Hair rinsing is serious business for Trump!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,941
5,564
136
True, that would make the most sense. Reading up on it now at the EPA's website and I didn't realize that CA had a different flow rate 1.8g/min so manufacturers are already using different flow restrictors for different markets.

What's interesting is that the EPA's website already lists the 2.5g/min from 1994 as the standard. Did they already update the page or has it always been that? If so then what is the change? It also talks about the "Water Sense" program of 2g/min, but that's an optional one similar to the Energy Star labeling on appliances. Am I missing something or is the only thing Trump is doing is getting rid of a program that's not even a required standard?

Showerheads | WaterSense | US EPA

edit: adding in link to California rules, they aren't on the EPA page

California will soon have toughest shower head requirements in nation - Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
California is different because most of the time we don't have enough water. Here it really is about water conservation rather than energy conservation.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
California is different because most of the time we don't have enough water. Here it really is about water conservation rather than energy conservation.
Although that is primarily a farming and land use problem, not a residential shower problem as 80% of California’s water use is for farms.

Every little bit helps, but growing something other than almonds would probably help a lot more.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,941
5,564
136
I guess we will see! I suspect little will come of this because even if the effort required is small it’s probably just not worth it. Especially when it comes to large scale operations where you’re churning out huge numbers of products changes that sound like they should be easy are often not so easy.


Well I can’t speak to that specifically but you know my position is generally that we make it far too difficult to develop in the US and we need to cut a lot of that regulation back.
California has serious infrastructure problems, and extremely high land costs. That pretty much limits new construction. In all of the metro areas the freeway system runs beyond capacity. In summer the power grid is subject to rolling blackouts because of demand, and outright shutdown when it's windy. The one universal fact we all have to deal with is that no one wants to pay for upgrades. My guess is that the pandemic is going to leave the state teetering on the brink of insolvency.
The only bright spot for California is that there appears to be more people leaving than coming here. Though we've lost a few major industry's along with those folks leaving.
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,255
2,272
136
California has serious infrastructure problems, and extremely high land costs. That pretty much limits new construction. In all of the metro areas the freeway system runs beyond capacity. In summer the power grid is subject to rolling blackouts because of demand, and outright shutdown when it's windy. The one universal fact we all have to deal with is that no one wants to pay for upgrades. My guess is that the pandemic is going to leave the state teetering on the brink of insolvency.
The only bright spot for California is that there appears to be more people leaving than coming here. Though we've lost a few major industry's along with those folks leaving.

Are you suggesting that California's population is on a decline? If so what are you basing that off. California has plenty of problems but a shrinking population has never been one of them.

I have liven in Sothern California most of my life and have experienced one rolling blackout. That was this year and probably had more to due with a record number of people using home AC because of Covid.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,640
50,870
136
California has serious infrastructure problems, and extremely high land costs. That pretty much limits new construction.

High land costs don’t limit construction. As far as infrastructure goes new development pays for itself and then some through a larger tax base

In all of the metro areas the freeway system runs beyond capacity.
Sounds like California needs better mass transit then. Cities in California are not at all dense, they are just this massive suburban sprawl. For example San Francisco is probably the densest city in CA but it is substantially less dense than Queens, a borough that’s often thought of as almost suburban.

This is not a difficult problem to solve, haha. Most major cities on the planet have done so

In summer the power grid is subject to rolling blackouts because of demand, and outright shutdown when it's windy. The one universal fact we all have to deal with is that no one wants to pay for upgrades. My guess is that the pandemic is going to leave the state teetering on the brink of insolvency.
Interestingly enough in California the same NIMBYism that prevents sensible housing development often prevents new power plant construction and makes it a lot more expensive when it does happen.

As far as not burying your power lines, duh. San Diego learned that lesson, sounds like the rest of the state needs to.

The only bright spot for California is that there appears to be more people leaving than coming here. Though we've lost a few major industry's along with those folks leaving.
California has net population growth, for which you should be very thankful. It does have net emigration though, primarily because of the housing crisis caused by insane, restrictive housing policy.

Regardless, if you think net population loss would lead to a better quality of life you are sorely, sorely mistaken. If you think otherwise, can you point me to a single, solitary city or state seeing population decline that appears happy and prosperous to you?

What this really boils down to is that incumbent property owners profit from keeping housing artificially scarce and they want to keep doing this because not only do they not bear any costs for this, they profit! When it looked like they might need to pay SOME of the misery they were inflicting on others they did things like pass prop 13.
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,255
2,272
136
High land costs don’t limit construction. As far as infrastructure goes new development pays for itself and then some through a larger tax base


Sounds like California needs better mass transit then. Cities in California are not at all dense, they are just this massive suburban sprawl. For example San Francisco is probably the densest city in CA but it is substantially less dense than Queens, a borough that’s often thought of as almost suburban.

This is not a difficult problem to solve, haha. Most major cities on the planet have done so


Interestingly enough in California the same NIMBYism that prevents sensible housing development often prevents new power plant construction and makes it a lot more expensive when it does happen.

As far as not burying your power lines, duh. San Diego learned that lesson, sounds like the rest of the state needs to.


California has net population growth, for which you should be very thankful. It does have net emigration though, primarily because of the housing crisis caused by insane, restrictive housing policy.

Regardless, if you think net population loss would lead to a better quality of life you are sorely, sorely mistaken. If you think otherwise, can you point me to a single, solitary city or state seeing population decline that appears happy and prosperous to you?

What this really boils down to is that incumbent property owners profit from keeping housing artificially scarce and they want to keep doing this because not only do they not bear any costs for this, they profit! When it looked like they might need to pay SOME of the misery they were inflicting on others they did things like pass prop 13.

In the city I live (2nd largest population in LA county) residential high rise building has been discouraged but that is starting to change. The below is expected to be completed next year. I expect this will be the first of many.

 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
48,094
37,298
136
In the city I live (2nd largest population in LA county) residential high rise building has been discouraged but that is starting to change. The below is expected to be completed next year. I expect this will be the first of many.


Don't even necessarily need high rises, just denser 3-4-5 floor buildings. As an aside the land use in Long Beach around the rail line makes the vein in my forehead throb in an unflattering way.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,941
5,564
136
Are you suggesting that California's population is on a decline? If so what are you basing that off. California has plenty of problems but a shrinking population has never been one of them.

I have liven in Sothern California most of my life and have experienced one rolling blackout. That was this year and probably had more to due with a record number of people using home AC because of Covid.
I read that somewhere just recently. After reading your response I went and checked, and you are correct, California's population appears to be a net zero. No shrinkage or growth.
The stat I just looked at was from 2019.

Try northern California. Last summer we went days with the power off because of load and wind.
I used to live in a place that was on the same grid segment as a large hospital, the power never failed.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,286
6,351
126
Did we get the roll back to incandescent light bulbs too or maybe whale oil lamps? You know from the good old days.

Here's where you can do the best land whaling, There's more than one way to become enlightened.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
20,941
5,564
136

Here's where you can do the best land whaling, There's more than one way to become enlightened.
We were in Mississippi a year and a half back, my wife walked around looking like a movie star compared to most women we ran across.
 

zzyzxroad

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2017
3,255
2,272
136
Does anyone know if this will also fix the missive toilets issue. "Some" people having to flush toilets 10 to 15 times just isn't right.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
15,244
10,818
136
I guess we will see! I suspect little will come of this because even if the effort required is small it’s probably just not worth it. Especially when it comes to large scale operations where you’re churning out huge numbers of products changes that sound like they should be easy are often not so easy.
The real issue, is by the time they hit store shelves, they could be illegal to sell again.
 

Lanyap

Elite Member
Dec 23, 2000
8,185
2,232
136
Does anyone know if this will also fix the missive toilets issue. "Some" people having to flush toilets 10 to 15 times just isn't right.



I would guess that those people were having an act of Congress. They are probably eating too much and are obese from eating too much fast food.