384

What the FVCK is calculus? (media.piefed.social)

submitted 3 weeks ago by PugJesus@piefed.social to c/science_memes@mander.xyz

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 10 points 3 weeks ago

but it'll cost way way more, and the budget isn't unlimited.

I wish things weren't always so short-sighted by default. I mean sometimes things evolve so maybe it's better to leave room for teardown and improvement or whatnot.

But it seems if you're not thinking in "quarterlies", infrastructure that's built once and simply maintained should cost a lot less in the long run.

But then I guess the contractors would dry up if they didn't have to come rebuild it a dozen times a decade. :p

[-] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 8 points 2 weeks ago

Yhea, it is better to build infrastructure that lasts, but 2000 years?

that is a bit overkill, and more of a vanity project for billionaires which is more of a cry for help (by help I mean guillotine)

[-] autriyo@feddit.org 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

I feel, for the hard to replace stuff an interstate bridge in a dense city for example, aiming for a three digit life span should be considered.

Just because it kinda sucks having to replace infrastructure like that. And the city is most likely still going to be there and need that infrastructure.