this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2025
459 points (96.7% liked)

memes

14427 readers
2701 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment

Sister communities

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

by Centurii-chan

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 82 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

both of these were designed by architects. neither reflects the twin simplicity and laziness that engineering embodies.

[โ€“] [email protected] 88 points 2 weeks ago (7 children)

If engineers had our way all buildings would look like this

This is the ideal building. You may not like it but this is what peak performance looks like ๐Ÿ˜†

[โ€“] [email protected] 11 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Why not continue the brick shell at least to eye level? Why does it stop at waist level?

[โ€“] [email protected] 36 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Brick expensive :(

panel cheap :)

[โ€“] [email protected] 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

The real question is, why is there any brick at all?

(The answer is almost certainly that somebody other than the engineer imposed the requirement.)

[โ€“] [email protected] 24 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Brick waterproof.

Brick termite-proof.

Brick fireproof.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Panel same (probably, depending what kind of panel).

[โ€“] anomnom 2 points 2 weeks ago

No, panel only as waterproof as the coating protecting it. Brick is rock, takes centuries to wear out.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

...masonry wainscots look tacky-as-heck but they provide impact and moisture resistance where it's needed most...

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Is masonry really cheaper than using a slightly thicker gauge of steel and a decent epoxy paint for the bottom few feet?

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

...it's far more durable, mostly...

[โ€“] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

Dogshit R-factor, poor impact resistance, I mean that's the obvious stuff lol

Peak performance is highly dependent on who's defining it ๐Ÿ˜

[โ€“] [email protected] 8 points 2 weeks ago

Brick? Pfft. Concrete elements all the way. There's no equal.

[โ€“] [email protected] 5 points 2 weeks ago

This is what's known in the Midwest as "tornado bait"

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

...i prefer corrugated arch structures, but rigid frames are popular for good reason...

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Mind explaining why this is peak performance? ELI5 if possible

[โ€“] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Engineers love these things because they're real easy to design, and very efficient in usable volume vs materials (which is why they're used for every warehouse/big store/factory)

Obviously not great for living in or anything but that's the joke :)

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Very interesting! I never thought of that before. On the building pictured, which would take least effort to double the storage space - making it twice as long, wide or tall?

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Twice as long - all the structural elements are the same, you just line up more of them

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do you really mean "effort" (and if so, whose?) or do you mean cost? The other reply is correct that making it twice as long would minimize the need to redesign, but without doing the math (I am a civil engineer, but I can't be bothered) I suspect making it twice as tall would use the least additional materials and therefore be cheapest. (That assumes taking advantage of the extra height for storage is the client's problem, not the engineer's. Having to put in a second story floor would change things.)

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah I guess I was thinking about cost when I said effort. I figured maybe building up would also provide more design challenges to keep the thing from collapsing, or is that negligible?

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

You'll have a little bit more wind loading and you may have to put in a little bit of thought into the size and bracing of the vertical support columns to make sure the extra length doesn't risk buckling, but that's pretty much it.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

My neighbour shop looks exactly like that. It went bankrupt cuz it's ugly as fuck

[โ€“] [email protected] 18 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

As an engineer, I prefer to call it minmalism.

Quick edit: I saw the typo, but it is also an example of what the sentence is supposed to convey.

[โ€“] [email protected] 14 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Look. i's ain't cheap, and half the readers won't even use it.

Leave it out, we'll claim it was a mistake, and if anyone really complains we can add it back later.

[โ€“] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Are you kidding. Just slap an extra 20% of the is you think you used on the end in case.

[โ€“] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

That's positvely genus!ii

[โ€“] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

I go with "efficiency"

[โ€“] [email protected] 12 points 2 weeks ago

hey! I resemble those remarks!