• 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    Yhea, it is better to build infrastructure that lasts, but 2000 years?

    that is a bit overkill, and more of a vanity project for billionaires which is more of a cry for help (by help I mean guillotine)

    • autriyo@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      I feel, for the hard to replace stuff an interstate bridge in a dense city for example, aiming for a three digit life span should be considered.

      Just because it kinda sucks having to replace infrastructure like that. And the city is most likely still going to be there and need that infrastructure.