• Deebster@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    I don’t know that I agree - it’s worth researching these things because if it works that’s great and that paper proves that other people are working on the visibility problem.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Research is great.

      But the article is dismissing a very practical solution and implying it’s nonsense to pump up a pie in the sky longshot.

      • Deebster@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        [Making cracks visible is] helpful, but what would be ideal is a way to not just find the cracks, but to fix them.

        That’s what the article says, they’re hardly implying it’s nonsense. Or are you saying that the self-healing is nonsense? There are examples of self-healing materials, like Roman concrete.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          That’s extremely dismissive, of something that appears to resolve the issue entirely.

          Self healing materials with similar properties and requirements to pole vaulting poles don’t exist. They might eventually, but we’re not close. When the weight and flex requirements are that strict, and failure is that catastrophic, expecting a solution in the next 20 years is extremely optimistic, and that’s ignoring costs entirely. The article should be discussing the actual real world solution far more.