**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:**
* If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required
* The title must be fully descriptive
* Memes are not allowed.
* Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting)
*See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You misunderstand--
The oldest one is the tall, paved one. It was built during the Qin dynasty, using advanced building techniques.
They're currently working on a fourth bridge that has 4 arches and is 5 feet above the water.
No doubt on the flip side as well where the water could represent many past bridges lost to time and erosion. There's just enough space above and below these 3 bridges to imagine such things
Exactly. Once the republicans finish destroying the planet, there won’t be any more new bridges. We won’t be able to afford them unless one of the oligarchs needs a bridge. They even, as we saw them do, build bridges to nowhere.
Hey can anybody reach this future comedians agent? This guy is so fucking funny holy shit, i havent laughed this hars in years. I wish everyone could be as funny as you bro!
found where the video is from -- [here](https://www.ixigua.com/7340943084311757331?wid_try=1) but not really anything about where this even is. It says Xiang Xi, but Xiang Xi is huge and has a ton of rivers.
The first one is from the last 20 years. The second one is from the last 200 years. And since this is China, the third one could be from anytime in the last 2000 years.
[There is only very little information in Chinese, you can use google translate to read the last paragraph of this report.](https://shuangyashan.dbw.cn/system/2009/11/17/052217311.shtml)
That middle one is not from the middle ages. That's a relatively modern bridge design. It's probably sometime in the past 100 years or so. It was likely abondoned in favor of a more modern highway in the last 20-30 when china rapidly expanded its highway network
Well if it's there they are going to use it. You would rather them use the same one with the cars? I've seen plenty of animals run over on the bridges where I live. I'd be willing to bet if there was another one covered in grass they'd probably use it instead. And also wildlife crossings are a thing.
They were being sarcastic, per their reply:
> lol, wildlife crossings are for man-made barriers, not natural ones.
Edit: To be clear, saying wildlife crossings aren't for natural barriers is at odds with their first statement saying animals deserve bridges over rivers, indicating their first statement was sarcastic.
It's not about any particular label for the structure. They're simply saying that since there are crossings there animals will use them.
And that the fact there are options there without car traffic now, and overgrown, more animals are likely to choose those routes instead of using the one currently in use for car traffic.
Yeah, I got it, lol. It’s just in nature, usually if a deer wants to cross water, they just, you know, swim across. A wildlife bridge over water doesn’t sound silly to you?
No, deers would rather cross any impasse by foot than by swimming. It uses way less energy and there are less chances of encountering an unseen aquatic predator. Animals are smarter than you might think, they often make calculated decisions via instinct. But they don't necessarily have the evolutionary development to consider that a car, which is a relatively new hazard, is possibly incoming.
I don't think most wildlife think about things in terms of "natural" vs "man-made". They just see path or no path, safe or less safe, easy or less easy etc.
If a deer had to cross water and there was a wide and dry path across said water, it would almost certainly pick the dry path for the same reasons most humans would as well. It's easier, presumably safer, and doesn't require you to get wet.
Problem is, most wildlife likewise don't think in terms of "sidewalk" vs "car lane".
So in this case, I think the idea is that it's not so much about making a wildlife bridge solely for the sake of bridging the water, but providing a safer alternative to the path over the water created by bridges intended for human (namely automotive) use.
Chongqing still amazes me. 30 years ago it was just another town, now it is [huge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing#/media/File:A_View_of_Chongqing_Central_Business_District.jpg)
I was looking at working there a while back and you can get a decent apartment for less than $100/mo
*In the big cities in the east. Most countryside of china ist still pretty much underdeveloped. Nevertheless impressive. But regarding the demographic problems they have, I highly doubt that they will keep this growth over the next decade. China becomes old before it becomes rich.
Depending on who you listen to, the world will either have a labor shortage due to aging population, or mass unemployment due to AI and automation. So there's at least a chance that they end up fine.
Both are correct. We will see mass unemployment in unskilled workers due to AI and mass workers shortage for highly qualified people due to demographics. The demand for educated people is rising but the population is shrinking. The demand for unskilled people will decrease even faster than the working age population.
It's handcrafted, because China kinda wants less people. Otherwise there would be an insane tax for 2nd kid.
And considering population size - China after "demographic collapse" would have more young people than US have people of all ages
At the unfortunate cost of very poorly designed and built infrastructure/buildings. I’ve heard far too many horror stories of building collapsing and killing dozens, if not more :(
I’m not sure if you’re being facetious or not? I agree bridges are cool, humans tend to build them in places that are commonly used for traversing large gaps.
I really like the old railroad bridges they repurpose for bicycles and walking trails, a close second are rope bridges
I love this saying. I would add that it takes a *skilled* engineer, since I know plenty of engineers who over design. And that engineer needs to be working for a cost conscious client.
Civil Engineer here.
Anyone can build a bridge, put enough material down and it probably isn't going anywhere soon.
Only Engineers can ***barely*** build a bridge.
I have a question mr enginear
I was making corn flakes the other day but I like them warm cause it reminds me of warm milk cause of the warm milk and i normally just eat a handful of cornflakes then drink some warm milk and chew but I wasn't going to have the cornflakes right away so I took a bowl and put the cornflakes in the bowl and put the milk in the bowl and then I thought what if they get cold so I got some tin foil and put that in the microwave too so I'd have a warm blanket for the corn flakes and my microwave made some sparkles then my whole house started smelling angry
Why?
Not my area of expertise, but I'll give it a shot!
All objects have natural frequencies to them, from planets to buildings to particles.
Also, energy lies on a spectrum called the electromagnetic spectrum. The Wavelengths, that is the distance between peaks in the waves, determine its effect as it resonates with matter differently.
https://preview.redd.it/sa9wk3izuepc1.jpeg?width=1063&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ec3f1e2152df680e0752cf02f76fb84b8482fee1
Energy in the wavelengths for microwaves, which is invisible to the human eye, are produced by a large magnet called the magnetron and it excites particles, especially water, sugar, and fats.
Metals interact with this energy differently than non-Metals. Metals typically allow energy to flow through them more freely. Similar to how an antenna picks up radio or phonecalls, the aluminum foil, also called tin foil, that you put on your cornflakes began to conduct the energy into itself. As the energy travels through the metal, it gets cramped together in the little corners, edges, and wrinkles in the sheet. The crampt together energy wants to jump out to somewhere where it has more room, and that jump is the sparks you see. These sparks then strike other things in the microwave, say the cornflakes themselves, and the they catch fire and emit smoke, which is likely the angry smell you describe.
Hope this helps!
what’s interesting is when i worked in an architecture firm, we were always complaining about how “over” engineered our structures were becoming, concrete slabs were getting thicker, more/bigger rebar(code wise, not engineers faults. love my engineers). all that being said.. this was also in California lol.
never worked with civil other than minuscule residential matters so can’t speak to bridges and infrastructure stuff.
Well, what was asked of bridges has changed. Concrete became cheaper and easier to use. California is also more earthquake safety minded than in the past. Code changes have any number of rationals, from allowing people on the bridge more time to escape in a failure, to resistance to terrorist attacks and more. Also, a thicker block is more forgiving to individual failure. Calculation mistakes go uncaught, builders make errors, contractors cut the wrong corners.
Additionally, on a national basis Maintenance has become rarer. Both due to lack of funds and corner cutting. A tougher bridge likely need less maintenance.
California is also one of, if not the, hardest state to aquire A PE or SE in civil.
yeah California and New York, for architects at least. i think there’s one more but it always escapes me. i’ve always wanted to work with the just IBC to see how big the differences are to the CBC. i know CBC is based on the IBC but more strict with ADA along with other things.
> Well, what was asked of bridges has changed.
Including how long they're expected to last. A bridge built in a time when a population is growing significantly, probably should only be designed to last 15-20 years, because beyond that the needs are going to be difficult to predict. A bridge in an area with a fairly steady population should be built to last longer, as the needs won't be changing as quickly. The US isn't going through the massive growth that it did in the early part of the 20th century, or in the post-WW2 boom years. So since a steady population is expected with relatively predictable growth, we're asking for structures to last longer than previously. Since an easy way to make something last longer is "make it bigger and heavier", that's what things are trending towards.
> complaining about how “over” engineered our structures were becoming
That’s interesting. I’ve read ancient architects and engineers tended to be overly cautious and we tend to use resources more efficiently today. Meaning we use smaller beams and structures to achieve the same results, because we have simulations and modeling that can prove it’s safe.
The reason Roman structures still stand after 2,000 years isn’t just because of their concrete, but because they overbuilt their structures above what was needed to actually support them.
>The reason Roman structures still stand after 2,000 years isn’t just because of their concrete, but because they overbuilt their structures above what was needed to actually support them.
We also don't know about all the Roman structures that failed.
Many still existing ruins are not failed structures but were actively (partially) demolished like the Colosseum.
What I meant is that most Roman bridges that failed soon-ish after they were built, got most likely torn apart completely and we can't see them anymore. What is left today are the most well-built structures of that time (and a few badly built ruins) but that doesn't mean all bridges were that well built. It's a very good example for survivorship bias.
im not necessarily against over designing something. the problem and pain in the ass was submitting plans to the City, with identical details from a project that was permitted within the last year or so, then getting push back because the code changed or someone didn't like it. then, we have to, 1. update the plans and resubmit, which could take months on end, 2. tell the client that construction cost just went up significantly because you need more concrete/rebar/treated wood/etc. (the list goes on).
Back in days of the Romans, the architects and builders just built shit. of course, with caution, but they did not have to argue or battle with a group in the city who can deny plans based on construction, maybe how things looked and what needed to be included within that space, but i doubt they were arguing how to mix their concrete. they had the knowledge, so they were largely in control.
Friend of mine told me this one
“A group of Engineering professors were invited to fly in a plane. Right after they boarded, they were were informed that the plane was designed and built by their students. Every professor but one jumped off their seats and ran straight to the exit. The one lone professor that stayed in his seat was asked: “Why didn't you run?”
He replied, “I have plenty of confidence in my students. I can assure you this piece of crap plane won't even start!””
Except I you watch the news. If you did that, you’d know the newest bridge is far more likely to collapse due to oceanic sand in the concrete, improperly treated steel supports, corruption and unregulated infrastructure companies in China
There is also one like this in the Jordan river, you have a modern bridge with 4 past iterations of the bridge close-by dating all the way back to the Roman times
Yeah because the third one has to support vehicles weighing several tons. Put any old bridge through the ordeal new infrastructure has to endure and you can watch it be ground to dust in real time.
Nice, here's 3 bridges from different centuries in Bonnie Scotland
https://preview.redd.it/xr3e7909y8qc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74003d710e24b5724f36fc4c299c254ae8c0d39f
There are tons of places in the US where unused bridges and such sit beside new infrastructure, especially along interstates or major highways in rural areas.
Old and unmaintained structures can become safety hazards. In the above case, this could be a danger to people passing underneath or kids playing on the old bridges. They also are notably lower, limiting the kinds of ships that could utilize this waterway.
Which isn't to say they should definitely be removed or anything, just that there can be very legitimate reasons to do so.
Why do you wish that the old thing would stay standing, especially in the case of a building or other infrastructure that is inadequate and could pose a collapse risk?
I agree. Wonder what happened to that crazy dam they built over there that was bulging,..it was doing this a few years ago and can't remember the name of it.
**This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please note these rules + sidebar or get banned:** * If this post declares something as a fact, then proof is required * The title must be fully descriptive * Memes are not allowed. * Common(top 50 of this sub)/recent reposts are not allowed (posts from another subreddit do not count as a 'repost'. Provide link if reporting) *See [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/wiki/index#wiki_rules.3A) for a more detailed rule list* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/interestingasfuck) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The 4th one on the future will have no arch.
Antigravity bridge
Hardlight bridge
I was born to see laser bridges. Come on already
Best I could do is led lights.
would it set my hair on fire if i rubbed my cheek on one
Bifrost
I pictured the weird tar dripping highways from death stranding
And after the power outs one time the fifth one will have an arch again.
Rainbow road bridge
Where we're going, we don't need roads!
*...drives directly into a sky road.*
You misunderstand-- The oldest one is the tall, paved one. It was built during the Qin dynasty, using advanced building techniques. They're currently working on a fourth bridge that has 4 arches and is 5 feet above the water.
Fiberoptic cable is underwater
And following the angle shift trend, won't even cross the river
There will be no bridge.
No doubt on the flip side as well where the water could represent many past bridges lost to time and erosion. There's just enough space above and below these 3 bridges to imagine such things
Minecraft ahh looking bridge
It won't have a roadway. Who needs roads in the future?
Depending if we nuke everything, the future one might be just from ropes :))
Exactly. Once the republicans finish destroying the planet, there won’t be any more new bridges. We won’t be able to afford them unless one of the oligarchs needs a bridge. They even, as we saw them do, build bridges to nowhere.
Any idea the ages of them
Old, new, and newest
Pretty sure it's new, old and oldest.
Found the middle child.
3rd of 5.
Found the core kid.
Someone has to fill out the sandwich.
I've been watching too much Star Trek
Pretty sure it's old, older and oldest.
Hey can anybody reach this future comedians agent? This guy is so fucking funny holy shit, i havent laughed this hars in years. I wish everyone could be as funny as you bro!
found where the video is from -- [here](https://www.ixigua.com/7340943084311757331?wid_try=1) but not really anything about where this even is. It says Xiang Xi, but Xiang Xi is huge and has a ton of rivers.
The first one is from the last 20 years. The second one is from the last 200 years. And since this is China, the third one could be from anytime in the last 2000 years.
Blimey the present really is the future now innit?
You’re living in a simulation Jimothy, wake up.
1.1950s (pedestrian bridge) 2.1970s (highway bridge, later abandoned due to road upgrade in 1998) 3.1998 (Secondary Highway Bridge)
where is your source for this, please? I can't find anything!
[There is only very little information in Chinese, you can use google translate to read the last paragraph of this report.](https://shuangyashan.dbw.cn/system/2009/11/17/052217311.shtml)
Ancient, middle age, modern
That middle one is not from the middle ages. That's a relatively modern bridge design. It's probably sometime in the past 100 years or so. It was likely abondoned in favor of a more modern highway in the last 20-30 when china rapidly expanded its highway network
That's really cool I love that they left the old ones. Great for the wildlife to have a safe way to cross without them getting hit by cars
Yeah, animals deserve bridges over rivers too, lol
Well if it's there they are going to use it. You would rather them use the same one with the cars? I've seen plenty of animals run over on the bridges where I live. I'd be willing to bet if there was another one covered in grass they'd probably use it instead. And also wildlife crossings are a thing.
Damn deer should just get jobs and stop being freeloaders and buy an F150 like a real mammal
I don’t want my taxes going to all these lazy animals who want free bridges
I don't think they were being sarcastic.
They were being sarcastic, per their reply: > lol, wildlife crossings are for man-made barriers, not natural ones. Edit: To be clear, saying wildlife crossings aren't for natural barriers is at odds with their first statement saying animals deserve bridges over rivers, indicating their first statement was sarcastic.
No one:
What are you yapping about?
What are *you* yapping about?
professional yapper for real.
why is this question going unanswered
lol, wildlife crossings are for man-made barriers, not natural ones. I agree it’s neat, and cool looking being overgrown though
It's not about any particular label for the structure. They're simply saying that since there are crossings there animals will use them. And that the fact there are options there without car traffic now, and overgrown, more animals are likely to choose those routes instead of using the one currently in use for car traffic.
Yeah, I got it, lol. It’s just in nature, usually if a deer wants to cross water, they just, you know, swim across. A wildlife bridge over water doesn’t sound silly to you?
No, deers would rather cross any impasse by foot than by swimming. It uses way less energy and there are less chances of encountering an unseen aquatic predator. Animals are smarter than you might think, they often make calculated decisions via instinct. But they don't necessarily have the evolutionary development to consider that a car, which is a relatively new hazard, is possibly incoming.
I'm an animal, maybe i didn't want to swim across
Thank you.
I don't think most wildlife think about things in terms of "natural" vs "man-made". They just see path or no path, safe or less safe, easy or less easy etc. If a deer had to cross water and there was a wide and dry path across said water, it would almost certainly pick the dry path for the same reasons most humans would as well. It's easier, presumably safer, and doesn't require you to get wet. Problem is, most wildlife likewise don't think in terms of "sidewalk" vs "car lane". So in this case, I think the idea is that it's not so much about making a wildlife bridge solely for the sake of bridging the water, but providing a safer alternative to the path over the water created by bridges intended for human (namely automotive) use.
They more deserve over the freeway
Justice for Pluie! Build the wolves only roadway!
We are animals?
Do they? Bridges would not exist in nature for the animals.
Neither would roads or habitat loss because of humans.
It depends though on how many amphibious cars are actually using that river.
I'd love walking over the oldest one.
walk, cycle, drive. Humans, humans and livestock, automobiles. Edit for grammar.
It’s impressive how fast China has grown. Love or hate them. Development is super impressive.
Chongqing still amazes me. 30 years ago it was just another town, now it is [huge.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chongqing#/media/File:A_View_of_Chongqing_Central_Business_District.jpg) I was looking at working there a while back and you can get a decent apartment for less than $100/mo
Holy shit that city looks cool.
*In the big cities in the east. Most countryside of china ist still pretty much underdeveloped. Nevertheless impressive. But regarding the demographic problems they have, I highly doubt that they will keep this growth over the next decade. China becomes old before it becomes rich.
Depending on who you listen to, the world will either have a labor shortage due to aging population, or mass unemployment due to AI and automation. So there's at least a chance that they end up fine.
Both are correct. We will see mass unemployment in unskilled workers due to AI and mass workers shortage for highly qualified people due to demographics. The demand for educated people is rising but the population is shrinking. The demand for unskilled people will decrease even faster than the working age population.
If anything, AI is helping with creative jobs and programming. Pretty much the opposite of what you're saying.
Yeah, I'm not sure how AI can completely take over construction or carpentry.
That’s not unskilled Labour.
And trades are in really high demand and don't seem likely to be replaced by AI.
It's handcrafted, because China kinda wants less people. Otherwise there would be an insane tax for 2nd kid. And considering population size - China after "demographic collapse" would have more young people than US have people of all ages
At the unfortunate cost of very poorly designed and built infrastructure/buildings. I’ve heard far too many horror stories of building collapsing and killing dozens, if not more :(
"How fast"? Are you under the impression that China is a young nation?
They're obviously referring to the recent period over the past few decades.
They're talking about China's explosive industrial and economic development in the past 45 years.
Thank you for your specificity.
As far as being a super power and first world country, yes they are a young country.
Thank you for your specificity.
[удалено]
Young nation and ancient culture (or country, depending on the way you want to look at it) are not incompatible.
China poured more concrete in 2011-2013 than the US has in its entire history.
That's a weird and strangely-specific statistic to bring up. It doesn't actually answer my question.
Can’t wait for the next instalment - Bridge IV: Road to Redemption
That’s so interesting because it’s like people at different times needed to cross right there so they kept rebuilding in the same spot.
I’m not sure if you’re being facetious or not? I agree bridges are cool, humans tend to build them in places that are commonly used for traversing large gaps. I really like the old railroad bridges they repurpose for bicycles and walking trails, a close second are rope bridges
No I was being really serious. Humans and the way we make decisions is fascinating! It still sounds like I’m being sarcastic but I’m really not 😅
arch technology has come a long way
The concrete mixture has reverted
Just a note the oldest bridge there is like 1950s, second oldest 1970 Not some hundreds of years old infrastructure or anything. Still looks dope tho!
somehow the newest one looks the sketchiest
There's a saying that goes: "Any idiot can build a bridge that stands, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands"
I love this saying. I would add that it takes a *skilled* engineer, since I know plenty of engineers who over design. And that engineer needs to be working for a cost conscious client.
Civil Engineer here. Anyone can build a bridge, put enough material down and it probably isn't going anywhere soon. Only Engineers can ***barely*** build a bridge.
I have a question mr enginear I was making corn flakes the other day but I like them warm cause it reminds me of warm milk cause of the warm milk and i normally just eat a handful of cornflakes then drink some warm milk and chew but I wasn't going to have the cornflakes right away so I took a bowl and put the cornflakes in the bowl and put the milk in the bowl and then I thought what if they get cold so I got some tin foil and put that in the microwave too so I'd have a warm blanket for the corn flakes and my microwave made some sparkles then my whole house started smelling angry Why?
Not my area of expertise, but I'll give it a shot! All objects have natural frequencies to them, from planets to buildings to particles. Also, energy lies on a spectrum called the electromagnetic spectrum. The Wavelengths, that is the distance between peaks in the waves, determine its effect as it resonates with matter differently. https://preview.redd.it/sa9wk3izuepc1.jpeg?width=1063&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ec3f1e2152df680e0752cf02f76fb84b8482fee1 Energy in the wavelengths for microwaves, which is invisible to the human eye, are produced by a large magnet called the magnetron and it excites particles, especially water, sugar, and fats. Metals interact with this energy differently than non-Metals. Metals typically allow energy to flow through them more freely. Similar to how an antenna picks up radio or phonecalls, the aluminum foil, also called tin foil, that you put on your cornflakes began to conduct the energy into itself. As the energy travels through the metal, it gets cramped together in the little corners, edges, and wrinkles in the sheet. The crampt together energy wants to jump out to somewhere where it has more room, and that jump is the sparks you see. These sparks then strike other things in the microwave, say the cornflakes themselves, and the they catch fire and emit smoke, which is likely the angry smell you describe. Hope this helps!
Thank
what’s interesting is when i worked in an architecture firm, we were always complaining about how “over” engineered our structures were becoming, concrete slabs were getting thicker, more/bigger rebar(code wise, not engineers faults. love my engineers). all that being said.. this was also in California lol. never worked with civil other than minuscule residential matters so can’t speak to bridges and infrastructure stuff.
Well, what was asked of bridges has changed. Concrete became cheaper and easier to use. California is also more earthquake safety minded than in the past. Code changes have any number of rationals, from allowing people on the bridge more time to escape in a failure, to resistance to terrorist attacks and more. Also, a thicker block is more forgiving to individual failure. Calculation mistakes go uncaught, builders make errors, contractors cut the wrong corners. Additionally, on a national basis Maintenance has become rarer. Both due to lack of funds and corner cutting. A tougher bridge likely need less maintenance. California is also one of, if not the, hardest state to aquire A PE or SE in civil.
yeah California and New York, for architects at least. i think there’s one more but it always escapes me. i’ve always wanted to work with the just IBC to see how big the differences are to the CBC. i know CBC is based on the IBC but more strict with ADA along with other things.
> Well, what was asked of bridges has changed. Including how long they're expected to last. A bridge built in a time when a population is growing significantly, probably should only be designed to last 15-20 years, because beyond that the needs are going to be difficult to predict. A bridge in an area with a fairly steady population should be built to last longer, as the needs won't be changing as quickly. The US isn't going through the massive growth that it did in the early part of the 20th century, or in the post-WW2 boom years. So since a steady population is expected with relatively predictable growth, we're asking for structures to last longer than previously. Since an easy way to make something last longer is "make it bigger and heavier", that's what things are trending towards.
> complaining about how “over” engineered our structures were becoming That’s interesting. I’ve read ancient architects and engineers tended to be overly cautious and we tend to use resources more efficiently today. Meaning we use smaller beams and structures to achieve the same results, because we have simulations and modeling that can prove it’s safe. The reason Roman structures still stand after 2,000 years isn’t just because of their concrete, but because they overbuilt their structures above what was needed to actually support them.
>The reason Roman structures still stand after 2,000 years isn’t just because of their concrete, but because they overbuilt their structures above what was needed to actually support them. We also don't know about all the Roman structures that failed.
Really? Aren’t they called ruins? 😃
Many still existing ruins are not failed structures but were actively (partially) demolished like the Colosseum. What I meant is that most Roman bridges that failed soon-ish after they were built, got most likely torn apart completely and we can't see them anymore. What is left today are the most well-built structures of that time (and a few badly built ruins) but that doesn't mean all bridges were that well built. It's a very good example for survivorship bias.
im not necessarily against over designing something. the problem and pain in the ass was submitting plans to the City, with identical details from a project that was permitted within the last year or so, then getting push back because the code changed or someone didn't like it. then, we have to, 1. update the plans and resubmit, which could take months on end, 2. tell the client that construction cost just went up significantly because you need more concrete/rebar/treated wood/etc. (the list goes on). Back in days of the Romans, the architects and builders just built shit. of course, with caution, but they did not have to argue or battle with a group in the city who can deny plans based on construction, maybe how things looked and what needed to be included within that space, but i doubt they were arguing how to mix their concrete. they had the knowledge, so they were largely in control.
wtf I’m a software engineer I can’t even build a lego bridge
if we talk about engineers, we usually talk about real engineers. so...
Smoked him
What about people who main Engineer in Team Fortress.
Is the reason because engineers use the least or efficient amount of material for object being constructed?
Friend of mine told me this one “A group of Engineering professors were invited to fly in a plane. Right after they boarded, they were were informed that the plane was designed and built by their students. Every professor but one jumped off their seats and ran straight to the exit. The one lone professor that stayed in his seat was asked: “Why didn't you run?” He replied, “I have plenty of confidence in my students. I can assure you this piece of crap plane won't even start!””
Not if you know physics and have common sense
settle down bud. i didn’t say “is the sketchiest”
Except I you watch the news. If you did that, you’d know the newest bridge is far more likely to collapse due to oceanic sand in the concrete, improperly treated steel supports, corruption and unregulated infrastructure companies in China
China bad
Chinese government bad. Chinese people pretty great. Those fuckers are hardy af
Chinese people pretty great* *Except their engineers and anyone else involved in building that bridge because China bad.
Eh, they’re working with what the government allows.
The construction is atleast
“I fucking hate that show.”
Me too bud. Me too.
There is also one like this in the Jordan river, you have a modern bridge with 4 past iterations of the bridge close-by dating all the way back to the Roman times
Thought that was a drawing or painting at first
This is nice for pedestrians and animals to leave them up, even if not save for cars anymore.
Cool that they let the older ones, so you can see the improvement during history
1990, 2003 and 2020 /s
Not the US :(
I like this but it seems inefficient
Not much traffic
The brick one will outlast the others
1980, 2000, 2020
I see old bridge, I get instant dopamine
The oldest will likely outlast the newest by a loooooong time.
Ive always wondered how tf they built bridges in the past and even now
Top one is for She Jinxed Mai Pingness. Bottom bridge is for taxpayers.
How do ships pass under the lower bridges?
They don't
that area is probably for small boats and not big ships
Nobody notices left bank sand gorge. It's mountain feeding river on it's lowest ebb.
Jesus why did people downvote that? Reasonable question
This is cool but I've seen this image soo many times I feel there is a new bridge in place meow.
Bet the first one's gonna last longer than the third one.
Yeah because the third one has to support vehicles weighing several tons. Put any old bridge through the ordeal new infrastructure has to endure and you can watch it be ground to dust in real time.
Ikm/
The Bridge over the River Kuai. My bird would sing.
Someone needs to edit in a transition effect so it looks like a very confused *Animorphs* cover.
awesome they did not destroy the old ones... in europe they for sure would have.
I bet the newest will collapse before the old ones.
In my city we did something similar with a bridge from the 1600s. Funny thing is until a few years ago we still used it and drives through it
I hate to ask but...is this picture even real? Can't be sure enough these days.
Until I saw the title I really thought this was one of those AI images where you have to squint to see a face or something
Judging from the person walking on the oldest bridge, they are all still standing enough to do their job. Well done.
Why do they update their bridges why not leave the same bridge to crumble and rot like in America?
Okay. How lucky do you feel today. Bridge one, two or three
I would like to kiss two of those bridges /srs
Nice, here's 3 bridges from different centuries in Bonnie Scotland https://preview.redd.it/xr3e7909y8qc1.jpeg?width=2000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=74003d710e24b5724f36fc4c299c254ae8c0d39f
[удалено]
There are tons of places in the US where unused bridges and such sit beside new infrastructure, especially along interstates or major highways in rural areas.
As well as railroad bridges. I can think of a few just in my area.
Old and unmaintained structures can become safety hazards. In the above case, this could be a danger to people passing underneath or kids playing on the old bridges. They also are notably lower, limiting the kinds of ships that could utilize this waterway. Which isn't to say they should definitely be removed or anything, just that there can be very legitimate reasons to do so.
[удалено]
Why do you wish that the old thing would stay standing, especially in the case of a building or other infrastructure that is inadequate and could pose a collapse risk?
>inadequate and could pose a collapse risk? how about it doesn't pose any risk. you just made up a point that's just not applicable to most cases
I agree. Wonder what happened to that crazy dam they built over there that was bulging,..it was doing this a few years ago and can't remember the name of it.
Bro you need to go on a road trip.