3 ms·

> just as long as they eliminate outcomes like this I guess the point I'm trying to make is that complete elimination isn't possible in a long tail statistical

by ggcdn 9y ago

> just as long as they eliminate outcomes like this I guess the point I'm trying to make is that complete elimination isn't possible in a long tail statistical distribution. There will always be a point where we have to draw the line, and there will always be freak occurrences of undesirable outcomes. This is the crux of engineering - finding the correct balance between cost and safety. Perhaps the current state is not enough, but the wildly disproportionate amount of structures that are working just fine tells me we are close. > If that ends up raising the costs for other fancy buildings stuffed with pied-a-terres for the wealthy even to prohibitive levels, I am entirely fine with that. Building codes aren't only applied to high end buildings. Any changes affect the (badly needed) low end housing just as much as high end buildings. Just another thing to consider. > Erring on the side of of earthquake safety while building near major faults in major metropolitan areas seems like a great choice to me. No disagreement there ;)

wpietri 9y ago
The outcome I'm referring to isn't just the sinking building. It's the clusterfuck of a sinking building and years of chaos that could spill over into extensive costs for others. Long-tail outcomes perhaps can't be eliminated, but they can be 100% mitigated through planning and insurance. Medical care has a much longer tail, for example, but many countries manage to provide full financial coverage and individual support in treating and managing even very rare diseases. If you're saying this was a reasonably forseeable but unlikely outcome of cost-driven skipping out on the bedrock anchoring that neighboring buildings used, the I don't think it's too much to ask them to have an answer to the question of, "Ok, if your cheap solution doesn't work, what will you do next?" And if they don't have a good answer to that, I also don't think it's too much for them to not be allowed to build the thing.

by ggcdn 9y ago

wpietri 9y ago

The outcome I'm referring to isn't just the sinking building. It's the clusterfuck of a sinking building and years of chaos that could spill over into extensive costs for others. Long-tail outcomes perhaps can't be eliminated, but they can be 100% mitigated through planning and insurance. Medical care has a much longer tail, for example, but many countries manage to provide full financial coverage and individual support in treating and managing even very rare diseases. If you're saying this was a reasonably forseeable but unlikely outcome of cost-driven skipping out on the bedrock anchoring that neighboring buildings used, the I don't think it's too much to ask them to have an answer to the question of, "Ok, if your cheap solution doesn't work, what will you do next?" And if they don't have a good answer to that, I also don't think it's too much for them to not be allowed to build the thing.