• SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Survivorship bias, yes some last, most do not.

    I’m not saying they’re going to fail, that’s why they have a life span that they last before they require replacement, or you could find an engineer to continually sign off every x years to deem it safe.

    There codes, laws and regulations for a reason, I guess you could argue against the communal knowledge of every industry if you want. But houses built nowadays aren’t overbuilt like they used to be, that’s just how code have adopted to be as efficient as possible, instead of here, wood aplenty. More wood also requires a stronger foundation since it weighs more and requires more support. So it’s all snowballing in that regard. You can’t just put a 2x8 wall on foundation meant for 2x4, that requires double the size of foundation, just like that.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Survivorship bias from a hundred years ago. We build things a lot better now.

      You think I’m arguing against the communal knowledge of every industry? I’m arguing with the communal knowledge of every industry. We have way more knowledge, have better materials, know how to build things better, and we do build things better than before. I don’t think we’re going to agree, so I’m out.

      • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You should really look at how building see constructed a century ago (full dimensional lumber) vs modern homes (OSB and TJIs).

        Things aren’t built stronger, but they are built better since they are built more efficiently…… They are two wholefully different things.