What sort of arse backwards logic is that?
The one we live among.
BREAKING: Elon Musk says he is prepared to go to prison if the FBI comes to him in 2024 and tells him to illegally censor information similarly to what they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story in 2020.
This is why Elon Musk is the perfect person to own X
The comment came after
@JackPosobiec
asked Elon what he would do if an agency came to him and demanded he take down legal content.
"If I think a government agency is breaking the law and there are demands on the platform, I would be prepared to go to prison personally if I think they are the ones breaking the law."
No LONGER. A mystery.
Roman's did have very, very good engineering groups, and actually ended up with some very advanced materials science applications/uses partly by accident, partly by just seeing what worked.
Do you count the Hoover Dam as a bridge, and as 'modern'?Just so. It was a mystery, and it is a mystery no longer. Which thus invalidates the argument that the Romans had materials that are not available to use, and that therefore we can't build durable infrastructure like theirs. At the present time, we can do that.
My argument here is that in many (though not all) cases we should do that.
Because it is more expensive initially, but saves on repeated replacement costs later.
Certainly, after over 2000 years, nothing is going to be in perfect pristine condition. The point is that modern roads are designed(!) to last 50 years at most, and often last only a few years before developing major failures like potholes. Even in an over-organised country like the Netherlands (whose road system is regarded as one of the best and most orderly in the world), asphalt roads last less than a decade before they need major work. And I'm not talking about just the highways that take convoys of trucks all day. I'm talking about streets in sleepy suburbia, that get the least "inflicted" on them.
Now let's look at the "bumpy and difficult road to travel on" that you refer to:
As I mentioned above: it's not a suitable highway (even if you broadened it), and it wouldn't be even if new. But for a literally ancient road, it has held up better than anything we build today! This kind of magnificent, durable work would be excellent for local roads in many places. You can put it there, and be certain that it stays there. You won't have to come back next spring and basically re-do the whole thing.
Hilariously, parts that have over time been repaved in a less "rigid" manner (i.e. not in keeping with the Roman standards) have stood the test of time less impressively than the parts that were maintained in the Roman manner.
Some further examples:
We are looking here at roads from Antiquity. These things hold up. And if you look at Mediaeval paved roads, these are less sturdy, but those also hold up better than most paved roads built in modern times. (Modern paved roads tend to suffer from sinking stones, because the foundation is less well-made, while asphalt is just inherently more vulnerable to deterioration.)
For some further evaluation-- below is an image of a Roman bridge that was used for traffic into the '90s:
Show me a modern bridge that you truly, honestly expect to still stand there, 2000 years from now. Show me that bridge. No such bridge exists. We don't make 'em like that anymore. We really don't. (And ironically, the examples you might point to that will last longest, of what we have now, will also be the oldest ones. From when we still made them out of stone.)
Modern infrastructural construction is crap. We should do better, and we can do better. We can learn from the Romans. We can build for eternity. Not ever house, not every shed. But the big things. The ones that should last.
It's not impossible. And that's my point.
Of course they aren't in pristine condition.
The question would be how easily could we use modern technology to make it quicker to make, and at the same time for smooth riding to not ruin suspension.Just so. It was a mystery, and it is a mystery no longer. Which thus invalidates the argument that the Romans had materials that are not available to use, and that therefore we can't build durable infrastructure like theirs. At the present time, we can do that.
My argument here is that in many (though not all) cases we should do that.
Because it is more expensive initially, but saves on repeated replacement costs later.
Certainly, after over 2000 years, nothing is going to be in perfect pristine condition. The point is that modern roads are designed(!) to last 50 years at most, and often last only a few years before developing major failures like potholes. Even in an over-organised country like the Netherlands (whose road system is regarded as one of the best and most orderly in the world), asphalt roads last less than a decade before they need major work. And I'm not talking about just the highways that take convoys of trucks all day. I'm talking about streets in sleepy suburbia, that get the least "inflicted" on them.
Now let's look at the "bumpy and difficult road to travel on" that you refer to:
As I mentioned above: it's not a suitable highway (even if you broadened it), and it wouldn't be even if new. But for a literally ancient road, it has held up better than anything we build today! This kind of magnificent, durable work would be excellent for local roads in many places. You can put it there, and be certain that it stays there. You won't have to come back next spring and basically re-do the whole thing.
Hilariously, parts that have over time been repaved in a less "rigid" manner (i.e. not in keeping with the Roman standards) have stood the test of time less impressively than the parts that were maintained in the Roman manner.
Some further examples:
We are looking here at roads from Antiquity. These things hold up. And if you look at Mediaeval paved roads, these are less sturdy, but those also hold up better than most paved roads built in modern times. (Modern paved roads tend to suffer from sinking stones, because the foundation is less well-made, while asphalt is just inherently more vulnerable to deterioration.)
For some further evaluation-- below is an image of a Roman bridge that was used for traffic into the '90s:
Show me a modern bridge that you truly, honestly expect to still stand there, 2000 years from now. Show me that bridge. No such bridge exists. We don't make 'em like that anymore. We really don't. (And ironically, the examples you might point to that will last longest, of what we have now, will also be the oldest ones. From when we still made them out of stone.)
Modern infrastructural construction is crap. We should do better, and we can do better. We can learn from the Romans. We can build for eternity. Not every house, not every shed. But the big things. The ones that should last.
It's not impossible. And that's my point.
It is very good.
And it getting worst.In Poland,building before WW2 supposed to last 200 years without major replacments,after it become 100 years,after 1970 - 50 years,and now some are supposed to be even worst.Just so. It was a mystery, and it is a mystery no longer. Which thus invalidates the argument that the Romans had materials that are not available to use, and that therefore we can't build durable infrastructure like theirs. At the present time, we can do that.
My argument here is that in many (though not all) cases we should do that.
Because it is more expensive initially, but saves on repeated replacement costs later.
Certainly, after over 2000 years, nothing is going to be in perfect pristine condition. The point is that modern roads are designed(!) to last 50 years at most, and often last only a few years before developing major failures like potholes. Even in an over-organised country like the Netherlands (whose road system is regarded as one of the best and most orderly in the world), asphalt roads last less than a decade before they need major work. And I'm not talking about just the highways that take convoys of trucks all day. I'm talking about streets in sleepy suburbia, that get the least "inflicted" on them.
Now let's look at the "bumpy and difficult road to travel on" that you refer to:
As I mentioned above: it's not a suitable highway (even if you broadened it), and it wouldn't be even if new. But for a literally ancient road, it has held up better than anything we build today! This kind of magnificent, durable work would be excellent for local roads in many places. You can put it there, and be certain that it stays there. You won't have to come back next spring and basically re-do the whole thing.
Hilariously, parts that have over time been repaved in a less "rigid" manner (i.e. not in keeping with the Roman standards) have stood the test of time less impressively than the parts that were maintained in the Roman manner.
Some further examples:
We are looking here at roads from Antiquity. These things hold up. And if you look at Mediaeval paved roads, these are less sturdy, but those also hold up better than most paved roads built in modern times. (Modern paved roads tend to suffer from sinking stones, because the foundation is less well-made, while asphalt is just inherently more vulnerable to deterioration.)
For some further evaluation-- below is an image of a Roman bridge that was used for traffic into the '90s:
Show me a modern bridge that you truly, honestly expect to still stand there, 2000 years from now. Show me that bridge. No such bridge exists. We don't make 'em like that anymore. We really don't. (And ironically, the examples you might point to that will last longest, of what we have now, will also be the oldest ones. From when we still made them out of stone.)
Modern infrastructural construction is crap. We should do better, and we can do better. We can learn from the Romans. We can build for eternity. Not every house, not every shed. But the big things. The ones that should last.
It's not impossible. And that's my point.
Aqueducts are amazing, particularly that they could manage the fall over the distances they did. We still do that now with sewer systems, but they managed it was abacus and Roman Numerals, which is impressive as hell.
Survivorship bias. We see the well-built stuff, not the everyday and shit-quality stuff.
Economics is a bitch. Also, ESALs are too.
Run a few ESALs over them and they won't. The difference is loadings is pretty extreme.
Try... 100%. Passenger vehicles are literally ignored as a rounding error when accounting for road wear and tear.
"Badly designed" meaning, in this case, "more expensive than it needed to be." Sure, you can say spending that money on that bridge worked out well, but what if it meant you didn't have a bridge somewhere else?
One where money matters. You give an engineer a budget of "yes" and they can make wonders. But good luck giving them that budget.
This is wrong. First, Roman roads were never subject to the same loadings as modern roads. Because road loadings is pretty much purely heavy trucks. Passenger vehicles are ignored in most road design as a rounding error. Big trucks didn't become a predominate thing until the post-WWII era, and even then they started in America more than Europe. And then the narrower width of Roman roads meant you could not physically use said trucks on Roman roads, so they never had to deal with the huge loadings imposed.
Between loadings and economics of design, it's not. Also, survivorship bias - no one remember the shitty roads because they don't exist anymore.
That's a pretty slanted comparison -- modern roads endure vastly heavier duty cycles from vastly heavier vehicles than Roman roads did, and the famous Roman roads which survived so well were not "humble" at all; they are segments of the viae publicae, the high roads. These roads were very expensive to make and were specifically optimized to maximize durability and minimize the need for maintenance, although they still *did* require substantial regular maintenance and for the most part, it is only *parts* of them that survive. They certainly did not remain as a functional road network "down the centuries" without maintenance.