|
The Glumslinger posted:Oh poo poo, I thought that was where it connected to the tower it is, it's just not supposed to be worn through due to metal on metal contact in a windy area for 100 years.  Those C-hooks were the connection points for the insulators to the tower, which are these guys from a different tower design.  Here's a picture of the transmission line that failed in a different point where it's worked itself down through the metal quite a ways  And here's another C-hook and the attachment point on the tower it was on, showing the damage on both.
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 02:59
|
|
|
... And somebody climbed up there to make a visual inspection in the past year and signed off on that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 03:05
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:... And somebody climbed up there to make a visual inspection in the past year and signed off on that? No, probably not
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
that has to be gross, if not criminal, negligence
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 03:06
|
|
|
Kuvo posted:that has to be gross, if not criminal, negligence its actually the ability of the free market to perform services more efficiently than big government
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 03:23
|
|
|
before they died horribly in the fires some of those people probably had their retirement funds benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars pg&e diverted from their maintenance budget to stock buybacks so it's impossible to say whether it was bad or not actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 03:38
|
|
|
that solid inch of steel thats missing wasnt worn down, it was converted to shareholder value
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 03:41
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:that solid inch of steel thats missing wasnt worn down, it was converted to shareholder value 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 03:53
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:that solid inch of steel thats missing wasnt worn down, it was converted to shareholder value 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
Corporations can't compete against the government... Wait, it's: Corporations save way more money then the government... gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 04:41
|
|
|
AngryBooch posted:https://laist.com/2019/10/28/lapd-george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney-da-jackie-lacey.php Probably but not officially, they are mostly trying to get people to go a debate they're holding this Wednesday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2019 20:01
|
|
|
Regarding potential public purchase of PG&E, I just saw an interesting analysis of a proposed municipalization of a utility serving a medium-large city. It cited this publicly available analysis of a proposed Pueblo municipalization: https://ceadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Pueblo-Feasibility-Study.pdf Page 19 has some nice numbers on post-2000 municipalization efforts. Of 64 attempts since 2000, 44 were rejected/abandoned, 11 succeeded (2 were later sold back to the parent utility), and 9 are pending. Page 57 goes into the history of municipalization of utilities in the US and why the average age of the 20 largest is 85 years old, with only two of those happening since the 1940s. Beyond general historical trends, the financing analysis for this particular city looked grim on a quick scan. I wonder how ugly the numbers would be for any municipality trying to buy their local chunk of PG&E and splintering the overall system. (PG&E, incidentally, was/is the target of 9 of the 64 muncipalizations mentioned since 2000; only one was approved, and it was sold back to PG&E in 2014.) I gather that most if not all of these efforts are focused on local distribution, it's not obvious that any cities own significant transmission assets, especially given cross-state issues. And of course publicly owned utilities don't have sovereign immunity to lawsuits.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2019 00:03
|
|
|
UCSC grad students are going on a wildcat strike this week, refusing to submit grades until they get a cost of living adjustment https://twitter.com/bananaslums/status/1203850509389402112?s=19 https://twitter.com/bananaslums/status/1203915618669318144?s=19 https://twitter.com/bananaslums/status/1204077764778708993?s=19 https://twitter.com/bananaslums/status/1204090529190961152?s=19 I was moderately active in the TA union at UCSC, but I graduated a little over a year ago so most of my info is second hand or out of date. But roughly, the background is this:
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 03:27
|
|
|
As UCSC alumni, I say: go Fighting Banana Slug grads.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 03:31
|
|
|
Hell yeah solidarity with the slugs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 03:35
|
|
|
as someone who was very active in the grad student union and is still somewhat plugged in i feel some necessary context is that as evil and insidious as they are, no-strike clauses are in virtually every collective bargaining agreement in this country and as far as i know every single higher-ed CBA. getting a CBA without a no-strike clause would require a level of militancy and organization we havent seen in this country for a hundred years. thankfully though higher-ed unions are seeing the same resurgence in membership and activism that many other unions, most notably teachers' unions, have seen in the last few years. earlier this year the university of california academic researchers (ie, scientists who arent professors and dont teach classes) unionized. this is the first union for these kinds of workers in the country. they ratified their CBA last month: http://uaw5810.org/ars-have-ratified-their-new-contract for whatever reasons santa cruz has been one of our least organized campuses for a lot of years so if they have turned it around and this action actually has a lot of participation that would be good news the last contract ratification vote was also fairly close statewide (around 60-40 iirc) and not what i would call an overwhelming approval
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 06:44
|
|
|
That’s wild that UCSC is considered a rural campus. Wages not reflecting cost of living seems to be a countywide problem though. Every job I’ve seen there in my field pays 15k less than other places with a comparable cost of living like Santa Barbara.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 06:51
|
|
|
wages not having kept up with the cost of living is kind of a thing yeah
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 06:55
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:as someone who was very active in the grad student union and is still somewhat plugged in i feel some necessary context is that as evil and insidious as they are, no-strike clauses are in virtually every collective bargaining agreement in this country and as far as i know every single higher-ed CBA. getting a CBA without a no-strike clause would require a level of militancy and organization we havent seen in this country for a hundred years. Along with what you were saying above, my wife is part of the apc union(https://apc1002.org/about-apc/our-contract/) and they recently sent out a survey regarding the willingness of members to strike and what their opinions on strikes in general were. I didn't understand why they were sending it until just now, so thanks for the additional context.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:as someone who was very active in the grad student union and is still somewhat plugged in i feel some necessary context is that as evil and insidious as they are, no-strike clauses are in virtually every collective bargaining agreement in this country and as far as i know every single higher-ed CBA. getting a CBA without a no-strike clause would require a level of militancy and organization we havent seen in this country for a hundred years. Oh poo poo, the academic researchers unionized? That's awesome, UCs have huge research departments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 07:41
|
|
|
UC is still pulling some fucky stuff with the Academic Researchers that I really can't get into too many details of. They've been using the academic researchers for years to undermine the staff researcher* positions that already existed (and have been union represented for a long time), and were not too happy that suddenly the pseudo-postdocs hired on continuously renewing 6-month appointments were trying to collectively bargain. We'll see how it shakes out. *What's the difference between a staff researcher and an academic researcher? Fun question, the job descriptions sound the same but one group is union represented while the other group was not. Guess which of the two UC allows you to hire overnight while the other takes 4 months to officially hire?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 08:43
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:as someone who was very active in the grad student union and is still somewhat plugged in i feel some necessary context is that as evil and insidious as they are, no-strike clauses are in virtually every collective bargaining agreement in this country and as far as i know every single higher-ed CBA. getting a CBA without a no-strike clause would require a level of militancy and organization we havent seen in this country for a hundred years. Cheers 2865 comrade!  Thanks for clarifying all of this, I didn't mean for my post to come across as misleading in any way. In particular I didn't mean to imply that UAW 2865 did anything wrong by agreeing to a contract with a no-strike clause; there was no way there would be any agreement at all without that. And 60-40 is about the number I remember too; "overwhelming" was probably the wrong word there but I think a 20-point margin is at least very solid approval. It's super cool that the GSRs unionized. That had been a goal of the union since well before I got involved (probably circa 2013 or so), and it was awesome seeing it come together in my last year or two at UCSC. I'm surprised you felt as though UCSC was one of the least organized campuses, my recollection was the opposite. I remember the raw numbers took a dive at UCSC a few years ago when the readers joined the union, since all the sudden the number of people represented went way up but it was slow going getting the readers to sign up as members, but I thought our numbers were pretty good with respect to the TAs. Am I misremembering? It's also possible my memory is mistaking militancy for membership; my recollection is that the UCSC activists were always trying to get the other schools to take more radical action. The UCSC union could effectively shut down campus when they needed to through an alliance with the activist-y undergrads, so they wielded a lot of power over the admin and knew it. E: wait was it the GSRs unionizing or another group? For some reason I could swear I heard that the GSRs unionized but the above post makes me think that wasn't the case
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 08:50
|
|
|
Gsrs haven't unionized yet, just the teaching assistants (2865 right? Or are they upte)
slicing up eyeballs fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 08:53
|
|
|
the grad student researchers are not unionized, that campaign is just beginning. it is the academic researchers who just unionized which are scientists and technical staff who often are things like post-postdoc non-tenure-track scientists or project managers or expert operators of big science machines e: i did not go to santa cruz so dont have experience with what you said about ability to shut down the campus or enforcing picket lines but when i was privy to the statewide numbers i remember santa cruz was one of the lower campuses in membership percentage (for TAs, graders, and tutors) Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 09:09 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 08:58
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:the grad student researchers are not unionized, that campaign is just beginning. it is the academic researchers who just unionized which are scientists and technical staff who often are things like post-postdoc non-tenure-track scientists or project managers or expert operators of big science machines Just a correction here. Technical STAFF have been unionized for quite awhile through UPTE which represents several of the bargaining units at UC. The group that just unionized are the "non-faculty Academic Researchers". These people are not staff and receive merit raises in the same manner as faculty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 09:08
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Just a correction here. Technical STAFF have been unionized for quite awhile through UPTE which represents several of the bargaining units at UC. The group that just unionized are the "non-faculty Academic Researchers". These people are not staff and receive merit raises in the same manner as faculty. ah, right. VikingofRock posted:E: wait was it the GSRs unionizing or another group? For some reason I could swear I heard that the GSRs unionized but the above post makes me think that wasn't the case student researchers were legally barred from unionizing by california state law until around 2016 or 2017 when the law was changed after students pushed the legislature pretty hard, but they have not actually submitted a card campaign to the california public employee relations board yet because these campaigns take time Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Dec 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 09:18
|
|
|
Gotcha, thanks everyone for the info. As I said, my info is all second hand or out of date nowadays, but I still thought it was worth posting in this thread. It's awesome that the Academic Researchers are unionized now; hopefully that can help convince the GSRs to unionize too. And if the wildcat slugs are successful, maybe an extra $1200 / month will help convince the GSRs too. E: slicing up eyeballs posted:Gsrs haven't unionized yet, just the teaching assistants (2865 right? Or are they upte) Yeah, TAs are UAW 2865
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 09:22
|
|
|
Kenning posted:Hell yeah solidarity with the slugs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 18:22
|
|
|
Im gonna have to strengthen my strangling grip in preperation for this poo poo. Gonna have to swear off my vows to never road rage again so i can grab some Upper Class White/Asian Professional's neck. https://www.ocregister.com/2019/12/10/toll-lanes-on-the-5-in-orange-county-it-could-happen-in-a-decade/ quote:The OCTA and Caltrans are spending more than $40 million, much of it from the half-cent sales tax voters approved in 2006, to add a second carpool lane in each direction on the 5 from the 55 to the 57 Freeway by 2021. That lane shouldn’t be tolled so soon after it’s built, OCTA Board Chair Tim Shaw said. “This strikes me as breaking a promise.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 19:16
|
|
|
"This time adding an extra lane to 'fix traffic' will work!" he says, endlessly bashing his face into a brick wall.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:12
|
|
|
In non-strike news (good luck and solidarity to the UC Santa Cruz strikers) it looks like the UBI experiment in Stockton is going well enough to generate some positive reporting: https://www.businessinsider.com/stockton-basic-income-test-success-mayor-tubbs-2019-12quote:In February, the city began distributing $500 monthly stipends to 125 residents who live at or below the median income line (about $46,000 annually). The stipends are a test of basic income, a policy approach that would essentially pay people simply for being alive. Nice seeing people being able to get a little added dignity to their lives, and hopefully experiments like these alongside the quixotic Yang campaign actually result in some national attention on the topic. Edit: Sydin posted:"This time adding an extra lane to 'fix traffic' will work!" he says, endlessly bashing his face into a brick wall. IIRC don't studies show that traffic inevitably increases to meet or exceed the new lane capacity? Basically adding the lanes encourages more driving which necessitates more lanes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:13
|
|
|
carpool lanes are supposed to fix traffic by taking cars off the road (since now supposedly more people are carpooling) but i know of no studies that actually looked at whether people do in fact shift to carpooling when the lane is added
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:carpool lanes are supposed to fix traffic by taking cars off the road (since now supposedly more people are carpooling) but i know of no studies that actually looked at whether people do in fact shift to carpooling when the lane is added I've seen a study that says toll lanes directly increase traffic though, i'll see if I can find it
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:
yeah pretty much
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:IIRC don't studies show that traffic inevitably increases to meet or exceed the new lane capacity? Basically adding the lanes encourages more driving which necessitates more lanes? Yes, adding lanes reduces traffic in the short term, but then because traffic is now eased it encourages more people commute via car, which increases traffic, which puts you right back where you started or even worse. The other issue is that even if you could expand freeways infinitely or stack them ultimately all of these cars have to dump out on to 2-3 lane surface streets with traffic lights, which would cause backups at exits which then eventually back up general traffic on the freeway. This is also by the way why even Elon's early pie in the sky loop concepts are bullshit: at some point all those cars moving super fast and efficiently through the loop have to dump out on surface streets not equipped to handled that high a capacity. Shear Modulus posted:carpool lanes are supposed to fix traffic by taking cars off the road (since now supposedly more people are carpooling) but i know of no studies that actually looked at whether people do in fact shift to carpooling when the lane is added Even if carpool lanes take enough cars off the road to ease traffic you get the same effect as having added a lane: traffic is eased, so more people opt to drive, which ramps traffic back up. Ultimately there are just too many people sprawled out over too large an area trying to all move at the same time to the same tiny area where all the jobs are. As much as "Train good Car bad" is a truism, even throwing up huge amounts of public transit can only do so much to mitigate the insane levels of urban sprawl in California.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:24
|
|
|
More lanes = more traffic, always and forever. You can see this in San Diego, where the 5-805 merge is something like 23 lanes across at one point - and it still siezes up like clockwork every rush hour. Tom Vanderbilt's "Traffic: Why We Drive the Way We Do (and What It Says About Us)" is a good non-technical overview of the issues surrounding traffic and congestion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:36
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:IIRC don't studies show that traffic inevitably increases to meet or exceed the new lane capacity? Basically adding the lanes encourages more driving which necessitates more lanes? This is called "induced demand" and we've known it was a fact since like the 1960s or 70s. But voters frankly don't know or don't believe it or don't care, because it's one of those tragedy of the commons things where someone already coping with horrible traffic every day is very hard to convince that adding a lane to their commute won't make things better, and, the cost is distributed in a way that they don't see it. In theory (heh) it'd be possible for a metro area to add lanes without creating induced demand, if they also outright banned the creation of new housing units along the transit corridor getting the new lanes. That's all but impossible for most areas to manage. It's much better to build public transit, and induce demand along those public transit lines, instead: but, conversely, those are often the areas where new housing is happening the least, because it requires replacing lower-density with higher-density in already suburbanized/urbanized areas, rather than just eating up empty greenfields on the suburban/rural margin. And sometimes the public transit is implemented in such a way that it fails to induce demand (because it sucks): see for example, some of san jose's light rail system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
I mean, in the real world "induced demand" is a thing, because people want to go places but they loving can't, so as soon as it's easier to get there, they actually go. When more traffic bandwidth is opened up, more people use it, it doesn't just fill up with imaginary cars that create the traffic. Look at the 73 toll road - there's never traffic, even though people desperately want to get between the places that it leads, because it's too expensive. You can also blame commercial traffic instead of commuter traffic. People being able to quickly and easily move around is a collective benefit that everyone enjoys. Businesses putting trucks on the street more often/further/for more hours of the day only helps the businesses that are willing to race to the bottom, and is a big source of traffic since those trucks drive differently than passenger cars. Just-in-time logistics are a blight on the world for the way they shift costs on to the public to make inventory easier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:IIRC don't studies show that traffic inevitably increases to meet or exceed the new lane capacity? Basically adding the lanes encourages more driving which necessitates more lanes? People love repeating it though. One problem is that by the time a lane is added theres already enough people to fill it. Look at the greater LA area population in 2000 compared to now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2019 21:54
|
|