Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 June 29

= June 29 =

Why are there so many short-lived buildings in Japan?
In Japan, it seems to be quite common for buildings, including but not limited to malls, performance venues, and houses (among others) to last for only a few years (usually in the range of about 10 years) before being closed and demolished for redevelopment. Examples would include the AiiA Theatre in Tokyo (the structure opened in 2007 and closed in 2018 and is currently being demolished), Shibuya-AX (which only stood from 2000 to 2014), Yokohama BLITZ (which opened in 2004, closed in 2013, and was demolished around 2016), and the Gento Yokohama mall (which was in operation for around the same time as Yokohama BLITZ; both Gento and BLITZ are now simply empty lots according to Google Street View). Before anyone asks, I've read the related Guardian article and other related pages, but they seem to mostly be discussing houses, while I've noticed that the short shelf-life has also been the case for other kinds of buildings as well. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The most likely possibility is that the land values are so high, that rebuilding the structure is a small percentage of the overall cost. So, if you have to pay, say, US$100 million for the land, then tearing down and rebuilding for $10 million doesn't seem so bad, to get the ideal building. And land prices can be absurdly high in Japan, especially Tokyo, so this is a real possibility. See teardown (real estate) for this and other possible reasons. One reason specific to Japan may be that the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami either damaged the existing buildings (cracks and such) and/or that stricter building codes require either retrofitting the buildings or rebuilds, so they might as well put that money into a rebuild. Then if you combine these reasons (high land prices and the earthquake), rebuilds become an even more attractive option. SinisterLefty (talk) 10:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's kind of at odds with the blurb on the Yokohama BLITZ, though. If I was sitting on extremely valuable real estate; I would not have the building sit closed for three years before demolishing. Possibly earthquake proofing plays a part? Matt Deres (talk) 11:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * It could sit there if the owner expects the land prices to rise sharply, so holds onto it as an investment. And/or they might have been trying to put together financing to rehab the building on their own (including earthquake proofing), but finally gave up after 3 years and sold it for less "as is". SinisterLefty (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * See also land banking although IMO the article isn't that good. At least in NZ, while land banking can refer to aggregating parcels of land, and this often happens since it can result in higher returns per area of land and the people involve generally have the money, in practice it can also refer to simply buying a single bit of land and holding on to it until prices rise without worrying about getting a return from the land in the mean time. Generally the intention is to subdivide so this is especially the case with urban fringe land often agricultural land as our article sort of mentions, but practically I don't think what is developed after matters changes whether it is land banking [//www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/90893977/editorial-landbanking-is-a-big-part-of-the-housing-crisis] [//www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11809269] [//thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/11/04/land-banking-capitalisms-weeping-sore/] [//www.top.org.nz/the_issue_of_land_banking]. NZ has policies including very limited taxing of capital gains which are sometimes said to encourage the practice, and AFAIK this is much more of a problem with residential or potential residential land (or mixed if it's a large parcel), and 5 years seems a fairly short time to land bank. But still without knowing the specifics of Yokohama it seems difficult to know whether the land being valuable means you are guaranteed a good enough return to make it worth while keeping it in use rather than just holding on to it until someone wants it. Nil Einne (talk) 04:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Land speculation is another term for this. SinisterLefty (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Dual-threaded plumbing ?
One constant problem with screwing plumbing together (2 pipes or a pipe and a fixture) is that they use fine threads with close tolerances to limit leakage (using pipe tape or pipe dope to stop any remaining leaks), and it's too easy to cross-thread them and strip one or both sets of threads. So, I had the idea of using dual-threading, where the large threads are used to guide the small threads into proper position. I can't be the first person to think of this, so what is this called ? Do we have an article ?

My illustration:

|         |                          |          | |          |                          |          | |          |                          |          | |          |                          |          | |           \                        /           | |            \                      /            | |             \                    /             | |              \                  /              | |               \                /               | |       ---  \              /        | |      |=======\  \            /  /=======|      |  <-Gasket/washer |      \       \  |          |  /       /       | |        \       | |          | |       /        | |        /       | |          | |       \        | |       /       /  |          |  \       \       | |       \       \  |          |  /       /       | |        \       | |          | |       /        | |        /       | |          | |       \        | |       /   /  |          |  \   \       | |       \ \0000\\  |          |  //0000/ /       | |        \ \0000|--            --|0000/ /        | |        / /0000|                |0000\ \        | |       / /0000/                  \0000\ \       | |       \ \0000\                  /0000/ /       | |        \ \0000|                |0000/ /        | |        / /0000|                |0000\ \        | |       / /0000/                  \0000\ \       | |       \ \0000\                  /0000/ /       | |        \ \0000|                |0000/ /        | |        / /0000|                |0000\ \        |  ---  /0000/                  \0000\  ---           \0000|                  |0000/            \000|                  |000/            /000|                  |000\           /0000|                  |0000\           \0000|                  |0000/            \000|                  |000/            /000|                  |000\           /0000|                  |0000\           |0000|                  |0000|           |0000|                  |0000|           |0000|                  |0000|           |0000|                  |0000|

A variation could have the pipes OD widen at the joint to accommodate the double threads without restricting fluid flow (ID). I won't bother drawing that solution here. SinisterLefty (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Impossible.--TMCk (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * (In case this is a serious question: A fine thread needs more turns than a coarse one.--TMCk (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC))


 * I understand what you mean. If the large thread moves up at a tenth of an inch per turn, then the fine thread must do so, too. But this could be handled by having the fine thread at a steeper angle. However, my illustration didn't show this. It has now been fixed. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * But then you wouldn't really have a fine thread anymore.--TMCk (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not ? You could still have the same tight tolerances on the fine thread that both make it leak less and also make it difficult to use, while the large thread has the loose tolerances that makes it easy to use (but leaky). SinisterLefty (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * You'd have a "fine" thread with large flat area hard to seal. Defies the purpose of using a fine thread in the first place.--TMCk (talk) 17:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why is that ? A piston and cylinder seal well enough to keep high pressure gasses from escaping. Come to think of it, you could dispense with the fine thread entirely, and just make the inner seal between two smooth cylinders, with a tight tolerance. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * they use fine threads with close tolerances to limit leakage
 * They don't. Most unions don't seal on the thread, but either on a flat seal with a soft sealing washer, or else on a coned seal.  If they seal on the thread, that's a tapered thread (and they're the only ones where tape is useful for a seal, although it can act as a lubricant or anti-seize elsewhere).
 * Nor are these threads especially fine. They're fine enough that they have a good mechanical advantage (enough axial force to make the seal work), but that's not a thread so fine as to make assembly particularly difficult. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I'd update my illustration to show tapered threads, but that's a bit beyond my ability with ASCII-art. The "incident" that caused me to ask this is trying to put an aerator on the end of a faucet. I was very careful, but it still went on wrong, got stuck, requiring a wrench to remove it, which damaged it (I knew from experience that the wrench would leave marks, so I did put a cloth between it and the aerator, but it still squeezed it into an oval shape). So, are those threads finer than other plumbing threads ? If so, why ? SinisterLefty (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's not a "plumbing" thread meant to seal anything. Didn't you see the rubber gasket there?--TMCk (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but it didn't seal and sprayed all over because I couldn't get those tiny threads lined up properly. As AD said above, the tiny threads are to create a tight seal at the gasket, it seems. Looser threads wouldn't keep it tight up against the gasket. But neither do fine threads if I can't get it threaded on there properly, hence my idea. I've updated my drawing again to show the gasket/washer. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a separate problem, that of inaccurate threads. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Your problem is not the thread but a lack of experience. No matter what kind of thread, start turning counterclockwise first until you feel a slight snap and then gently start turning it in. Never force it or you end up with a damaged thread that you likely got now.--TMCk (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've never managed to damage a bottle cap when screwing it on the bottle, and I'm not nearly as careful there. So the thread does have something to do with it. I suppose if I was driving a truck full of nitro-glycerin and got into a fender-bender, exploding the truck, you'd say it had nothing to do with the nitro. SinisterLefty (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the fault and blame would not be on the nitro itself but mostly on the one that let you drive the truck with no experience.--TMCk (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Driving a truck full of nitro would be dangerous no matter who drove it. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * When has anyone ever "driven a truck full of nitro"?  Trucks date from 1914 (as a randomly grabbed date) at which time they had solid tyres, poor roads, poor suspension and travelled very slowly. Steam wagons rather earlier, from around 1900 as a mode of transport, and diesel trucks from 1930, with pneumatic tyres and moving rather faster. Yet nitroglycerine blasting oil was made obsolete overnight, with Nobel's patent for Dynamite in 1867 – thirty years before any plausible sort of "truck".  Even if the truck was carrying Gelignite, only overheated and abused Gelignite will "sweat" nitroglycerine and become shock-sensitive. Now Gelignite might be needed for oil well firefighting rather than Dynamite, but the stuff is looked after carefully and kept cool! Yves Montand's The Wages of Fear, great film though it is, is based on an inaccuracy and an anachronism. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I think your wrong on nitro transport. See for instance. Rmhermen (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's really interesting. I'm very surprised that Pennsylvania was permitting this in the 1920s - after all, there's just no _need_ to, that's the whole point of what Nobel had achieved with Gelignite. We could use an article on the Bowers Torpedo Company.
 * Famously something similar had happened in California (maybe Nevada or Utah?) when building the transcontinental railway back in 1866. As a result, they banned any import or transportation of the stuff in the whole state, requiring it to be manufactured on site (!) So yes, field nitration out in the Sierra Nevadas. Hope they had plenty of ice... This was one of the reasons why Nobel was prompted to publicise his inventions so quickly afterwards. But it seems remiss if other states hadn't caught up even decades later. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My point is that transporting it via truck would be crazy, not that it is actually ever done. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Even if it were not (as has been pointed out) impossible for such a threaded monster, to actually function  it would be too expensive to machine economically, would use more material, and would  be too large to be practical. And coarse threads cannot be used on thin walled tubes, which is what the projected aerator is.. Meters (talk) 04:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * My proposal is not limited to aerators. And premium pricing could be justified, in any case, by selling it as a "heavy duty" version. SinisterLefty (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Coarse threads in thin-walled tubes are pretty common. Aluminium screw-top cans, with the threads formed by rolling rather than cutting. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * In that case, why are the threads on an aerator so fine ? SinisterLefty (talk) 11:29, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Aerators are machined cast brass or injection-moulded plastic. They could form threads of any size, but not cut a coarse thread into a thin-walled piece. However I think we're back to the start - this is a fine thread, but it's not an unworkably fine thread. Most of the time, users manage just fine with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't think "works most of the time" is good enough. Instead of 51% they should aim for 99%. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:34, 5 July 2019 (UTC)


 * That seems arbitrarily low. Why wouldn't they aim for 100% success?  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  20:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Because 100%% success rate is impossible. People like to say they aim for that, but that would mean doing everything possible, no matter what the cost, like using titanium and gold, if that worked the best. If they have to offer replacements 1% of the time, that's acceptable, but 49% of the time is not. SinisterLefty (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

A legal term/concept?
I'm not looking for legal advice or anything, I'm just curious about the topic itself. I tried looking already, but couldn't find anything. Basically, what I'm looking for is what it's called when another police department investigates wrongdoing within anther one so it isn't handled by someone's coworkers. Clovermoss (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Avoidance of a conflict of interest would be the broad term. In court cases, this type of thing is called a change of venue, but I don't think that term applies to police departments. Note that in the case of police, it usually goes to a higher government's police force. So, in the US, state cops would investigate local cops, and federal officials (such as the FBI) might investigate state or local police. Many police departments also have an Internal Affairs Division (IAD), supposedly to avoid the conflict of interest, but ultimately they might still want to keep a case quiet so as not to bring disrepute to the police chief and/or police commissioners. Another option is to have another branch of government investigate, such as the legislative or judicial branches. This would be needed when there is no higher executive branch, such as at the federal level.  SinisterLefty (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I should have specified Canadian law in particular. I'm definitely reading all of the links to the United States stuff though, the differences in legal systems between different countries is fascinating. Clovermoss (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In that case, provincial police (in Ontario and Quebec) could investigate local police, and the RCMP could investigate both. Since the other provinces and territories lack provincial police, the RCMP would investigate local police there. The Canadian Parliament (either directly or relying on the Prime Minister and the ministries under his control) could investigate the RCMP. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In Ontario it is the Special Investigations Unit that can investigate both local and provincial police, at least for the most serious allegations. See that article for other agencies. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * In the US, you might be interested in the case of Rodney King, who was beaten by members of the Los Angeles Police Department. The court case was moved from LA: Rodney_King. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

When it comes to financial investigation, these are referred to as external audits. I agree, it does seem like there should be a term for the criminal situation. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2019 (UTC)