browsing around the tokyo area, wasn't expecting so many streams of ... streams. is there some reason for the number of cameras that seem to be filming under various bridges?
The Japanese government (more specifically the Tokyo Metropolitan Government) actually runs a lot of these for flood monitoring and prevention. You can find a feed for essentially all rivers so that during rain storms, each can be monitored. This supplements automated flood monitoring systems that don’t use video.
shame it is such a low quality, one would expect 720P be decent, but this is practically unwatchable due to heavy compression, likely the most famous place in Japan and they can't afford Full HD webcam with proper bitrate?
If anyone were to propose such a thing in my country -- there would be hue and cry about national security and that this will be misused by anti social elements
Before the Nazis co-opted (and corrupted) it, the swastika was commonly known as a positive religious sun-symbol[0]. In Japan, where it's called a manji, it denotes the location of Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines. Even ancient Christians used it[1].
Fun fact, which everyone probably already knows, one of the dungeons in the original Legend of Zelda for the NES was shaped like this[2].
Because South Korea's territorial claim over the Liancourt Islands is contested by Japan. I'm actually surprised someone can read Takeshima, can write Dokdo, but isn't aware of the territorial dispute.
Edit: For anyone who isn't familiar with the dispute, no one lived in this series of islets until the late 20th century, when a Korean guy moved there. So there's no historical argument one way or the other.
South Korea argues that an island listed in a 1000yo historical record (Usando) is the present-day Liancourt Islands, but Japan says that record refers to a different island (Jukdo), and that South Korea has no historical claim over or tie to this series of islets. My personal feeling on this is that the document lists a few dozen people living there, and I don't think a few dozen people 1000 years ago could live on any of those islands. They're extremely tiny and the biggest one is just one big mountain. It's hardly "supporting 100 residents isolated from the mainland" terrain.
Japan's argument is that it controlled the islands, and the post-war treaty governing territory Japan was to surrender did not include Liancourt, so they still own it and that South Korea is illegally occupying it, going so far as to illegally attack the Japanese Coast Guard when it got too close to Liancourt.
If you look at a map, it's equidistant from both countries' mainlands (Japan is very slightly closer, and it has multiple small islands that are even closer, including one territory that sits almost between SK and Liancourt).
Japan's claim is that for centuries, they've exerted claim over this island specifically, pointing to historical records from the Tokugawa Shogunate. Then fin de siècle Japan reasserted authority over the islands to help it fight Russia and protect civilians on nearby Japanese islands (Oki is the one I remember the name of).
After WW2, there was a treaty where Japan surrendered territory. Early drafts of the document refer to Liancourt as Korean territory that Japan is to surrender, but the next few drafts referred to it as Japanese territory it was to surrender, and the final treaty completely excluded it. There's a US draft series and a UK draft series, and they aren't internally consistent, either.
Anyway, it's a huge mess that will never be resolved.
1,400 live streams, Japan... :D
https://www.youtube.com/@TokyoSuibou/streams
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1qNNxdZHdo
It doesn't look like I can link to it? It appears to be from a YouTube feed anyway (https://www.youtube.com/live/dfVK7ld38Ys).
If anyone were to propose such a thing in my country -- there would be hue and cry about national security and that this will be misused by anti social elements
How does Japan not have same concerns / voices?
Fun fact, which everyone probably already knows, one of the dungeons in the original Legend of Zelda for the NES was shaped like this[2].
[0]https://medium.com/my-bookmark/history-of-the-12-000-year-ol...
[1]https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/108825/why-...
[2]https://www.zeldadungeon.net/the-legend-of-zelda-walkthrough...
Some might say I'm bringing politics here, but the map itself is provoking strong political reactions.
Edit: For anyone who isn't familiar with the dispute, no one lived in this series of islets until the late 20th century, when a Korean guy moved there. So there's no historical argument one way or the other.
South Korea argues that an island listed in a 1000yo historical record (Usando) is the present-day Liancourt Islands, but Japan says that record refers to a different island (Jukdo), and that South Korea has no historical claim over or tie to this series of islets. My personal feeling on this is that the document lists a few dozen people living there, and I don't think a few dozen people 1000 years ago could live on any of those islands. They're extremely tiny and the biggest one is just one big mountain. It's hardly "supporting 100 residents isolated from the mainland" terrain.
Japan's argument is that it controlled the islands, and the post-war treaty governing territory Japan was to surrender did not include Liancourt, so they still own it and that South Korea is illegally occupying it, going so far as to illegally attack the Japanese Coast Guard when it got too close to Liancourt.
If you look at a map, it's equidistant from both countries' mainlands (Japan is very slightly closer, and it has multiple small islands that are even closer, including one territory that sits almost between SK and Liancourt).
Japan's claim is that for centuries, they've exerted claim over this island specifically, pointing to historical records from the Tokugawa Shogunate. Then fin de siècle Japan reasserted authority over the islands to help it fight Russia and protect civilians on nearby Japanese islands (Oki is the one I remember the name of).
After WW2, there was a treaty where Japan surrendered territory. Early drafts of the document refer to Liancourt as Korean territory that Japan is to surrender, but the next few drafts referred to it as Japanese territory it was to surrender, and the final treaty completely excluded it. There's a US draft series and a UK draft series, and they aren't internally consistent, either.
Anyway, it's a huge mess that will never be resolved.
The dispute is significant because controlling the islets dictates fishing rights and surrounding maritime borders (EEZ) in resource-rich waters.