4 ms·

Japan just used fiber optics to run sunlight to inside apartments for natural light in skylights. Obviously the apartments are cheaper typically, and as long as

Japan just used fiber optics to run sunlight to inside apartments for natural light in skylights. Obviously the apartments are cheaper typically, and as long as people get exposure to light like this they are generally ok. I feel like this whole effort is not a technical problem but a cultural and financial issue. I don’t think the problem is whether it can be done, but whether the tax structure is in place to encourage it.

dagw 2y ago
I feel like this whole effort is not a technical problem but a cultural and financial issue. It's actually at end the of the day a legal problem. Building codes and fire regulations are very strict on what you can and cannot do, and most 'good' ideas people come up with to solve these problems end up being against the building codes. Without changing the building codes it doesn't matter how clever your technical solution is.
- slashdev 2y ago
  Yes, this is the real problem
- kube-system 2y ago
  Well, to be fair, a firefighter at the end of a ladder can't evacuate someone through a fiber optic run.
  - dagw 2y ago
    Surely you can solve that by having the occupants sign a waver as part of the rental contract where they wave their rights to be evacuated or rescued in the event of a fire.
    - kube-system 2y ago
      This hypothetical building wouldn't exist, because it would have never had a building permit issued.
    - jandrese 2y ago
      I'm pretty sure that's one of those rights you can't sign away. Fire codes are strict.
      - beaeglebeachh 2y ago
        My permit says "NO building code or utility inspections will be performed." I signed that "right" away with the county recorder, it was no problem. Been able to do that for 2 decades in my county. Turns out when people build what they like you get weird shit but little to none of the "but muh codes" fire hysteria came true. Meanwhile California morons building with regulatory checks out the wazoo get ate up in wildfires. It's like watching actual insane people.
        kube-system 2y ago
        Yes, some places in the US DGAF, and in others there's not even a municipality to issue a permit, let alone enforce one. However, these situations typically are in places where high occupancy buildings don't exist. But if you've read anything about disastrous fires throughout history, the reasoning for modern fire codes is rather apparent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires The deadliest structure fires in history pretty much have one thing in common: people couldn't get out. There's something to be said for a homeowner who builds their own death trap, but it's a good thing that large commercial properties have to jump through hoops to ensure they don't create a death trap for hundreds of others, just to save a few bucks. Wildfires are something else entirely -- forests are not man made and their creation is not subject to laws. You wouldn't argue that laws against murder are silly just because you could be attacked by a wild animal, would you? We regulate buildings because people build them.
        beaeglebeachh 2y ago
        I'm arguing it's a good thing California will let humans choose to man make a house wildfire trap (forest didn't pick you to put a house there) and they should apply their standard of "die in a fire if you like" to everything. I believe, counterintuitively, it will save lives. Of course the building inspector sees the charred bodies he didn't prevent, but he doesn't see the frozen and exposed ones he created through his policies that handicap supply. The incentives of code and inspection are horribly perverse.
bobthepanda 2y ago
Windows are not just an aesthetic thing. In the US windows are also a required means of egress from a bedroom in case of fire. Technically the requirement is two means of egress of any type, but in effect this means the door and the window, where someone can be rescued by a fire truck, escape onto a different path, etc.
- dugmartin 2y ago
  I can imagine internal apartments designed with an open concept kitchen/living room and then a row of bedrooms/bathrooms off the open room. Then you could have an hallway off the back that funneled in natural light and the bedrooms/bathrooms could have windows that opened unto that. That gives you an unimpeded escape path.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    The two means of egress cannot lead into the same path (the hallway) since the point is to provide an alternate escape path.
    - selectodude 2y ago
      High rises don’t usually work like that for obvious reasons.
- datahack 2y ago
  Indeed, but tradition is not necessarily the only way to have safe policies. We have many more advanced escape systems that work incredibly well these days. I’m sure there are alternative escape technologies that don’t involve windows in a skyscraper in 2024.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    Windows are the cheapest second form of egress. Punching through a new set of pressurized, fire rated stairwells would be significantly more expensive.
maherbeg 2y ago
You can also install solar tubes to do something similar.

dagw 2y ago

I feel like this whole effort is not a technical problem but a cultural and financial issue. It's actually at end the of the day a legal problem. Building codes and fire regulations are very strict on what you can and cannot do, and most 'good' ideas people come up with to solve these problems end up being against the building codes. Without changing the building codes it doesn't matter how clever your technical solution is.

slashdev 2y ago
Yes, this is the real problem
kube-system 2y ago
Well, to be fair, a firefighter at the end of a ladder can't evacuate someone through a fiber optic run.
- dagw 2y ago
  Surely you can solve that by having the occupants sign a waver as part of the rental contract where they wave their rights to be evacuated or rescued in the event of a fire.
  - kube-system 2y ago
    This hypothetical building wouldn't exist, because it would have never had a building permit issued.
  - jandrese 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure that's one of those rights you can't sign away. Fire codes are strict.
    - beaeglebeachh 2y ago
      My permit says "NO building code or utility inspections will be performed." I signed that "right" away with the county recorder, it was no problem. Been able to do that for 2 decades in my county. Turns out when people build what they like you get weird shit but little to none of the "but muh codes" fire hysteria came true. Meanwhile California morons building with regulatory checks out the wazoo get ate up in wildfires. It's like watching actual insane people.
      - kube-system 2y ago
        Yes, some places in the US DGAF, and in others there's not even a municipality to issue a permit, let alone enforce one. However, these situations typically are in places where high occupancy buildings don't exist. But if you've read anything about disastrous fires throughout history, the reasoning for modern fire codes is rather apparent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nightclub_fires The deadliest structure fires in history pretty much have one thing in common: people couldn't get out. There's something to be said for a homeowner who builds their own death trap, but it's a good thing that large commercial properties have to jump through hoops to ensure they don't create a death trap for hundreds of others, just to save a few bucks. Wildfires are something else entirely -- forests are not man made and their creation is not subject to laws. You wouldn't argue that laws against murder are silly just because you could be attacked by a wild animal, would you? We regulate buildings because people build them.
        beaeglebeachh 2y ago
        I'm arguing it's a good thing California will let humans choose to man make a house wildfire trap (forest didn't pick you to put a house there) and they should apply their standard of "die in a fire if you like" to everything. I believe, counterintuitively, it will save lives. Of course the building inspector sees the charred bodies he didn't prevent, but he doesn't see the frozen and exposed ones he created through his policies that handicap supply. The incentives of code and inspection are horribly perverse.

bobthepanda 2y ago

Windows are not just an aesthetic thing. In the US windows are also a required means of egress from a bedroom in case of fire. Technically the requirement is two means of egress of any type, but in effect this means the door and the window, where someone can be rescued by a fire truck, escape onto a different path, etc.

dugmartin 2y ago
I can imagine internal apartments designed with an open concept kitchen/living room and then a row of bedrooms/bathrooms off the open room. Then you could have an hallway off the back that funneled in natural light and the bedrooms/bathrooms could have windows that opened unto that. That gives you an unimpeded escape path.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  The two means of egress cannot lead into the same path (the hallway) since the point is to provide an alternate escape path.
  - selectodude 2y ago
    High rises don’t usually work like that for obvious reasons.
datahack 2y ago
Indeed, but tradition is not necessarily the only way to have safe policies. We have many more advanced escape systems that work incredibly well these days. I’m sure there are alternative escape technologies that don’t involve windows in a skyscraper in 2024.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  Windows are the cheapest second form of egress. Punching through a new set of pressurized, fire rated stairwells would be significantly more expensive.

maherbeg 2y ago

You can also install solar tubes to do something similar.