:40
|
|
|
I was assuming some fire department/state agency was going to do this, not some goober with a gas can and a BBQ lighter dude.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well I mean the alternative is that he's a layperson who thinks he's in a position to give CalFire and local FDs/EMSAs his opinions on how to best manage fires. God drat if you think everyone operates on the two extreme ends of anything then that explains a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Panfilo posted:I was assuming some fire department/state agency was going to do this, not some goober with a gas can and a BBQ lighter dude. Oh, so you're one of those statists who thinks only the government can stop wildfires. 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 04:11
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Oh, so you're one of those statists who thinks only the government can stop wildfires. Sorry, apparently all the Libertarians in California were too busy stockpiling guns to bother with fire suppression equipment, so the state will have to do 
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 04:16
|
|
|
Duckbag posted:And a lot of the space in between is full of dry chaparral. This is just a gut feeling thing for me and definitely not something I've researched in depth, but SoCal gets at least one devastating wildfire most years anyway and an earthquake in fire season has the potential to not only start several fires at once, but it could also seriously damage the road and water infrastructure needed to seriously fight them. I live in the Inland Empire and I think your vision of what's there is a bit skewed. It's one of the fastest growing regions of the country and is filling up with regular, boring tract housing. There's no chapparel and random brush around the houses, it's mostly suburban neighborhoods.  You'd probably have some fires started by gas leaks but it's not going to start a wildfire. Once you get to some of the outskirts of the area then yeah there's houses with multiple acre plots with dry chaparral around them but that's not what's going on around there for the most part.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 04:41
|
|
|
My vision of the Inland Empire has evolved significantly since I started watching the acclaimed documentary "Crazy Ex-Girlfriend."
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 04:51
|
|
|
Well I'm not saying that Corona is going to burn down or anything, but there's still a lot of dry, open country in and around the sprawl out there and things could get pretty hairy in an emergency.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 06:08
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Where did you get the impression that he was doing that? Panfilo posted:I was assuming some fire department/state agency was going to do this, not some goober with a gas can and a BBQ lighter dude. Please tell me why you decided to open your flabby loving jaw and let your thoughts spill out about a subject you have indicated that you are not only wholly unqualified to discuss, but were so thoroughly incurious about that you didn't even bother to look up the correct term for the concept you thought needed to be emphasized. You waste of oxygen. The Aardvark posted:God drat if you think everyone operates on the two extreme ends of anything then that explains a lot. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 07:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I've already covered the other possibility, and people seemed to be in a hurry to deny it. nice meltdown
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 07:27
|
|
|
Color me surprised that stone cold of all people is weighing in on the side of the uninformed yet opinionated. Who could have foreseen this shocking development.Skyscraper posted:I don't want people like you determining what other people and groups believe for the purposes of taking away their employment. This isn't some covert NKVD loyalty test, to be subject to that section of the penal code, you would have to knowingly be a member of a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the state. I can't see someone joining one of those by accident, then just deciding to stick with it. Do you think that group membership should not be scrutinized? Would you be OK with a member of the Aryan Nation on the state personnel board? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 07:46 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
lmao you are melting down over a guy asking if backburns would address the risk of wildfires
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 08:31
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:lmao you are melting down over a guy asking if backburns would address the risk of wildfires It's pretty amazing. BTW, I've heard the answer is mostly "yes," but there's understandably a real reluctance to do that sort of thing close to populated areas. Even if the fire doesn't get out of control, the smoke is a drat nuisance. You definitely see more emphasis on using controlled burns in the backcountry than you did a generation ago though and it's a good thing IMO, but it's still not really enough, especially with the effect the drought had on the climate here. Maybe we should try sending free range goats everywhere. That's what they do in Baja and it seems to work pretty well. Part of the problem is this is an ecosystem that needs brush fires. Natural fires are crucial in clearing brush build up and returning nutrients to the soil and many plants can't grow without them. The Giant Sequoia is one of those plants and, if you go to the park, you can see pine tree sized saplings from before they had fire fighters and little baby Sequioas from when the park service started doing controlled burns and absolutely nothing in between. Sequoias, at least, have the advantage of living a long loving time, but many plants haven't been so lucky. There's also issues with non-native plants, especially grasses and eucalyptus (the pyromaniac of the plant world), and deforestation. There used to be a lot more oak forests in California, but logging and grazing have turned a lot of it into grassland or scrub and the fires spread faster because of it.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 10:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So let me get this straight, you weren't sure about, and didn't bother to research, firefighting terminology, but you felt that your lack of even the most basic knowledge about the subject was no obstacle to voicing your suggestion about the importance of emphasizing backfires in vulnerable areas of the state? You really can't make this poo poo up
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 10:46
|
|
|
I get it. He spent eight years getting teased for clearing brush at his ranch.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
"Will the IE burn down?" is kind of silly because it absolutely could if the fire started in the right place. If it started on the edge of a housing development that borders the undeveloped dry chaparral then yeah, it could do a lot of damage. If it started in the middle of a modern cul-de-sac...probably not.
Megaman's Jockstrap fucked around with this message at 16:31 on May 24, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 16:28
|
|
|
stone cold posted:nice meltdown It's a prescribed self-burn. Clearly overdue.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 16:44
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Color me surprised that stone cold of all people is weighing in on the side of the uninformed yet opinionated. Who could have foreseen this shocking development. Sorry, you are not my lawyer, therefore your opinion is nothing other than a waste of electrons. I'm not sure why you decided to open your flabby loving jaw and let your thoughts spill out about a subject you have indicated that you are only wholly unqualified to discuss.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
This morning I saw two homeless people get in a fight at McDonald's. One asked the other if she was waiting in line and she flipped out and punched the little dog he was carrying. He started windmilling his free arm at her and knocked her backpack loose, releasing hordes of millipedes and beetles abs God knows what other insects this woman was collecting (she's notorious for flicking insect pupae at people). Anyway I can honestly say both of those homeless people were more reasonable in their conflict resolution than Dead Reckoning is in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This isn't some covert NKVD loyalty test, to be subject to that section of the penal code, you would have to knowingly be a member of a group dedicated to the violent overthrow of the state. I can't see someone joining one of those by accident, then just deciding to stick with it. Do you think that group membership should not be scrutinized? Would you be OK with a member of the Aryan Nation on the state personnel board? I'm pretty sure members of the Aryan Nation have other problems that would get in the way of their being hired than simply belonging to the Aryan Nation. You really don't need to specifically make a law that says they're not allowed.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I'm pretty sure members of the Aryan Nation have other problems that would get in the way of their being hired than simply belonging to the Aryan Nation. You really don't need to specifically make a law that says they're not allowed. yeah but what if
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2017 19:02
|
|