12 ms·

To be fair, 11 people died in the construction of the Golden Gate bridge, and many bridges of the era fell down due to insufficient safety standards. It's not l

by Macha 5y ago

To be fair, 11 people died in the construction of the Golden Gate bridge, and many bridges of the era fell down due to insufficient safety standards. It's not like there are no benefits to the extra time of modern construction

systemvoltage 5y ago
This is the exact defeatism that I am refering to. We had 90 years to invent safe and fast measures to build infrastructure. We have failed and its not because it is technically infeasable.
- adrianN 5y ago
  Out of safe, fast, cheap you can only choose two.
whiddershins 5y ago
That’s basically saying we made zero progress at all in nearly a century, we just have different values. This is incomprehensible. Building bridges should be 100x as safe, cost 1/10th, and be done in 1/2 the time, by now.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  > Building bridges should be 100x as safe, cost 1/10th, and be done in 1/2 the time, by now. This seems like the sort of thing that only a software engineer would say. So please, tell me that's not your job.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    Mate, can we start by honestly and openly criticizing the current situation? If we're not even able to criticize it, reform feels like a distant fantasy. 90 years a very long time. We invented transistors to deep learning. Computer-tech has seen tremendous innovation. Physical world is completely in a death grip of regulations. I am actually fine with regulations where they make sense. But, it all starts by not throwing rocks at each other and name calling. It starts with deep introspection of our policies. Try asking your fellow neighbor if they can criticize their own party - you'll be met with blank stares and profound confusion.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      Why would bridges EVER be 100x safer? Twice as safe would be a huge transformation for any mechanical engineering project. 100x is the sort of process that happens over centuries, and is probably asymptotic (there's a limit to how safe any physical object in the world can ever be). Cost 1/10th? Why? The materials haven't become massively more available (or changed significantly). The technology and therefore the labor involved in building large scale civil infrastructure hasn't changed much in at least a century, which you seem to view with alarm rather than the idea that maybe we're pretty good at it. Costs due to regulations represent the growing importance of values other than "get it done as cheaply and quickly as possible". Take 1/2 the time? Why? The physical world isn't amenable to the same sort of reconceptualization that symbolic computation allows. Although the numbers and materials have changed over time (e.g. the arrival of the iron bridge, or suspension systems), the changes generally involve trading off mass (e.g. compared to stone bridges) versus complexity and precision. Why would anyone expect this to reduce construction time by 50%? And yes, software has seen incredible strides forward. At the same time, sending someone a file is still an enormous challenge for most computer users, most software has failed to incorporate at least 50% of what we've learned about UX over the last 40 years, and most of it is still riddled with bugs that are not that hard to find. So we have to be a little careful throwing stones at those who build material objects.
      - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
        Going back to gp's question, though... Can you openly and honestly criticize the current situation? Not defend, not provide explanations for, but openly address and describe problems that exist?
        PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        I think there's huge room for criticism. But my starting point would not "it should be 100x safer, 1/10th the price, 1/2 the time". There have been some excellent links here on HN over the last year or two (at least) about difficulties in the USA in particular with civil engineering projects. I would defer to their much-more informed authors (and the often great comment threads here) regarding these matters. Clearly, things are "not right" with the time and cost of those projects in the USA relative to elsewhere in the world. If we were discussing "world best" rather than US-specific, then I'm not so sure if there's the same need for criticism.

by Macha 5y ago

systemvoltage 5y ago

This is the exact defeatism that I am refering to. We had 90 years to invent safe and fast measures to build infrastructure. We have failed and its not because it is technically infeasable.

adrianN 5y ago
Out of safe, fast, cheap you can only choose two.

whiddershins 5y ago

That’s basically saying we made zero progress at all in nearly a century, we just have different values. This is incomprehensible. Building bridges should be 100x as safe, cost 1/10th, and be done in 1/2 the time, by now.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
> Building bridges should be 100x as safe, cost 1/10th, and be done in 1/2 the time, by now. This seems like the sort of thing that only a software engineer would say. So please, tell me that's not your job.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  Mate, can we start by honestly and openly criticizing the current situation? If we're not even able to criticize it, reform feels like a distant fantasy. 90 years a very long time. We invented transistors to deep learning. Computer-tech has seen tremendous innovation. Physical world is completely in a death grip of regulations. I am actually fine with regulations where they make sense. But, it all starts by not throwing rocks at each other and name calling. It starts with deep introspection of our policies. Try asking your fellow neighbor if they can criticize their own party - you'll be met with blank stares and profound confusion.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    Why would bridges EVER be 100x safer? Twice as safe would be a huge transformation for any mechanical engineering project. 100x is the sort of process that happens over centuries, and is probably asymptotic (there's a limit to how safe any physical object in the world can ever be). Cost 1/10th? Why? The materials haven't become massively more available (or changed significantly). The technology and therefore the labor involved in building large scale civil infrastructure hasn't changed much in at least a century, which you seem to view with alarm rather than the idea that maybe we're pretty good at it. Costs due to regulations represent the growing importance of values other than "get it done as cheaply and quickly as possible". Take 1/2 the time? Why? The physical world isn't amenable to the same sort of reconceptualization that symbolic computation allows. Although the numbers and materials have changed over time (e.g. the arrival of the iron bridge, or suspension systems), the changes generally involve trading off mass (e.g. compared to stone bridges) versus complexity and precision. Why would anyone expect this to reduce construction time by 50%? And yes, software has seen incredible strides forward. At the same time, sending someone a file is still an enormous challenge for most computer users, most software has failed to incorporate at least 50% of what we've learned about UX over the last 40 years, and most of it is still riddled with bugs that are not that hard to find. So we have to be a little careful throwing stones at those who build material objects.
    - TigeriusKirk 5y ago
      Going back to gp's question, though... Can you openly and honestly criticize the current situation? Not defend, not provide explanations for, but openly address and describe problems that exist?
      - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
        I think there's huge room for criticism. But my starting point would not "it should be 100x safer, 1/10th the price, 1/2 the time". There have been some excellent links here on HN over the last year or two (at least) about difficulties in the USA in particular with civil engineering projects. I would defer to their much-more informed authors (and the often great comment threads here) regarding these matters. Clearly, things are "not right" with the time and cost of those projects in the USA relative to elsewhere in the world. If we were discussing "world best" rather than US-specific, then I'm not so sure if there's the same need for criticism.