^^Pretty interesting post.
TIL: Today I Learned
- Thread starter Cutlass
- Start date
- Status
Goodfella
Showing results for
Truthy and Adjidica's posts are exactly right. I wrote a post about this in the Tesla thread, where someone similarly claimed that GM killed LA's public transit. GM may have put one of the nails in the streetcar coffin, but it was one of many nails and not even the last one. And no one thinks this is a crank conspiracy, because it seems to come up in literally every conversation about LA transportation ever. The irony behind the love affair with the extinct streetcars and the hatred of the car-dependent sprawl is that the streetcars were created to enable the sprawl. A major reason Pacific Electric even existed was that Henry Huntington needed a way (before cars) to make his far-flung suburban tract housing real estate empire feasible. Essentially, he needed to give people a way to commute to the city before much of the city even existed.
Whenever people talk about LA's lack of transit it always seems to go one of two ways: 1) turns into a chicken vs. the egg conversation about whether LA lacks transit because it has a car dependence or it has a car dependence because it lacks transit (for an example, see Timsup vs. Rah) or 2) someone insists that LA would have transit but GM killed it (for an example, see Owen). But these conversations always neglect that LA has been fighting with itself to create a subway/metro system for 50 years. In the late 60s, less than a decade after the last streetcar died, mayor Tom Bradley was elected on a mandate to bring a subway to Los Angeles. Why was this? Because after people basically voted with their wallets to kill the streetcars, they got buyer's remorse, felt nostalgic, and wanted them back. On top of that, pollution and traffic were starting to get really bad. But they didn't want more lame streetcars, but a modern transit system like that of New York or London (yes, people have been drawing these comparisons about LA for 50 years. This debate is not new.). But then what happened? First, popular support for rail waned almost as soon as it kicked off and Bradley failed numerous times to get ballot approval to issue transportation bonds even after being elected on a transportation mandate. This ebb and flow of popular support has been an important trend in LA's transit debate ever since. Secondly, city politics surrounding which routes to fund first paralyzed progress. For example, county supervisor Kenneth Hahn wanted the first line to go through South LA to better service poor black neighborhoods. Mayor Bradley wanted the first line to go through the wealthier, but more urban, West LA neighborhoods. Without any agreement, it was hard for them to get things off the ground. Third, the city ran into federal funding issues. While the federal government enthusiastically funded rail in the early 70s, the Carter and Reagan administrations thought it was a waste of time. This further exacerbated the funding issue in point 1). Fourth, hardcore NIMBYism (related to point 1) helped ensure projects would stay tied up in lawsuits and environmental reviews (see below).
By the early 80s, the city finally got the funding and support for a light-rail line from Long Beach to Downtown. By the 90s, they mustered the cash and support for a light-rail line along the newly built 105 freeway (this made sense because they could just stick the tracks on an elevated section along the freeway while it was being built). However, the city's largest urban corridor (which generally runs along Wilshire from downtown to Santa Monica) lacked a rail line. City politics and NIMBYism kept this project (the purple line) at bay. Motivated by a fear that rail would excessively urbanize their neighborhoods and ship in homeless people and drug dealers, residents of neighborhoods like Hancock Park and Beverly Hills (which is technically an independent city) used their access to politicians and ability to litigate to indefinitely delay the purple line project. In the 80s, a Ross clothing store randomly exploded due to a ruptured methane gas pocket that somehow got trapped underground from the city's oil field days (early 1900s). This added another element of opposition: residents literally complained that subway construction would trigger additional explosions. Congressman Henry Waxman used this opposition to further kill federal funding. After years of this, West LA residents started to warm up to the purple line subway and the city is now finally trying to finish it. However, it still faces legal issues. The city of Beverly Hills is still trying to kill the project, but now on the basis that tunneling under Beverly Hills high school will cause the school to collapse (or something like that). While the purple line faced hurdles from the 80s onwards, the city managed to squeeze in a few other lines (the expo line and red line) in the 90s and 2000s. But even these were shrouded in drama. Proposed routes for the red line in the San Fernando Valley had to be re-done because Orthodox Jews in studio city thought it would disrupt their ability to walk to temple on Sabbath. In Hollywood, residents similarly complained that the redline would gentrify their neighborhood, and became even more apprehensive after a tunnel collapsed during construction. There are numerous other examples.
Here we are in 2019 after 50 years of trying to build a metro. We sort of have a rail system (but with declining ridership) and the long-anticipated purple line is getting built with a completion date of 2026 (which will probably get delayed to 2030). To summarize, GM isn't uniquely responsible for killing LA's streetcars, and LA has been struggling to build a transit system for half a century. For that, we can blame LA residents, their politics, and the cost of building metro systems in the late 20th and 21st centuries.
Whenever people talk about LA's lack of transit it always seems to go one of two ways: 1) turns into a chicken vs. the egg conversation about whether LA lacks transit because it has a car dependence or it has a car dependence because it lacks transit (for an example, see Timsup vs. Rah) or 2) someone insists that LA would have transit but GM killed it (for an example, see Owen). But these conversations always neglect that LA has been fighting with itself to create a subway/metro system for 50 years. In the late 60s, less than a decade after the last streetcar died, mayor Tom Bradley was elected on a mandate to bring a subway to Los Angeles. Why was this? Because after people basically voted with their wallets to kill the streetcars, they got buyer's remorse, felt nostalgic, and wanted them back. On top of that, pollution and traffic were starting to get really bad. But they didn't want more lame streetcars, but a modern transit system like that of New York or London (yes, people have been drawing these comparisons about LA for 50 years. This debate is not new.). But then what happened? First, popular support for rail waned almost as soon as it kicked off and Bradley failed numerous times to get ballot approval to issue transportation bonds even after being elected on a transportation mandate. This ebb and flow of popular support has been an important trend in LA's transit debate ever since. Secondly, city politics surrounding which routes to fund first paralyzed progress. For example, county supervisor Kenneth Hahn wanted the first line to go through South LA to better service poor black neighborhoods. Mayor Bradley wanted the first line to go through the wealthier, but more urban, West LA neighborhoods. Without any agreement, it was hard for them to get things off the ground. Third, the city ran into federal funding issues. While the federal government enthusiastically funded rail in the early 70s, the Carter and Reagan administrations thought it was a waste of time. This further exacerbated the funding issue in point 1). Fourth, hardcore NIMBYism (related to point 1) helped ensure projects would stay tied up in lawsuits and environmental reviews (see below).
By the early 80s, the city finally got the funding and support for a light-rail line from Long Beach to Downtown. By the 90s, they mustered the cash and support for a light-rail line along the newly built 105 freeway (this made sense because they could just stick the tracks on an elevated section along the freeway while it was being built). However, the city's largest urban corridor (which generally runs along Wilshire from downtown to Santa Monica) lacked a rail line. City politics and NIMBYism kept this project (the purple line) at bay. Motivated by a fear that rail would excessively urbanize their neighborhoods and ship in homeless people and drug dealers, residents of neighborhoods like Hancock Park and Beverly Hills (which is technically an independent city) used their access to politicians and ability to litigate to indefinitely delay the purple line project. In the 80s, a Ross clothing store randomly exploded due to a ruptured methane gas pocket that somehow got trapped underground from the city's oil field days (early 1900s). This added another element of opposition: residents literally complained that subway construction would trigger additional explosions. Congressman Henry Waxman used this opposition to further kill federal funding. After years of this, West LA residents started to warm up to the purple line subway and the city is now finally trying to finish it. However, it still faces legal issues. The city of Beverly Hills is still trying to kill the project, but now on the basis that tunneling under Beverly Hills high school will cause the school to collapse (or something like that). While the purple line faced hurdles from the 80s onwards, the city managed to squeeze in a few other lines (the expo line and red line) in the 90s and 2000s. But even these were shrouded in drama. Proposed routes for the red line in the San Fernando Valley had to be re-done because Orthodox Jews in studio city thought it would disrupt their ability to walk to temple on Sabbath. In Hollywood, residents similarly complained that the redline would gentrify their neighborhood, and became even more apprehensive after a tunnel collapsed during construction. There are numerous other examples.
Here we are in 2019 after 50 years of trying to build a metro. We sort of have a rail system (but with declining ridership) and the long-anticipated purple line is getting built with a completion date of 2026 (which will probably get delayed to 2030). To summarize, GM isn't uniquely responsible for killing LA's streetcars, and LA has been struggling to build a transit system for half a century. For that, we can blame LA residents, their politics, and the cost of building metro systems in the late 20th and 21st centuries.
I think it still makes for a good case study on why conspiracy theories are so popular despite being so often wrong. It's a classic because it's a coherent and simple narrative, pitting good guys against bad guys. It explains simply a complex and extremely boring process that resulted from the decisions of millions of people over decades. It invokes nostalgia, outrage at big companies, and anger at perceived injustices. It rests on a foundation of truthiness. And critically, the story can be told much more easily than it can be debunked.
SS-18 ICBM
Oscillator
The suppression of research on the health effects of smoking by tobacco companies is but one factor in the previous popularity of smoking, but that doesn't absolve those merchants of doubt of any wrongdoing or deserved condemnation. Accomplices are culpable.
I have yet to see any evidence that NCL played a particularly important role in killing off streetcars. My previous post pointed out their role was probably pretty negligible. Insofar, as there's evidence that they played a role in killing off streetcars, I've seen no evidence that it was nefarious. In the 1940s, no one was sitting around thinking there was anything immoral about replacing streetcars with buses. All of the supposed immorality of the supposed acts seems to be a projection of our own preferences for electric mass transit onto a series of mundane decisions that transpired throughout the 30s and 40s. Again, the monopoly shenanigans had nothing to do with destroying streetcars. Plus, that's not where the goalpost is. A strong claim was made that GM is primarily or solely responsible for the decline of streetcars in the US. Spin that into a greatly diluted claim if you must, but the original claim holds no water.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
TIL (well, technically, it was yesterday) that Ruth Carter, who the Oscar for costumes for Black Panther last night, designed the goldfish boots for I'm Gonna Git You, Sucka.
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
TIL that Mexicans have won the Academy Award for Best Director 5 out of the last 6 years. Cuaron twice, Innaritu twice, and Del Toro.
BenitoChavez
What business is it of yours?
TIL that your grandparent's diet can affect your health.
Every cell in your body has a complete set of DNA to form anything from a muscle cell to a neuron. But what tells each cell to become what it is, is called gene expression and is determined by “methyl tags”. Methyl tags are hydrogen carbon compounds which can attach to a gene and block other proteins or enzymes from attaching thus preventing the gene from being expressed. These methyl tags can be changed based on environmental factors like smoking, diet, stress, etc.
Moreover, when a new embryo is created there is a process that removes the methyl tags that come from the parent's DNA but this process is imperfect so some of the tags remain. Researchers think that in humans it can take up to 3 generations before these tags are removed. So the environmental factors that your parents and even grandparents go through can actually affect the expression of your own DNA. Since DNA expression plays a large part in basically everything about you, your grandparent's diet can affect your health.
Pretty cool
Every cell in your body has a complete set of DNA to form anything from a muscle cell to a neuron. But what tells each cell to become what it is, is called gene expression and is determined by “methyl tags”. Methyl tags are hydrogen carbon compounds which can attach to a gene and block other proteins or enzymes from attaching thus preventing the gene from being expressed. These methyl tags can be changed based on environmental factors like smoking, diet, stress, etc.
Moreover, when a new embryo is created there is a process that removes the methyl tags that come from the parent's DNA but this process is imperfect so some of the tags remain. Researchers think that in humans it can take up to 3 generations before these tags are removed. So the environmental factors that your parents and even grandparents go through can actually affect the expression of your own DNA. Since DNA expression plays a large part in basically everything about you, your grandparent's diet can affect your health.
Pretty cool
TIL that your grandparent's diet can affect your health.
Every cell in your body has a complete set of DNA to form anything from a muscle cell to a neuron. But what tells each cell to become what it is, is called gene expression and is determined by “methyl tags”. Methyl tags are hydrogen carbon compounds which can attach to a gene and block other proteins or enzymes from attaching thus preventing the gene from being expressed. These methyl tags can be changed based on environmental factors like smoking, diet, stress, etc.
Moreover, when a new embryo is created there is a process that removes the methyl tags that come from the parent's DNA but this process is imperfect so some of the tags remain. Researchers think that in humans it can take up to 3 generations before these tags are removed. So the environmental factors that your parents and even grandparents go through can actually affect the expression of your own DNA. Since DNA expression plays a large part in basically everything about you, your grandparent's diet can affect your health.
Pretty cool
Another one I once heard and a bit similar
That gene expression could also be influenced by semen (of possibly someone else) before a sperm cell of the final semen leads to successful insemination... influencing the final height when fullgrown
Both is accurate, but not sure how big the effect of the latter is.
There is a research paper describing how kids, born by Dutch parents who experienced the last famine in this country, show imprints in their genome of that, despite the fact that they were born after it and did not have any malnutrition on their own.
There is a research paper describing how kids, born by Dutch parents who experienced the last famine in this country, show imprints in their genome of that, despite the fact that they were born after it and did not have any malnutrition on their own.
aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
Zkribbler
Deity
Dustin Hoffman was supposed play the Nazi playwright in The Producers, but he bailed for the lead role in The Graduate.
BenitoChavez
What business is it of yours?
TIL that XKCD has a tooltip on all its comics when you hove your cursor over it. I don't know how I managed to go this long without noticing it
Morty
Prince
hobbsyoyo
Deity
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,575
The indoor grow scene is much more due to prohibition than optimizing yields. I'm sure you can raise bigger, more lucrative crops indoors than out but it is extremely hard to cope with the economies of scale that normal crop cultivation offers over indoor grows. The only reason I think the indoor grows are cost-competitive is because of the perverse incentives forced on producers by prohibition. Once that's gone, I expect most growing to move outside but I could be wrong.
edit: retracted in entirety
edit: retracted in entirety
Last edited:
Lexicus
Deity
I'm not sure that's entirely true. I don't know too much about this but I was under the impression that hydroponics is basically necessary for high-tier product because it gives much more control over all the inputs than outdoor growing does.
- Status
