• Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    11 months ago

    My wife and I agreed to this years ago before we had children to always explain to our kids in detail. I explain engineering and technology, she explains medical science and history.

    I thought we would raise super smart kids but they’d just ask their question, go “oh neat thanks” and then play video games again.

    • tacosplease@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      11 months ago

      Haha yeah my son is tired of my shit. You can see the instant regret sometimes as I “over explain” how something works. I’m trying to find a good balance so he doesn’t stop asking questions.

      • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        A trick I found with my little cousin was to pretend to think about it for a minute. I’d say "ummm … " and furrow my brow and be quiet for a few seconds. It creates this little moment of suspense which makes the answer seem more desirable to her.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I used to do this to my nieces and nephews but get scolded for “making fun of the children.” Like it’s my fault that they are universally idiots until somewhere around the third semester of grad school.

    • RogueBanana@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      11 months ago

      I can say I have a degree in everything and an expert of all matter but too bad this isn’t reddit

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      You joke but there are legit a bunch of YouTube “engineers” who got their degrees from Kerbal Space Program and Polybridge as far as I can tell.

      Look, if you took some classes in 1995 and then never practiced in that area and now make YouTube videos for a living, you are not an engineer. You are a hobbyist.

  • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Fun fact about bridge load limits: school buses are legally allowed to ignore them. While this might seem insane given that the point of a school bus is to transport children safely, the posted load limit on a bridge isn’t the weight which will cause the bridge to collapse - it’s a weight which, if traffic heavier than that were to regularly use the bridge, would cause abnormally high maintenance and repair issues over the long term. Bridges can bear much greater loads than the posted limits without instantly collapsing.

    Source: school bus driver who got a question about this on the test for his CDL endorsement and looked it up after going WTF?

    • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      what i’ve learned is that any piece of architecture should have like at least a 10x margin of error, you want it to tolerate astronomical degrees of fucking up.

      • Agent641@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        You’ve also got dynamic loading to comsider, eg if a truck full of sand is driving across bridge and slams on the brakes, thats a nuch different impulse than just driving across normally.

        • PraiseTheSoup@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          I’d go for a food grade liquid tanker in this example. Muuuch more weight transfer as the liquid sloshes around, and food grade means no baffles to slow it at all.

          Edit: spelling

      • autokludge@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Yep, I typically throw more steel at structures than required. If it ‘looks’ strong enough it is probably twice as strong as it needs to be. There are certain things like walkways that can meet design codes, but it would be bouncy and unnerving to walk on. Beefing up the structure also mitigates the 200lb ape factor i.e. more likely to stay standing if someone drives a forklift into it.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        11 months ago

        Any old schmuck can make a structure with a 10x safety factor. The thing is making the safety factor as low as reasonably possible to minimize costs. If there’s a regulation that says 3x minimum, you’re probably aiming for 3x. Which is why those regulations are important, I guess.

        Source: I write code for a living, don’t listen to anything I say

        https://safetyculture.com/topics/factor-of-safety/#typical-overall-factors-of-safety-1

  • TotallynotJessica@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    11 months ago

    There’s a nugget of truth in the dad’s explanation. Empirical data, some which are critical failures, are used to predict the limits of infrastructure. They don’t destroy a copy of every single bridge because it’s expensive and not even that useful for getting new data, but things in general get built and destroyed to test new materials or designs.

    • Kogasa@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Careful analysis of the stress tensor of a simple geometric model with parameters given by empirical testing of simple materials can give you a reasonable ballpark estimate. I wouldn’t be the first one to drive on a ballpark estimate though.