Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 464 posts

Re: Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters?

#441

Post by tensility »

arghwhat wrote: post #267
jws wrote: post #60

I married into toaster moguls. When they sold out in '97, domestic toasters had been infeasible for years already. And this was for a company where all the knowledge, equipment, and facilities had beed paid for many decades before. (They invented the electric pop-up toaster for certain definitions of electric pop-up toaster.) Toasters are refined brilliance, if done right. The concept of "done" is computed using an a…

> Toasters are refined brilliance, if done right. The concept of "done" is computed using an analog computer programmed by human experts. That hasn't been the case in ages. Modern cheap toasters use a dedicated toaster chip (... yes), which is a plain timer but with built-in retained heat compensation for when the toaster is used back-to-back. Fewer components equals cheaper toaster. A very fancy toaster would have s…

Of course, there's also the June "toaster oven". ;-)

Re: Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters?

#442

Post by tensility »

masto wrote: post #437
taulien wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't say if you are kidding or not. I am a little bit worried, that you aren't.

I was mildly exaggerating for comic effect, but not kidding. I bought it, I set it up, I filmed it. We still use it every day, and I will be sad when it breaks because they are no more. https://youtu.be/JTvJSRPIo90?si=mjCLawXg6Kt-pDDQ&t=585

They are pretty great. Sad that it was apparently only an aquihire by Weber.

Re: Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters?

#443

Post by JoeAltmaier »

wegfawefgawefg wrote: post #432
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, right. But where you live is a choice.

Not if there are visa requirements, no non remote job opportunities, or you have all your family in the current city you live, and they are potentially ageing, and your kids are in local school, or you dont want to quit current job, or you are so broke you cant get an initial land / dwelling funds in the target location. Any of those and youve captured most of the working population of the US.

That's again, largely choice.

Sure, some folks have a hard time choosing where to live, I get it. If we're honest, most folks just live by default wherever. They don't want to change.

And you vastly overestimate the cost of living outside major cities. It's a tiny fraction of what you might imagine.

I think I agree, if we recast it as 'inertia', it captures most of the working population of the US.

Re: Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters?

#444

Post by lazide »

eru wrote: post #427
throwup238 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least they got a famous art piece out of it. All OP will have afterwards is a bunch of unsold toasters and a newfound appreciation for bankruptcy protection.

Well, OP would get a good story and life experience, too.

The same could be said about sticking your finger into a light socket. Less potential upside in that case though, hah.

Re: Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters?

#447

Post by PaulHoule »

cavisne wrote: post #420
PaulHoule wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your inlaws had the best information in '97 and wealth of knowledge about specific products but the right entrepreneur might see it differently these days. (e.g. your inlaws could sell out and get into another business because their brand still had value) I went to Best Buy to buy a microwave oven last weekend and noticed that all the microwaves: (a) had a Proposition 65 label (see https://www.mychemicalfreehouse.net…

Starbucks coffee has a Prop 65 label. It's likely that any domestic toaster would also put one on. The reason for this is the onus is on the company to prove it doesn't have any risky chemicals. The USA is the land of the frivolous lawsuit so its just not worth it.

I'd say yes and no.

The last Prop 65 label that I thought a lot about was on a bag of Asian fried snacks that had high levels of acrylamide which is a real cancer concern but on the other hand there acrylamide in all kinds of traditionally prepared foods as well as "ultra processed" foods.

Before that there was the garden hose nozzle that had brass with about 10% lead because lead makes machining brass dramatically easier but on the other hand do I want to be touching a 10% lead object a lot or getting lead in my garden?

The microwave probably gets it because of bisphenol A in polycarbonate plastics which really is a problem, the exact extent of which we don't know. It might be the reason why somebody you know is massively overweight or why your sperm count is down.

So even though the P65 label is commonly about a risk people widely accept I'd be happier to get something w/o a P65 label than one with it and getting rid of that label would be a real incentive to improve safety just as RoHS has been. The difference is that P65 is a lot harsher.

If anything, the PFAS debacle has proved that the "you have to prove substance X is harmful" model is not effective in situations where X is one of 10,000 harmful substances... I mean if you replace Bisphenol A with Bisphenol B you are probably not making a real difference.

Re: Ask HN: Should I try to manufacture toasters?

#449

Post by quacked »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #429
quacked wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 2004 Toyota Tacoma vs a 2024 Toyota Tacoma is a simple machine.

Does the 2004 Toyota Tacoma have fuel injection or ABS (Anti-lock braking system)? If yes, neither are simple. And, can you provide some specific examples that demonstrate 2024 model is substantially more complex than 2004 model?

You're being deliberately obtuse. The feature list in the 2004 Tacoma is significantly shorter. Every mechanic who's been in the business for long enough says that older trucks were easier to work on.

If I climb in a modern car that I remote started from my cell phone, automatically adjusted the seat to my preferred profile, and booted up an onboard computer to allow me to pick between media playback and navigation, and I say "I miss when this model of car was simpler back in the day", are you seriously going to try and make the claim that there's been no increase in complexity?

Post reply on HN