4 ms·
generally i agree with you. Though for example comparing the current fire in LA and say The Great Fire in London i'm wondering where the almost 4 centuries of
by trhway 2y ago
generally i agree with you. Though for example comparing the current fire in LA and say The Great Fire in London i'm wondering where the almost 4 centuries of progress are.
- none_to_remain 2y agoThe Great Fire of London began in a bakery - such fires don't tend to burn down cities anymore
- trhway 2y agoi agree, prevention and putting down small - wrt. city scale - fires is better. Yet once the fire is several blocks, it surprisingly looks like not much difference.
- rsynnott 2y agoWell, for a start, most of LA, you'll note, is still there. The Great Fire of London destroyed 15% of the city's housing and displaced about half the population. Large cities do not, these days, as a general rule, more or less just spontaneously burn down; the LA fires are driven by extreme weather conditions, and even then have not caused remotely the sort of destruction that you used to see from big urban fires.
- trhway 2y ago>The Great Fire of London destroyed 15% of the city's housing LA - 500 sq miles. The Palicades Fire is 37 square miles. With other fires it is smth like 55 and it is still not done. >the LA fires are driven by extreme weather conditions yes, sounds very familiar - in USSR we had a saying "suddenly came winter" explaining all the societal/economical/etc. failures there