Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

"We’re also taking something of a risk using something as valuable as stainless steel - a common failure mode for buildings is for valuable material to be ripped out and repurposed. This can range from looters ripping the copper piping out of a house to sell for scrap, to Londoners reusing the stones from ruined Roman buildings, to countries at war melting down building components to make munitions. I don’t see an obvious way of addressing this problem - the risks of corrosion we’re avoiding with stainless steel seems like it’s worth the tradeoff, and covering it with masonry or concrete seems like it would make it less likely on the margin. But this is another reason not to use something as durable as Inconel - the value of the material would likely exceed the value of the building, which is inherently risky for long-term survival."


Missed it, thanks. I still take issue with the design. I think over 1000 years the risk is much higher than they imagine.


All you can really do is minimize it. You can't eliminate it. I mean, you can't even tell me whether humans will exist in 500 years, or whether intelligent non-humans will be running around (doesn't even have to be "aliens", humans will create them), or what. Trying to second guess how people will valuate things in 900 years is a joke.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: