Pew Research 2019 survey: ‘Climate Change’ Still Ranks As Low Priority – 17th place out of 18

[laylalex 7,300]

5 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You wonder why it is fine it is because of the bolded words above specifically "West LA". You know where a lot of the money is that lives in LA. Try going down the Gold line which is ok at best but the Red Line is just awful. I would never ride the bus in LA at all due to all the low lifes that ride it. When we lived in Pasadena my wife had a Filipina friend of hers who took the bus EVERYWHERE because her husband didn't want to teach her to drive. So she would take the Foothill bus from East Pasadena to Central Pasadena and on to Glendale all the time with kids in tow. I would have never made my wife do that but that woman thought it was ok so big ups to her. 

Yes, I know it really is because it's West LA, and crime is relatively low there (mostly property crime). In SM, there is violent crime, but much of it is (from what I understand from my neighbors) either (1) domestic violence or (2) caused by tourists. And where I am in SM, there are a LOT of tourists at all times of the day and night. I'm pretty street smart though for someone who grew up in the suburbs and know how to be safe without destroying my quality of life. 

 

The Red Line I'm familiar with because when we were in high school, we'd get the bus from Burbank to what was the brand new NoHo station and go down to Hollywood (I do not claim that our parents knew about this!). It wasn't safe then AT ALL but hey, we were 15/16 and afraid of almost nothing. I stopped doing that when my best male friend got mugged on a train. I took the Gold Line once to go to Little Tokyo out of curiosity (my ex was VERY down on me taking public transit but I did -- I thought the Foothill buses were absolutely fine and I'd grown up taking LA buses in Burbank so I guess I'm relatively fearless?) but that was it. 

 

Big Blue Buses have a very good reputation for being clean and safe, as do the Culver City buses. There are definitely places I would not take a bus, but these are largely places I wouldn't be going anyway. When I need to get to Downtown LA or Burbank or Pasadena, I will take an Uber/Lyft. I guess it comes down to this for me -- I can afford to have a car, but so much of my life right now is right here in Santa Monica (I have only been here for a month, so things may change) that I'm walking or cycling just about everywhere. My fiance walks to work or gets an Uber if he has to. Now, I know he and I are in the minority in this town because we can afford to live near where work is and don't need to rely on a car to commute. People like us should consider strongly reducing their reliance on cars because it's realistic for us. It's not realistic for everyone. But for those that can, taking part in reducing carbon emissions should be important. Those with more should give more, in my opinion.  

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

6 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

This is one thing that I am getting ready to crack down on is all my subscriptions to news sites because I subscribe to 3 already and it's getting a bit much tbh with you. What pissed me off is that the WSJ upped the digital subscription to $35 a month. So that is my first one on the chopping block.

Why on earth would you pay for something that is free?

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

Why on earth would you pay for something that is free?

WSJ is only free to read on certain articles sir. The rest you have to pay to read. 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

WSJ is only free to read on certain articles sir. The rest you have to pay to read. 

I reckon I operate on the premise that if they want me to pay for their “news”, then it’s nothing I really need to read.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

41 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Yes, I know it really is because it's West LA, and crime is relatively low there (mostly property crime). In SM, there is violent crime, but much of it is (from what I understand from my neighbors) either (1) domestic violence or (2) caused by tourists. And where I am in SM, there are a LOT of tourists at all times of the day and night. I'm pretty street smart though for someone who grew up in the suburbs and know how to be safe without destroying my quality of life. 

 

The Red Line I'm familiar with because when we were in high school, we'd get the bus from Burbank to what was the brand new NoHo station and go down to Hollywood (I do not claim that our parents knew about this!). It wasn't safe then AT ALL but hey, we were 15/16 and afraid of almost nothing. I stopped doing that when my best male friend got mugged on a train. I took the Gold Line once to go to Little Tokyo out of curiosity (my ex was VERY down on me taking public transit but I did -- I thought the Foothill buses were absolutely fine and I'd grown up taking LA buses in Burbank so I guess I'm relatively fearless?) but that was it. 

 

Big Blue Buses have a very good reputation for being clean and safe, as do the Culver City buses. There are definitely places I would not take a bus, but these are largely places I wouldn't be going anyway. When I need to get to Downtown LA or Burbank or Pasadena, I will take an Uber/Lyft. I guess it comes down to this for me -- I can afford to have a car, but so much of my life right now is right here in Santa Monica (I have only been here for a month, so things may change) that I'm walking or cycling just about everywhere. My fiance walks to work or gets an Uber if he has to. Now, I know he and I are in the minority in this town because we can afford to live near where work is and don't need to rely on a car to commute. People like us should consider strongly reducing their reliance on cars because it's realistic for us. It's not realistic for everyone. But for those that can, taking part in reducing carbon emissions should be important. Those with more should give more, in my opinion.  

The only time I took the Red line was to go up in to Hollywood one Saturday with the family. We took the Gold line to the Red line and back. It made for a good day trip but I would never take it at night

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

18 minutes ago, ALFKAD said:

I reckon I operate on the premise that if they want me to pay for their “news”, then it’s nothing I really need to read.

That's the dilemma that I am dealing with now because I used to go to their site a lot but now only occasionally use them. So more than likely I will have to stop the subscription because it is $35 a month when I first started it was $15 a month. 

[Boiler 46,374]

45 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

That's the dilemma that I am dealing with now because I used to go to their site a lot but now only occasionally use them. So more than likely I will have to stop the subscription because it is $35 a month when I first started it was $15 a month. 

I keep on getting $1 a month offers, I assume it is just to get your CC details.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

14 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I keep on getting $1 a month offers, I assume it is just to get your CC details.

Yeah those deals are great but as soon as they end they will automatically charge the card per month UNTIL you call them to stop/end the subscription. I went through probably 3 of those offers which lasted almost a year a few years back. I would just sign back up using a different email account everytime. 

[Dashinka 24,984]

1 hour ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

That's the dilemma that I am dealing with now because I used to go to their site a lot but now only occasionally use them. So more than likely I will have to stop the subscription because it is $35 a month when I first started it was $15 a month. 

I dropped my subscription a few months ago.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

49 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

I dropped my subscription a few months ago.

What was your big reason for doing so?

[Boiler 46,374]

I tend to use the free sites, LA Times I quite like and you get so many a month, WaPo and NYT seem propaganda based and why would you pay to be fed that?

 

I used to read the Denver Post before that went totally odd and now they have a fairly substantial pay wall and very little in the way of reporting.

 

I find the Daily Mail was OK before they insisted I turn off my Ad Blocker without it pretty much unusable so I rely on regular updates on here.

 

Indy I notice is moving more stuff behind a pay wall but I seriously doubt they have many subscribers.

[laylalex 7,300]

15 minutes ago, Boiler said:

I find the Daily Mail was OK before they insisted I turn off my Ad Blocker without it pretty much unusable so I rely on regular updates on here.

Sorry, I know I owe you one. I'll find you something interesting later today.

[Dashinka 24,984]

29 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

What was your big reason for doing so?

Lack of use and cost.  I like a lot of the content, but I just could not keep justifying it.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Lack of use and cost.  I like a lot of the content, but I just could not keep justifying it.

That's the same road I am going down as well. I love the content but I just don't read it enough to justify that a month

Edited February 13, 2020 by Cyberfx1024

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

7 hours ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

What was your big reason for doing so?

I know you were not asking me, but my answer is:  I get all the news I need from all the smart people here on VJ.  Such that I have never felt a need to subscribe to ANY online "news" source.  Not even for $1.