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

Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

thedrive.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–398 of 398 posts

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#391

Post by anoncake »

Rule35 wrote: post #386
tolbish wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that the term "mail lady" offends anyone. It doesn't. The point is that singling out her gender is needless, and kinda seems a bit strange if gender was never really pertinent to the story in the first place. "Cancel culture" would be going through high school recommended reading lists and removing books that focused "wrongly" on gender or something.

It would be weird if you were just saying "the female-mail carrier" for no reason. But we usually describe people to differentiate them from someone else for conversation. Like "the mail lady says she likes our cat", differentiating from the mail guy who we also don't know personally, but who doesn't like the animals. Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to. > "Cancel culture" would be going through high sc…

> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to.

I don't think so. "The mail carrier follows female gender roles" is bad enough, but why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"?

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#392

Post by Rule35 »

anoncake wrote: post #391
Rule35 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be weird if you were just saying "the female-mail carrier" for no reason. But we usually describe people to differentiate them from someone else for conversation. Like "the mail lady says she likes our cat", differentiating from the mail guy who we also don't know personally, but who doesn't like the animals. Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to. > "Cancel culture" would be going through high sc…

> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to. I don't think so. "The mail carrier follows female gender roles" is bad enough, but why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"?

>> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to.

> I don't think so.

You don't think lady in 'mail-lady' refers to woman?

> why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"?

Rude. I never would. But if I did it would be redundant after calling her a woman. What do you mean?

But maybe I'm trying to help my brother find a partner so I do want to point out available women, and that does imply people with vaginas. Again, so, and what do you think would be a more efficient way to do this?

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#393

Post by Rule35 »

CathedralBorrow wrote: post #338
Evidlo wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not that the term "mail lady" offends anyone. It doesn't. I think that's too generous. I've definitely met people who just enjoy feeling indignation at anything.

Funny; since you are right now bringing up this group of people to express indignation towards their behavior.

There's a difference between laughing at and being outraged by. Pointing and laughing is perfectly reasonable, getting bent out of shape over imagined slights is paranoia.

Despite you using the word 'funny' I don't think you were laughing while posting that whereas the GP was.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#394

Post by dorfsmay »

fomine3 wrote: post #379
dorfsmay wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day, you need enough energy onboard, and gas is much more dense. Hybrid cars turn the ICE engine on at intersection when AC or heat is on, to convert gas into electricity and avoid depleting the batteries completely.

But is it serious compared to cold situation? Cooling 40C to 25C is just -15C difference, but warming -10C to 20C is 30C.

Valid question, I don't know the exact answer, but keep in mind that a closed cabin with windows will heat up naturally when the sun is up. Humans generate heat which is also trapped in that cabin. Inefficiencies in transmission etc... also generate heat although I'm not sure it's enough to make a difference.

Remember that the international space station is artificially cooled despite one side being exposed to 0 Kelvin.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#395

Post by arpinum »

BoorishBears wrote: post #389
arpinum wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cited article is about _potential_ torque loads and the need to design for it, and does not address light duty typical use case for mail delivery. Jerk causes chatter (slippage) between parts and can significantly reduce designed life. Electric motors are amazing at smoothing out discontinuities. Nokian has stated EVs are easier on tyres for this reason. In this case for short-distance batteries I estimate battery pa…

There are literally hundreds of sources you could find for how EVs have worse wear. I have no idea what you're on about with "chatter" without specifying any specific part of a drivetrain... Like your whole comment reads like someone trying to apply extremely general theoretical concern while handwaving away actually connecting it to practical application... And where are you getting the idea that: a) the weight diff…

My comment only addressed wear on components, and specifically mentioned tyres and ball joints. I am not making a statement on upfront costs. I’m also not considering behavioural changes of users when switching to electric motors.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#396

Post by anoncake »

Rule35 wrote: post #392
anoncake wrote: post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to. I don't think so. "The mail carrier follows female gender roles" is bad enough, but why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"?

>> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to. > I don't think so. You don't think lady in 'mail-lady' refers to woman? > why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"? Rude. I never would. But if I did it would be redundant after calling her a woman. What do you mean? But maybe I'm trying to help my brother find a partner so I do want to point out available women, and that does imply peop…

> You don't think lady in 'mail-lady' refers to woman?

It can either refer to their sex or their gender.

> Rude. I never would. But if I did it would be redundant after calling her a woman. What do you mean?

If we refer to sex, a woman/lady is someone with a vagina. So yes, if you call someone a mail lady, you literally are describing her as a mail carrier with a vagina.

> But maybe I'm trying to help my brother find a partner so I do want to point out available women, and that does imply people with vaginas. Again, so, and what do you think would be a more efficient way to do this?

In that case, you might also talk about "the cute ginger mail lady with blue eyes" (or whatever your brother likes). But in most situations, that would be quite inappropriate.

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#397

Post by njharman »

briandear wrote: post #152
njharman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of cancel culture. Out of millions of voices it only takes is 1 or 2 loud ones to be offended (really, mistakingly, or maliciously) for the bandwagon of ostracism to get rollin.

Not sure why this is downvoted. It’s a fact.

Downvoted because of the fact. That is "the bandwagon of ostracism" is a rollin!

Re: Why the new USPS mail trucks look so weird

#398

Post by Rule35 »

anoncake wrote: post #396
Rule35 wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Also, it's sex not gender people are referring to. > I don't think so. You don't think lady in 'mail-lady' refers to woman? > why would you describe someone as "the mail carrier with a vagina"? Rude. I never would. But if I did it would be redundant after calling her a woman. What do you mean? But maybe I'm trying to help my brother find a partner so I do want to point out available women, and that does imply peop…

> You don't think lady in 'mail-lady' refers to woman? It can either refer to their sex or their gender. > Rude. I never would. But if I did it would be redundant after calling her a woman. What do you mean? If we refer to sex, a woman/lady is someone with a vagina. So yes, if you call someone a mail lady, you literally are describing her as a mail carrier with a vagina. > But maybe I'm trying to help my brother find…

> It can either refer to their sex or their gender

That seems unlikely and definitely unproven.

We're told gender expression is individual, so the gendered concepts you hold for 'woman' aren't going to be the ones I hold. Thus is seems unlikely that we're referring to gender or nobody would be able to understand each other.

Also, we refer to people by the same pronouns whether they're awake or sleeping, cross dressing or not, which changes their gender expression, but not their sex.

> If we refer to sex, a woman/lady is someone with a vagina.

Which we do. Yes.

> So yes, if you call someone a mail lady, you literally are describing her as a mail carrier with a vagina.

No. I'm also not describing her as a bipedal humanoid. Some things are just expected unless you say otherwise.

> the cute ginger mail lady with blue eyes

Yes, lady. Okay, so no suggestion.

> But in most situations, that would be quite inappropriate.

Right, right, human attraction is verboten.

Post reply on HN