Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

19 days to build a 57-storey tower

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: 19 days to build a 57-storey tower

#111

Post by godzilla82 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #107
zhte415 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's more, but a small personal anecdote: I have a boss with similar, if somewhat more relaxed, thinking. "Why stay in the Shangri-La when a [200 Yuan per night] Motel 168 or HomeInn is perfectly clean, safe and more convenient." or "Have a laptop and a standing desk if you like, it saves more than having you unhappy or leave." or "50 Yuan per day travel bonus, enjoy the local food." It is not penny pinching (the…

> When it encroaches on personal things such as the size of a family (below, from the article's Zhang Yue) I do not like it Not having a child is the most environmentally responsible act one can do. For each child you don't have, you offset tens of thousands of tons of CO2 emissions, millions of gallons of water used, tons of trash produced, etc. I've been kicking around starting a non-profit that pays people not to…

It is really riduculous that we now start evaluating human life by the amount of carbon emission one generates. Sorry, but that is just nonsense. Wont killing yourself achieve your goals? Also, you should start a non-profit that pays family members if they commit suicide.

Re: 19 days to build a 57-storey tower

#112

Post by hobarrera »

This really is amazing, but do we really need to keep building super-dense areas?

I don't mean to say this isn't awesome: it is.

But we have lots of unused surface, and generally, building horizontally has lots of advantages: more sunlights for citizens, more room for parks, less congestion/traffic.

I've noticed that places were people live more relaxed and happy lives tend to have less tall buildings, while places with more stressful inhabitants tend to be those with larger tower. More traffic, less green/sun and plenty of other factors are usually strongly related to both.

Re: 19 days to build a 57-storey tower

#113

Post by toomuchtodo »

godzilla82 wrote: post #111
toomuchtodo wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When it encroaches on personal things such as the size of a family (below, from the article's Zhang Yue) I do not like it Not having a child is the most environmentally responsible act one can do. For each child you don't have, you offset tens of thousands of tons of CO2 emissions, millions of gallons of water used, tons of trash produced, etc. I've been kicking around starting a non-profit that pays people not to…

It is really riduculous that we now start evaluating human life by the amount of carbon emission one generates. Sorry, but that is just nonsense. Wont killing yourself achieve your goals? Also, you should start a non-profit that pays family members if they commit suicide.

There's a difference between firing someone in a company and simply removing the position through attrition when someone leaves. This is no different than the later.

Should we continue to overwhelm a physical system we require to survive? I don't advocate killing people whatsoever; I advocate incentivizing people to have less children (or no children, if they prefer). What's wrong with that?

Re: 19 days to build a 57-storey tower

#114

Post by innguest »

xtrumanx wrote: post #96
snowwrestler wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've got the right mindset, but your conspiracy is backwards. The plane that hit the Empire State Building DID cause it to collapse, but the leaders of the media, academia, and construction industries formed a conspiracy to quickly rebuild it and pretend it never happened. Edit: In case it's not obvious, they did this because they knew skyscrapers would be essential to the future growth of New York, and they did no…

Damn, I'm usually a humorless person when it comes to comments trying to be funny at HN but this, this was good.

The joke is on us for accepting a story that could be verified by computer simulation, but for which a computer simulation was never written.

Also the report written on it only needed to prove that the fuel leaked from the tank. From that point on it was assumed on the report that the destruction we saw was caused simply from the fuel.

That is a hypothesis that is amenable to computer simulation. My sense of humor finds it funny no one has simulated what happened on a computer (well, those who tried have reached different conclusions, which is actually hilarious).

Re: 19 days to build a 57-storey tower

#115

Post by asgard1024 »

donkeyd wrote: post #10

> “The biggest problem we face in the world right now isn't terrorism or world war. It's climate change,” he says. I really like seeing this quote from a Chinese business man.

I appreciate the attitude, but other than that, he is a real control freak. It fascinates me that people on the right often praise entrepreneurs as champions of personal freedom while they are often being very authoritative against their employees.

Re: 19 days to build a 57-storey tower

#116

Post by godzilla82 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #113
godzilla82 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is really riduculous that we now start evaluating human life by the amount of carbon emission one generates. Sorry, but that is just nonsense. Wont killing yourself achieve your goals? Also, you should start a non-profit that pays family members if they commit suicide.

There's a difference between firing someone in a company and simply removing the position through attrition when someone leaves. This is no different than the later. Should we continue to overwhelm a physical system we require to survive? I don't advocate killing people whatsoever ; I advocate incentivizing people to have less children (or no children, if they prefer). What's wrong with that?

I am not arguing against birth control. What I felt wrong about your view was that, you are basing life's worth on carbon emissions. There are better ways of reducing carbon emissions.

>There's a difference between firing someone in a company and simply removing the position through attrition when someone leaves. This is no different than the later.

The difference is that in your company, you know you dont need the position. How do you know that a couple wants to have a kid or not?

Re: 19 days to build a 57-storey tower

#117

Post by toomuchtodo »

godzilla82 wrote: post #116
toomuchtodo wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a difference between firing someone in a company and simply removing the position through attrition when someone leaves. This is no different than the later. Should we continue to overwhelm a physical system we require to survive? I don't advocate killing people whatsoever ; I advocate incentivizing people to have less children (or no children, if they prefer). What's wrong with that?

I am not arguing against birth control. What I felt wrong about your view was that, you are basing life's worth on carbon emissions. There are better ways of reducing carbon emissions. >There's a difference between firing someone in a company and simply removing the position through attrition when someone leaves. This is no different than the later. The difference is that in your company, you know you dont need the p…

> The difference is that in your company, you know you dont need the position. How do you know that a couple wants to have a kid or not?

I don't! That's why I'm not forcing them to choose! Want to have kids? Awesome. Don't want to have kids? Here's a check. Thanks for not having a kid (or kids).

I didn't boil down a human being to just carbon emissions. I included the millions of gallons of water they'd use over their life, and the trash they create. I didn't not include a comprehensive list of what an average human consumes in their life, but I have now included it below. Spend the ~5 minutes reading it to see the impact. There is no "human footprint" metric that quantifies all of the energy and entropy a human contributes to Earth's biome during their existence, so its not an easy/quick idea to get across.

http://www.greencontributor.com/index.php/human-foot-print.h...

Re: 19 days to build a 57-storey tower

#118

Post by SCAQTony »

vidarh wrote: post #105
SCAQTony wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

WOW! I just looked this up using Tin.eye and the imgur link to locate this fiasco and how it happened. This event happened in 2009 in Shanghai, China. The location was Block-7 at Lotus Riverside in the Minhang District. The building did not fall due an earthquake but rather due to very poor foundation planning. The coup de grace or death blow came when an underground parking garage was being dug below the building. (…

> Each floor would have to be inspected and certified as safe and I don't believe that could be done in under a year. "Nobody" spends that long on modern highrises - the processes are generally well understood and most of the structures are "cookie cutter" designs with solid margins. The ones going up in London now typically takes 1-3 days per floor for the structure.

If it takes 1-3 days per floor (let's presume this building was built in London and it only took one day per floor) would it not take 57-days then? or do they wait till the building is built and do it all at once?

In Los Angeles you build a floor, it has to be inspected one floor at a time. Then again, London does not have earthquakes but both Shanghai and California do.

Post reply on HN