No. Da Vinci’s bridge does not use arch supports. It uses 3 arches to form a single arch, a single span. An arch support would bisect the span, flattening the arch, filling the gap created by the arch. The whole purpose of Da Vinci’s design is to get a larger unsupported arch so that a ship can pass underneath.
No orthotics, no arch supports in Da Vinci’s design.
Not so. Your chart shows a pretty startling increasing in the 2000s.
The average percentage is 22 over the life of the analysis. It jumped to 28 in the last decade, which would seem to support my thesis.
Certainly the dramatic increase in safety equipment in the last 50 years has not decreased that percentage.
This says so much about the sdmb.
Nope. You already described that the upper arch of the bridge is supported, given more strength, by other arches below it. Face it, you gave an example that directly contradicts what you were trying to prove.
Are you saying no safety equipment was added until the 2000s?, because the percentage was remarkably stable for the 50 years before that.
But the rate of airplane crashes is way down in the last decade, so safety equipment is helping prevent crashes not cause them.
No. I said “transfers” not “supports” Support would be pushing up, the transfer is Da vinci’s design is lateral.
You seem to be really wanting a “gotcha” but no.
You said the percentage of mechanical failures hadn’t gone up. I’m saying your own cite shows differently.
Perrow’s point as described in Deep Survival is that additional safety features add complexity to an already complex machine. While a given feature may reduce the risk of the specific issue that is designed to prevent, the added complexity produces another avenue to failure, sometimes as in the specific example of the coffeepot and the toilet, a larger avenue than is being closed by the addition of the device.
There is a certain minimum level of risk in hurtling a thin aluminum tube full of jet fuel across the sky at 500 mph.
There is a law of diminishing returns in safety systems as you approach that minimum where the increased complexity of an additional safety system adds more risk than it reduces.
He is not arguing that planes haven’t gotten safer, simply that they haven’t gotten as safe as they should be. Reducing avenues to failure, once one is past a certain point in engineering, is best accomplished by reducing complexity, not increasing it.
So planes are getting more complex, and are much safer, but this clown thinks they would be even more safe if they just listened to him. Sounds like a crank with an axe to grind. I think everyone knows that reducing complexity is a good thing, no big revelation there. But he is saying that adding more safety equipment had made planes less safe and there is simply no data to back up that claim. And what that has to do with shoes is beyond me.
But, when I Google shoes and injuries your observations in the OP seem to be correct: more expensive shoes are associated with more injuries. One article suggests that thicker soles are the culprit as it changes the way your foot hits the ground. I don’t see any reason to take that and generalize from it.
So, it appears Scylla has absolutely no evidence for any of these claims.
You seem to really be wanting a “have ya”, but no. Your description of the bridge, and why it was constructed so, mirrors what an arch support in a piece of footwear is and does.
The very notion that a stone arch flexes in the same way as the human foot is a ridiculous assertion. You are over-simplifying human anatomy to make a point; I get it. I just think your analogy goes too far, and ignores the vast differences between the human foot and a stone arch, while playing up minute, superficial similarities. I presume that from now on, you will be running barefoot?
The whole population does the Leadville ultramarathon every year.
I calls bullshit on this claim.
Running barefoot isn’t the ridiculous activity you’re snidely implying it is. While I don’t go shoeless in the streets of Seoul, I do try to keep the evolutionary design of my feet from being smothered in foam.
Just google it, and look at some pictures. I think you’re misunderstanding. The equivalent of arch support, which is basically foam filler under your feet, in this case would be adding supportive pillars that push up from under the keystone. Can you see why that wouldn’t help? What Leo’s bridge does differently is that it strengthens the main arch with other arches that lean in from the side.
While I don’t exactly agree with where Scylla’s taking I find many of the responses surprising. (Straw man: oh those indians are in shape, but they also have a high infant mortality rate, are you saying we should kill our babies???)
Ok, here’s a picture of the bridge they built in Norway. I found it by googling “Leonardo bridge”.
Here’s a picture of a typical orthotic arch support. I found it by googling “orthotic”.
I wasn’t misunderstanding anything. The two pictures look amazingly similar, since they both are trying to do the same thing: support an arch.
Rigid arch support is not designed to push the arch up. It is designed to prevent the arch from collapsing. The reason the medial longitudinal arch collapses is because our feet weren’t designed for the inflexible, solid surfaces we spend most of our time on coupled with the weakening of foot muscles due to footwear that greatly reduces the natural flexing of our feet and changes natural gait and posture.
Medial arch support isn’t the problem; it’s a low-cost solution for people suffering the effects of bad footwear and inflexible walking surfaces.
The arches in the foot (there are several) are not only intended to support weight from above, but also to absorb energy and, unlike bridge arches, to reduce energy required in locomotion. A properly functioning foot, in which the medial longitudinal arch flexes up to disperse the energy of planting the foot, but does not collapse downward after dispersal, and weight is distributed from calcaneus (heel bone) to metatarsals primarily along the *lateral *longitudinal arch, as opposed to the medial arch (the cause of collapse), is more efficient.
It’s clear you haven’t really looked into the actual physics of the foot before coming to your simplistic conclusion that arch support is bad. I would have agreed with you, however, if you said that rigid arch support wouldn’t be necessary if we could spend our lives on natural earth most of the time and we stopped wearing shoes that reduced our mobility to start with. Good luck with that, though.
Solutions cause harm.
Common sense will solve the problem.
Look to the old ways, my friends.
Do you not know that barefoot running has become extremely popular over the last several years?
How does that impact the liklihood that Scylla is going to take up barefoot running?
I have no idea but your post seemed to have a mocking tone like you felt the very thought of running barefoot was preposterous.
I think it is preposterous that Scylla will abandon shoes while running. What others do in their bare feet, I cannot say.
