Most Based Comments

Basedness: 🔥🔘🔘🔘🔘

True, but not universally across nations and religions as this fricking guy. (146)

What did he do? (50)

Basedness: 🔥🔘🔘🔘🔘

9 million per home! How?In Chile, that is much more prone to earthquakes sometimes x1000 stronger than LA (most seismic country in the planet btw), most modern constructions (including houses) are made from concrete, and they are earthquake proof, and they definitely don't cost anywhere near 9 million (323)

It may just be because of their extreme building regulations permits and purchasing power parity (10)

Basedness: 🔥🔘🔘🔘🔘

/u/inspectcloser Building inspector here. A lot of these comments are dumb stating that concrete and steel can't hold up to an earthquake yet look at all the high rise buildings in LA and earthquake prone regions.The video makes a good point that the US society largely conforms to building HOUSES with wood.Luckily steel framed houses are a thing and would likely be seen in place of wood framed houses in these regions prone to fire. Pair that with fiber cement board siding and you have yourself a home that looks like any other but is much more fire resistive.Engineering has come a long way (1116)

What's the cost difference vs stick built? (18)

Angriest Comments

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Path dependence is certainly a factor - but it's hardly dominant, or even the biggest one for most areas. More importantly though: for a fire that severe, there is a fairly good chance the concrete building will need to be demolished anyway. Concrete won't burn, but it can be damaged by fires in other ways: expansion, corrosion, spalling, cracking, etc. This is also a major factor in other regions in the US with different disaster risks. If the expected damage from the disaster is high enough that you expect to demo/rebuild either way, the cheaper construction wins out. This holds for major flood risks and for things like tornadoes. It doesn't hold for hurricanes because there is a safety component - concrete block homes have sufficient wind resistance to allow shelter during hurricanes, which is why they are a thing in Florida (even though the flood damage often means they have to be demolished anyways). That said: for fire in a particular there is a level of "herd immunity"... (1)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

This is a legitimate request for insight. I'm constantly worried about how much BS is floating around and how susceptible I, personally, may be to it. Even if someone is worldly, intelligent, educated, canny, or whatever, the sheer volume of misinformation means you're bound to fall for a lie eventually, right?And I can't make any special claim to bring any of those things. So: this video seemed plausible to me. I could buy it and fold it in to the body of things I "know". What about it is wrong? My biggest issue is it doesn't make any radical or harsh claims or judgements and it tells me something o already expect to hear (people are fricking up because they won't change) it's a really easy to accept it and let it add to my "knowledge". What's the catch? What is it making up? (1)

It's treating these recent wildfires like it's a major threat to all housing the US. Non-Americans do this every time there's a natural disaster that destroys homes in the US.The thing is, this wildfire destroyed a few thousand homes when there are 81 million homes in the US. Not only that, it was a fairly unprecedented wildfire that burned into an urban area because of the confluence of some pretty uncommon variables. That makes it big news for obvious reasons, but that doesn't mean that there's something wrong with Americans building wood houses. The reality is the vast, vast majority of wood houses in the US won't be destroyed by a natural disaster. They'll just be victims of time and progress, likely tore down to make way for a new house more in-line with the prevailing style of the time. So, the video is basically alarmist. It's like someone claiming that Germans are stupid for not building vehicles out of 1/2 plate steel because a few people die in wrecks every year and that o... (3)

Angriness: 😡😡😡😡😡

Concrete does not do well in an earthquake. A poorly designed concrete house will still burn. It is possible to design so that the house is earthquake and fire resistant. The USA found this out the hard way. Look up pictures of cities that were destroyed by earthquakes. In most of the world wood and brick are not cheaper.Wood does not do well in fires. A poorly designed house will still collapse in an earth quake. It is possible to build fire and earthquake resistant houses. In most of the world it is not significantly cheaper than concrete. So choose your poison. LA burned for many reasons. Mainly Government stopped measures to prevent fires. Like water management, firebreaks, defunding the fire brigades, stopping power suppliers from putting in fire prevention. Building codes obviously were inadequate. Forestry /grasslands management is appalling. Personally with current State Government, bureaucratic and community attitudes, I just wouldn't live there. Too dangerous. Looks like m... (0)

Biggest Lolcow: /u/Alarming_Local_315

Score: 🐮🐮🐮🔘🔘

Number of comments: 5

Average angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

Maximum angriness: 😡😡😡😡🔘

Minimum angriness: 🔘🔘🔘🔘🔘

NEW: Subscribe to /h/miners to see untapped drama veins, ripe for mining!

autodrama: automating away the jobs of dramneurodivergents. Ping HeyMoon if there are any problems or you have a suggestion