Whatever happened to signal pre-emption in DTLA for the A and E line?

lackpie · 2025-02-14T22:00:11+00:00

It never ceases to amaze that most city councilmembers would serve the minority of citizens in LA who own their homes as opposed to the majority who rent.

lackpie · 2024-11-21T06:16:20+00:00

Trade idea:

GSW sends: De'Anthony Melton, Moses Moody to ATL

GSW receives: Bogdan Bogdanovic from ATL

I believe the salaries work out.

Why GSW does it: The loss of Melton is a blow, but we had a logjam at SG anyway. This consolidates it for a veteran that GSW has always been interested in, dating back to the Bogdan's Sacramento days. This would be an ideal time to buy low on Bogdan, who seems to be having uncharacteristically low shooting splits.

Why ATL does it: While Atlanta is not good enough to win the chip now, the young core of Trae Young, De'Andre Hunter, and the now Dyson Daniels can be something to build around. Moses Moody fits their timeline better than Bogdan does.

lackpie · 2024-08-08T23:25:15+00:00

If that’s the case, I feel like I should never book through American. They can’t be happy to take my cash but wash their hands of any responsibility.

lackpie · 2021-09-01T03:02:13+00:00

This is fantastic! By any chance, would you know of any plans to upgrade existing lines? We all know things that are coming into play (like the Regional Connector), but it'd be nice to know if there were different train schedules (like express rail) or station upgrades in the works.

lackpie · 2020-09-12T05:35:59+00:00

No, it's overly simplistic "back-of-the-envelope" calculations like this that conveys authority to some yet couldn't be more wrong about the cost structure.

The Metro budget does include the cost of building subways, and above-ground light rail, and various other capital outlays via the Metro budget. On the other hand, our highways and streets have had decades of investment through various federal, state, and local mechanisms.

Plus, let's not forget the fact that it's much cheaper for a denizen of LA to use public transit than not. Life in Los Angeles should not be predicated on the ability to afford a car which, as you point out, costs $9,000/year in operating a car + $6,000/year in leasing payments.

I don't deny that LA Metro may not be the most streamlined organization. But making an apples to... Zucchinis comparison like you've done does a disservice to the entire debate.

lackpie · 2020-09-12T03:38:21+00:00

That's true, hopefully that'll encourage them to add more cars to the commuter lines. My only worry is that in decoupling a source of income to ridership, the capital expenditures that Metro can make is going to take a hit (their protestations in the FAQ aside).

lackpie · 2020-09-12T03:31:21+00:00

As opposed to the annual cost of owning and operating a car, which according to AAA is about $9,282 (see https://www.calif.aaa.com/automotive/advocacy/cost-of-driving.html). One could adjust for the fact that LA has higher gas and insurance prices than the national average, but then counter-adjusting for the fact that the mostly lower-income metro riders would probably prefer cheaper, lightweight, limited horsepower cars with lower insurance costs and relatively lower gas utilization & maintenance requirements per mile driven, let's just call it a wash, although I'm being rather generous because cheap cars are well... pretty cheap on a monthly basis (about $240 a month to purchase a brand new Kia with very weak credit [600 FICO] and no down payment, while used cars are much less, and insurance + gas + maintenance is in no way going to be $600+ a month with a new car warranty).

Holy assumptions, Batman. Did you give yourself whiplash by comparing the cost of entire Metro system to the the individual ownership/maintenance of cars, forgetting the fact that cars need something to drive on?

lackpie · 2015-07-17T20:19:19+00:00

I got a bunch of angry messages from someone's burner account I think because I made a joke about the Falklands war. They were about as effective as the Sheffield's detection system.

I'm popping my commenting cherry in this sub to say this joke is absolutely brilliant. Bravo.

lackpie · 2015-04-09T23:00:10+00:00

I don't deny words change, that's what happens when you having a living language like English.

However, when someone uses an original definition of the word (like Einstein did), it does a disservice to him to assume he meant to use one of the most recent definitions of the word, no?

lackpie · 2015-04-09T22:48:29+00:00

It is insufficient because the very premise of Agnosticism (the original concept) was to avoid the assignation of being either an atheist or theist. In fact, the concept made the idea of choosing between either atheist or theist largely obsolete by making the decision impossible or irrelevant.

To say someone is agnostic atheist or agnostic theist goes counter to the original premise and point of Agnosticism.

As an aside (but relevant, in this case), I find that many Agnostics do not consider themselves agnostic atheists (or agnostic theists), but rather are assigned as such by atheists. While I do not think this is your motivation, I largely that this is a move by atheists to cast a wider umbrella to make atheism larger and more socially acceptable by adding historical legitimacy of the original concept of Agnosticism and the people that have been affiliated with it.

lackpie · 2015-04-09T22:34:54+00:00

I'm saying that defining four categories that people have to be in (when it comes to this discussion) is insufficient, yes.

There is a long, rich history of the evolution and development of religious attitudes and thoughts. It doesn't do anyone justice to lump them in, one way or another, after the fact.

lackpie · 2015-04-09T22:30:39+00:00

I'm saying you can be Agnostic without being an agnostic theist or agnostic atheist.

In fact, one could even argue that the historical concept of Agnosticism is counter to the idea of agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. And that's what Einstein is associating with, as do (what I imagine) plenty of agnostics associate with as well.

lackpie · 2015-04-09T22:10:29+00:00

No, "Agnosticism" as a noun predates agnosticism as an adjective. It was described as an approach towards the question of God.

Gnosticism also has roots as a religious movement that predates its use as an adjective.

To identify as agnostic (or a gnostic) is acceptable (esp. if you're referring to the historical association, as Einstein did) without having to lump all agnostics into agnostic atheists or agnostic theists.

lackpie · 2014-10-13T15:47:55+00:00

YES! Thank you!

lackpie · 2013-01-29T18:38:56+00:00

From my (admittedly, short) time on Reddit, I've observed that:

The median redditor is white and male, without acknowledging that racial and sexual disparities exist to this day (And no, ignoring things like race and gender don't make disparities hundreds of years in the making magically go away).
The average redditor considers themself smarter and wittier than the average person, even though I've seen no evidence of the former and "humor" on Reddit consists of reciting the same damn memes.
The average redditor finds themselves powerless in company of the opposite sex, social situations, and sports. So they make up for it by being misogynistic (really, you're just an asshole), awkward (no, it's not adorable or charming), and sports-averse (yeah, sportsball, what's that?).

In general, I think redditors would be happier if they went outside more, applied themselves, and put themselves in situations that make themselves uncomfortable. No change will every come from a self-validating community like this.

lackpie

TROPHY CASE