"Good people make good things" is 'fear, uncertainty, doubt'? Have you been huffing paint fumes again aspaceman? Try as you might, you'll never get to space that way; all you're doing is killing your braincells (which is probably why your head hurts!)
The set of "worst things about these disasters" includes a pile of corpses. Non-engineering members of the general public continuing to be non-engineers is not even remotely as bad as a pile of corpses. It isn't in this set.
> 20 years of pumping concrete is enough to know if it's significantly wrong.
No, that doesn't make sense to me. Concrete buildings are expected to last longer than 20 years, though not expected to last forever. If the shortcuts they take were cutting the expected lifetime of the structure in half, 20 years of experience would not be enough time to see those failures start to happen.
Sorry, I mean a high school educated concrete pumper with 20 years experience will rote learn what the standards are. So the workers should see it's less than standard.
For something to be really off standard, it has to be complex or using illegal immigrant workers or something that is hard to see, like a bad concrete mix being brought in.
It also needs a reason. The cost benefit has to be more than risk. The builders won't risk a $xx million building by saving on re-bar. A contractor might, but they'd have to get away with it.
It was 1979. The height of Mafia control over large building projects especially anything using cement. I would be totally unsurprised if corners were cut to reduce costs and pad the pockets of some capo who was running the union on that job.
If the Hyatt walkway had been built as it was designed, I'm sure it would have worked fine. But was it realistic to build it as designed? The design called for something like 12 meters (12m is my estimate from it needing to span the 2nd to 4th floor) of continuously threaded rod. Is cutting 12 meters of continuous thread on one rod a realistic design? This is a real question, I don't know the answer but this seems suspect to me. Wikipedia says the reason the construction company changed the design is because they would have to screw the bolts past several meters of thread per rod and they thought such long sections of threading would be subject to damage during construction.
Obviously their "solution" was lethal. But the original presumably safe design seems impractical at best.
> Analysis of these two details revealed that the original design of the rod hanger connection would have supported 90 kN, only 60% of the 151 kN required by the Kansas City building code. Even if the details had not been modified the rod hanger connection would have violated building standards. As-built, however, the connection only supported 30% of the minimum load which explains why the walkways collapsed well below maximum load (Feld and Carper, 1997).
It is possible to cut a single thread 12 meters long, but it would be hard to position on the construction site.
I worked in a gear shop for 5 years, yes, threads that long can be done. I suspect it might have been cheaper to get a rolled thread in that length, rather than a cut thread. Rolled thread is likely to be stronger, as it is formed, and not cut.
Instead of being passive aggressive with this psuedo-scoratic bullshit, why don't you just say outright what you mean? You're talking about covid.
A global pandemic is a shitty excuse for these hyper-local phenomena. It's not covid; it's the voting public of San Francisco (and two or three other west coast cities) and the disastrous politicians they elect.
This is an instance of the orthogonality thesis, by the way. Your assertion is that "increased ability to think" should cause "increased desire to eat Traditional Food (tm)", which is no more true than the assertion "increased ability to think causes increased desire to consume Renaissance art". Desires are, by and large, orthogonal to the generalised ability to achieve desires (the ability which you label "sense"). Some desires are not orthogonal - the desire to survive and be healthy, for example, which is instrumental in achieving many other desires - but to argue your assertion on those grounds, you must prove that Traditional Food is sufficiently dramatically better for achieving some instrumental goal.
Come on, this is a bit too aggressive of a statement. On the other hand, there is some anecdotal evidence that nutrients in pills are not absorbed by our gut as well as more "naturally" delivered nutrients.
I'm down. Add a glucostat for optimal blood sugar level too. Just get a waterproof Ergodox, wrap around 8k monitor, and a sensory dep tank (with optional high-tech minimal techno piped in).
Lmao are you serious? Source is 15 years of buying drugs. The illegal drug dealers only took cash, and now that buying drugs is legal, the legal dealers only take cash too. They have an ATM in their shop, but that's because they only take cash.
I guess you never buy drugs IRL, if you really want a source for "drug dealers only take cash". What's next, wanting a source for "water is wet"?
> Also, did you just forget we were (and we are) in a pandemic that started a year ago, forcing almost every person in lockdown?
Guess who stayed open the entire time? The drug dealers. They were excluded from lockdowns due to ostensibly being essential businesses who sold "medicine". And guess what, the entire time they have only accepted cash.
I suspect that's more about the weird 'state-legal/federal-illegal' hybrid situation. Banks with federal charters can't touch the industry, so it mostly runs on cash.
Two weeks after we get Federal legalization, someone's going to offer a rewards Visa with 4.20x points for cannabis purchases. You heard it here first.
> Lmao are you serious? Source is 15 years of buying drugs...
So the source is you then? If so, that is an anecdote and that isn't a reputable source, try again.
> The illegal drug dealers only took cash, and now that buying drugs is legal, the legal dealers only take cash too. They have an ATM in their shop, but that's because they only take cash.
So you are saying that cryptocurrencies was never an option for these people at all? If it was legal bank transfer or credit cards would be just fine.
Would be nice if you provide sources for your claims to these.
> Guess who stayed open the entire time? The drug dealers. They were excluded from lockdowns due to ostensibly being essential businesses who sold "medicine". And guess what, the entire time they have only accepted cash.
Again, do you have any reputable sources for these claims?
No I wouldn't. But the claim that most drug dealers don't accept anything other than greenbacks has less significant (even if just in pure dollar terms) than the claim that you've broken the fundamental threat model related to the largest crypto-asset system that currently has a market cap (as of this moment) of more than half a billion USD
You seem to be under the impression that anyone here has an obligation to make sure that you're adequately convinced.
You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.
If this was an even remotely controversial or decisive topic, it's worth providing sources, because they convince not only the person demanding it, but also anyone reading. But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.
You can ask for sources for "the sky is blue" all you want, but I'm happy to just stick my head out the window and go "yep, I'm pretty sure". I'm not too fussed if you still don't believe me.
> You seem to be under the impression that anyone here has an obligation to make sure that you're adequately convinced.
All I'm just asking for clear evidence to a claim, like someone asked me for evidence of a claim I made, I provided a source and evidence. Not hard, seems you and others have an issue with it.
> You clearly won't believe that most drug transactions are done in cash unless you see incontrovertible evidence. That's fine. But no-one cares, so I don't know why you expect demands for a source to be met.
Do you expect me or anyone else to believe a random person like you making a bold claim at first glance?
So unless you have a source to a bold claim, I can dismiss it.
> But in this case, it's such a well-known and obvious fact that there's no such benefit.
Then the refutation should be quick and easy right? Again, I see none so far.
When I was a teenager on the swim team in the early 00s, the school had to ban 'deck changing' [changing into or out of your swimsuit in view of the public] because, in a game of one-up[wo]manship, it became overtly sexual with towels falling "by accident." The sort of prudishness described above surprises me.
> 1. FUD
"Good people make good things" is 'fear, uncertainty, doubt'? Have you been huffing paint fumes again aspaceman? Try as you might, you'll never get to space that way; all you're doing is killing your braincells (which is probably why your head hurts!)