This article's premise seems to be jumping the gun — and I question the author's thoroughness in researching it. He links to an article[0] clearly stating that

This article's premise seems to be jumping the gun — and I question the author's thoroughness in researching it. He links to an article[0] clearly stating that while the design appeared to be a cable-stayed bridge, the tower and cables were in fact cosmetic and the bridge was engineered as a truss bridge. A mere three paragraphs later, he says: >If a design flaw was responsible, it would be a relatively rare failure of a highly reliable technology. The FIU bridge was to have been cable-stayed, a technology that has been around since at least the 16th century. I have no evidence that the cause wasn't accelerated bridge construction. But it would be a shame for a promising new technology/philosophy with obvious benefits to become a casualty of this tragedy simply because some commentators couldn't resist rubbing salt in FIU's wound for the irony vaue. It's irresponsible and downright unethical for Slate to publish that claim on pure conjecture. [0] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/16/miami-bridge-collapse-suspension-cables-support-tower/431418002/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/03/16/miami-bridge-...