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

memes

14201 readers
3445 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 !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Realcivilengineer is that you?

[–] Kolanaki@pawb.social 16 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The bottom one looks scary as fuck. I don't want to be in or around that thing if it was real.

[–] paranoia 79 points 5 days ago (3 children)

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

[–] CelloMike@lemmy.world 85 points 5 days ago (13 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 😆

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

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days 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 😝

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] paranoia 34 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Brick expensive :(

panel cheap :)

[–] grue@lemmy.world 9 points 5 days 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.)

[–] AllYourSmurf@lemmy.world 23 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Brick waterproof.

Brick termite-proof.

Brick fireproof.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] anomnom@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 days ago

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

[–] myrrh@ttrpg.network 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] grue@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days 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?

[–] myrrh@ttrpg.network 5 points 3 days ago

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

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 8 points 5 days ago

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

[–] Wanpieserino@lemm.ee 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] Letsdothisok@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago

"Shop"? Depending on the type - and I don't want to jump to conclusions - I doubt it being ugly was a major part of its bankruptcy.

[–] myrrh@ttrpg.network 1 points 4 days ago

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] zout@fedia.io 18 points 5 days 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.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 14 points 5 days 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.

[–] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

That's positvely genus!ii

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] GorGor@startrek.website 12 points 5 days ago

hey! I resemble those remarks!

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 37 points 5 days ago (2 children)

Surely that second building is AI generated or something right? Surely physics would not allow such a monstrosity, nor would any city approve it... right?

[–] Earflap@reddthat.com 26 points 4 days ago (2 children)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah I didn't think there was any way. Even with like a steel frame and everything else made of Styrofoam and paper mache, I'm pretty sure that thing would still snap off under its own weight.

[–] Spezi@feddit.org 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It’s totally doable with the right structure and balancing. Have you seen the bases of skyscrapers like 150 North Riverside in Chicago or the Rainier Tower in Seattle? Or the One Za'abeel in Dubai, which has a 65 meter overhang in an 90 degree angle.

150 North Riverside

One Za’abeel

[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

I don't know what the first building has to do with the original image. But the one in Dubai is much more conparable. But they are not the same. The Dubai building certainly needs strong framing to keep that overhand from falling. But it is also held at one end and the middle giving it strength and stability. And the forces at the attachment points are both vertical (upward or downward at the end depending on weight distribution on the lever and downward in the middle). That makes a huge difference as they don't have to work against lateral forces. The middle attachment holds all the weight and the end attachment counters all of the torque on the lever. The center of mass is also within the footprint of the building(s) bases

The actual length of the overhang for the real building, while impressive, does not compare to the length in the original image. It does not have anything holding the weight in the middle of the lever, meaning that the end attachment has to hold the weight up alone, AND counter the torque. Furthermore, the point at which the hang in the altered image is attached to the main trunk is also at wide angle meaning it will put a lot of lateral forces on the trunk that are not counter balances by the opposite branch which is shorter and less angled. The center of mass of the hanging branch would be well outside the base of the building and so it would want to rotate at the connection point and pull away from the joint. That's if the steel frame itself doesn't just bend under its own weight putting torque on the lever.

I really don't think that there are any materials under Earth gravity capable of creating a rigid structure with this design at this scale. The forces would be tremendous on a single junction point and along the length of the frame of the hanging arm. Something would give.

[–] Spezi@feddit.org 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It’s not that hard to build something like the zipper building. Estimating that each floor is 3 meters high means that the right side of the is maybe 30 Meters in length. And at an angle of 45 degree, that means the overhang is actually just 21 Meters. With the counter lever on the other side this is totally possible. It’s basically like a crane at this point.

The dubai one is much harder at 65 meters length and a literal 90 degree angle.

The first building is relevant, because its an enormous building standing on a tiny base. The wind forces on this building alone are enormous.

[–] HatchetHaro@pawb.social 2 points 3 days ago

yo his work is sick

[–] Dragonstaff@leminal.space 5 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I'm not sure it exists. I spent three whole minutes on Google and can't find it. I'd expect it to be fairly famous if real.

I'm not sure Y anyone would build it, but I do think we could figure a way to build it safely if someone wanted to throw enough money at it.

[–] Spezi@feddit.org 3 points 4 days ago

Its fictional, I found an article

[–] passenger@lemm.ee 21 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

What buildings are these?

Can't believe no-one asked yet

[–] AnAverageSnoot@lemmy.ca 22 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The first building looks like it's a female connector for a high throughput cable of some kind.

[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 33 points 5 days ago (4 children)

Looks like a German bunker on Omaha Beach to me

[–] francis_milesaway@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

I believe it's in Guernsey, C.I.

ed: it's a German WW2 coastal naval range finding tower. Used for fire control of coastal guns shooting 25 miles out to sea.

[–] kamenlady@lemmy.world 6 points 5 days ago

For me it's cylons.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 7 points 4 days ago (1 children)
[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

For a drainage engineer, he's shockingly bad with sluices in Timberborn, lol.

[–] Spacehooks@reddthat.com 2 points 2 days ago

It was those architecture beavers!

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 12 points 5 days ago

BUT WITH THE POWER OF FLEX TAPE

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 3 points 5 days ago

They're the same picture

load more comments
view more: next ›