4 ms·

This wasn't a bug. It was designed with the properties and the builder knew it would happen. It also causes physical damage. Minimize this all you want but irre

This wasn't a bug. It was designed with the properties and the builder knew it would happen. It also causes physical damage. Minimize this all you want but irresponsible is going easy.

Arnt 4y ago
It was designed to have curved glassy surfaces. Both curves and glass are used a lot in modern architecture, for many reasons and "because it focuses the sun" isn't one of them. Combining glass and curves has been rare because it's technically difficult to build large curved glass. They were hardly ever combined until 1850, and it's still difficult today, 170 years after Crystal Palace. It's done though. Buildings go through review, which is rather like code review, and the review finds problems, and some slip through. In the case of this building the architect ordered a second review, where the bug was spotted and its consequences computed and found to be acceptable. (This is something engineers do all the time. When I had a hole made in a wall at home, a structural engineer computed how much the floor would sag and found it to be acceptable.) I'm guessing that the second review was carried out precisely because the architect wanted to be careful about those curved surfaces. Of course you can pretend that the curves were built in order to focus light and blame people for it. In that case you should accept that people blame you, too.
- Beltalowda 4y ago
  > Of course you can pretend that the curves were built in order to focus light and blame people for it. No one said anything of the sort and I cannot conceive how anyone could possible think that they did.
  - Arnt 4y ago
    "It was designed with the properties and the builder knew it would happen"?
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      If you don't see how "designed with the property X" is radically different from "designed in order to do X" then I don't really know what else to say.
      - Arnt 4y ago
        Well, the original article says it was designed to have curved surfaces. That it concentrated heat was something they discovered during review, which implies that it was not a design goal. Then they computed what the temperature would be, and found it acceptable. Then in reality the temperature was quite different from what was computed. The original article chose wording that distinguished between the design goal, the computed side effect and the actual side effect. 4RealFreedom chose wording that commingled the three.

This wasn't a bug. It was designed with the properties and the builder knew it would happen. It also causes physical damage. Minimize this all you want but irresponsible is going easy.

Arnt 4y ago

It was designed to have curved glassy surfaces. Both curves and glass are used a lot in modern architecture, for many reasons and "because it focuses the sun" isn't one of them. Combining glass and curves has been rare because it's technically difficult to build large curved glass. They were hardly ever combined until 1850, and it's still difficult today, 170 years after Crystal Palace. It's done though. Buildings go through review, which is rather like code review, and the review finds problems, and some slip through. In the case of this building the architect ordered a second review, where the bug was spotted and its consequences computed and found to be acceptable. (This is something engineers do all the time. When I had a hole made in a wall at home, a structural engineer computed how much the floor would sag and found it to be acceptable.) I'm guessing that the second review was carried out precisely because the architect wanted to be careful about those curved surfaces. Of course you can pretend that the curves were built in order to focus light and blame people for it. In that case you should accept that people blame you, too.

Beltalowda 4y ago
> Of course you can pretend that the curves were built in order to focus light and blame people for it. No one said anything of the sort and I cannot conceive how anyone could possible think that they did.
- Arnt 4y ago
  "It was designed with the properties and the builder knew it would happen"?
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    If you don't see how "designed with the property X" is radically different from "designed in order to do X" then I don't really know what else to say.
    - Arnt 4y ago
      Well, the original article says it was designed to have curved surfaces. That it concentrated heat was something they discovered during review, which implies that it was not a design goal. Then they computed what the temperature would be, and found it acceptable. Then in reality the temperature was quite different from what was computed. The original article chose wording that distinguished between the design goal, the computed side effect and the actual side effect. 4RealFreedom chose wording that commingled the three.