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

The Boring Company [video]

boringcompany.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 800 posts

Re: The Boring Company [video]

#291

Post by orf »

tropo wrote: post #260
hoprocker wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the thing. Why on earth would you build this insane network to ferry one person in their car, the displacement of which could probably move 8 people using the same footprint. I think they throw that idea a laurel at the end, where a more people-pod-like vehicle is getting lowered in the same manner.

If the system doesn't move your car, then you need two cars and parking for both of them. Park your first car, use the system, then get into another car that you have previously left waiting for you. Unless there is a stop at every home and business, you'll be needing cars. You might as well transport them.

Or you could walk a little bit between stops.

Re: The Boring Company [video]

#292

Post by [deleted] »

gsnedders wrote: post #156
loufe wrote: post #52

The costs of tunneling are like FAR more expensive than most think. Breaking, excavating, and supporting rock is slow, time and cost heavy, and precarious work. While this is an interesting concept, unless there are serious advances in rock boring techniques (personal opinion: there are none coming) this will never approach fruition. I would suggest anyone interested in further research look into the "Big Dig" of Bos…

AFAIK, in many major cities, a major part of the cost of tunnelling is the fact we simply don't know where hundred-year old utilities are. And, hell, the fact that many cities aren't built on rock (e.g., London, Berlin, Moscow), so even if you can bore through solid rock you're probably not actually that well off: can you also bore through clay and gravel?

[deleted]

Re: The Boring Company [video]

#293

Post by xxgreg »

I like the idea of putting cars underground, because then you can build a human focused city above. But the video shows an urban wasteland of aboveground high-speed traffic and no people. WAT?

Re: The Boring Company [video]

#294

Post by scionaura »

Strom wrote: post #267
tinym wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time we've learned how to live on a planet as inhospitable as Mars, maybe we'll know how to make a home on Earth.

I thought we already knew how to make a home on Earth. What is this in reference to? That our current methods are unsustainable? There are plenty of ideas for solutions. That the current state of human cooperation is below the necessary threshold to achieve a self-sustaining society on Mars? Maybe, but I'm optimistic that we'll find the inspirational leaders that are required.

Why the hell would you be optimistic about that.

Re: The Boring Company [video]

#295

Post by ceejayoz »

lucb1e wrote: post #73
shouldbworking wrote: post #40

Did anyone else notice that cars being lowered leaves a giant fucking hole in the middle of the street?! This is a marketing fluff video untouched by engineers

So you raise a fence around it (stored on the sides, underground of course), or slide a roof in (once again, stored below the surface) to prevent anyone from going in even if they wanted to. This doesn't sound like a biggie to me.

The ongoing maintenance of tens of thousands of sliding doors, elevators, and retracting fences sounds like a biggie to me.

Re: The Boring Company [video]

#297

Post by dyarosla »

bhhaskin wrote: post #249
tinym wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By the time we've learned how to live on a planet as inhospitable as Mars, maybe we'll know how to make a home on Earth.

We know how to live on another planet like Mars. The issue is getting there, and getting there at scale.

I didn't downvote you, but I am genuinely curious where you got the idea that we know how to live on Mars already?

Re: The Boring Company [video]

#300

Post by Spivak »

ares2012 wrote: post #256

It's a great video, but one of the most impractical ideas I've ever seen. It would be cheaper to buy more buses and install congestion charges (fees to drive in cities during peak times).

So you want to reduce traffic by making the roads less enjoyable and more expensive to drive on? Not exactly the type of solution I would like be excited about.
Post reply on HN