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

Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 343 posts

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#181

Post by alfalfasprout »

comfypotato wrote: post #177
_yb2s wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I resent the laws banning incandescent lights. I consider myself an environmentalist, and am very careful about wasting electricity. I love the warm dim light from an incandescent and think it helps me fall asleep... the light from one incandescent dimmed to about 20-40W is all I need after sunset, and all I want. It's like sitting near a campfire. My house is solar powered, and I keep a window open witho…

Just use an LED that produces the same color. They 100% exist. I agree that incandescent is better than cold LED. A little shopping and consumer research will 100% find you exactly the LED you want.

They don't. Even the highest end ultra high CRI bulbs don't have the same CRI and dUV as a good halogen bulb for example.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#182

Post by njarboe »

bumby wrote: post #155
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does it imply any arbitrarily boundary of commerce is invalid Not invalid as much as leaves everyone in the measured system materially worse off. Mercantilism is simply a failed way to raise your own living standards. (It might be a good way to concentrate wealth within your system. But only within, not from without.)

Isn’t this just playing a trick with system boundaries though? If I hire my son to do my yard work instead of my neighbor, how does that make my son objectively worse off? Within system/family, obviously this has increased wealth compared to hiring my neighbor. Without system, it has only made me worse off to the proportion that I have "overpaid" my son. But because it's zero-sum, my son has benefited to the exact pr…

If you son can make 4x the hourly rate doing something else and does not do that because he is doing yard work, then you have decreased wealth. The key is in the if.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#183

Post by comfypotato »

_yb2s wrote: post #178
comfypotato wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use an LED that produces the same color. They 100% exist. I agree that incandescent is better than cold LED. A little shopping and consumer research will 100% find you exactly the LED you want.

It doesn't look or feel the same to me. Maybe something to do with CRI (I don't really understand that). I am not switching to LEDs... It would be wasteful to throw away something that works great and replace it with something new that doesn't work as well. I like incandescent, and my 40 year old reading lamp and a few extra bulbs will last forever running a few hours a night dimmed to ~20W.

> It doesn't look or feel the same to me.

I used to be in this camp before branching out and trying some different LEDs. Unless it is literally the glowing filament that you like looking at, which is reasonable, you can definitely find a bulb that looks and feels the same.

That was my point in repeating myself saying that it 100% exists. If you’re not in a place to financially experiment with a few bulbs that’s different. Stating that LEDs can’t produce the color you want is wrong. I would go as far as to say that you can find an LED that produces a color you prefer over incandescent.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#184

Post by twoodfin »

comfypotato wrote: post #183
_yb2s wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't look or feel the same to me. Maybe something to do with CRI (I don't really understand that). I am not switching to LEDs... It would be wasteful to throw away something that works great and replace it with something new that doesn't work as well. I like incandescent, and my 40 year old reading lamp and a few extra bulbs will last forever running a few hours a night dimmed to ~20W.

> It doesn't look or feel the same to me. I used to be in this camp before branching out and trying some different LEDs. Unless it is literally the glowing filament that you like looking at, which is reasonable, you can definitely find a bulb that looks and feels the same. That was my point in repeating myself saying that it 100% exists. If you’re not in a place to financially experiment with a few bulbs that’s diffe…

What’s your recommendation for a quality sub-2700K bulb?

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#185

Post by comfypotato »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #181
comfypotato wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use an LED that produces the same color. They 100% exist. I agree that incandescent is better than cold LED. A little shopping and consumer research will 100% find you exactly the LED you want.

They don't. Even the highest end ultra high CRI bulbs don't have the same CRI and dUV as a good halogen bulb for example.

I’m more familiar with the advancements in CRI in recent years than dUV (this is the first I’be heard of that) but LEDs can now be purchased with equivalent CRI.

The context of this discussion is incandescent color/perception/experience.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#186

Post by ltbarcly3 »

ryeights wrote: post #142
ticviking wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is so bad about beans, rice and eggs with some onions and cheap canned veggies that it's insane to suggest that kind of budget?

Nothing is objectively “bad” about that, but it is an insane stretch to call that “great food.” That is subsistence eating. Moreover—can you put beans, rice, eggs, and mixed veggies in a sandwich? Because a sandwich was one of OP’s “$40/mo” suggestions. A food budget where a simple ham and cheese sandwich is an unimaginable luxury is ridiculous to propose as a reasonable target.

Why isn't it great food? People line up to get rice, veggies, and beans, onion, and chicken in a tortilla at Chipotle, but if you combine those ingredients at home you are 'subsistence eating'?

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#187

Post by marcosdumay »

bumby wrote: post #134
pipes wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are really drifting in to largely discredited mechantilism there, the belief that money should not flow out of the nation. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mercantilism.asp#:~:tex... .

Devils advocate: what are the limits of this? I.e., does it imply any arbitrarily boundary of commerce is invalid? It strikes me that most people would feel like spending money on your own family/tribe/community may be reasonable despite what mercantilism says as an economic concept.

> does it imply any arbitrarily boundary of commerce is invalid?

Yes. It says exactly that.

Now, there are details that can change things either way. But the one thing about economics, that is known for about 3 centuries, is that usually arbitrary boundaries to commerce make people poorer. Usually, both on average and on the poor extreme. There is more variability of impact for rich people.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#188

Post by comfypotato »

twoodfin wrote: post #184
comfypotato wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't look or feel the same to me. I used to be in this camp before branching out and trying some different LEDs. Unless it is literally the glowing filament that you like looking at, which is reasonable, you can definitely find a bulb that looks and feels the same. That was my point in repeating myself saying that it 100% exists. If you’re not in a place to financially experiment with a few bulbs that’s diffe…

What’s your recommendation for a quality sub-2700K bulb?

I settled on an adjustable-temperature/brightness standing lamp. I don’t know the model, sorry. Being able to change the color/brightness on a spectrum is very nice.

Planning to buy some e26 bulbs that connect to Apple’s home automation. It’ll be the same process of buying all the popular models on Amazon that have fully adjustable color/brightness and settling on what I like best.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#189

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bumby wrote: post #174
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> isn't there value in concentrating wealth to those who you have psychological proximity with Yes. That's why I said the difference isn't invalid. It's just more like a hidden redistributive tax. In small doses, this is fine and a way democracies repay their patrons. In larger doses, it leaves everyone poor. Too poor to afford a life-saving operation for anyone around.

Ah, I see you point. Sorry it took me awhile to get there :) Regarding "it leaves everyone poor", how is the case if it's zero sum? It seems like it comes down to how you define your metric of 'poor'. It seems like it presupposes there isn't enough money to go around, so it's better to have a few people rich and the rest destitute, rather than have everyone just be marginally poor. Or are we getting into productivity…

> how is the case if it's zero sum

Trade isn’t zero sum. Ricardian mechanics is what overturned mercantilism. You paying more for your neighbour to do work than someone down the street deprives you of money and everyone of economies of scale.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#190

Post by alfalfasprout »

comfypotato wrote: post #185
alfalfasprout wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't. Even the highest end ultra high CRI bulbs don't have the same CRI and dUV as a good halogen bulb for example.

I’m more familiar with the advancements in CRI in recent years than dUV (this is the first I’be heard of that) but LEDs can now be purchased with equivalent CRI. The context of this discussion is incandescent color/perception/experience.

My point is that CRI alone isn't sufficient. Nor is CCT (correlated color temperature). In practice, two bulbs with the same CRI and color temperature can have drastically different tints.

It all boils down to how these measurements work. In practice, the vast vast majority of LED bulbs do not even remotely come close to the color reproduction of halogen. Not to mention the flicker response to 60hz wall power.

There are a handful of companies that produce extremely color accurate LEDs but they're expensive and have limited lifespan.

Check out this resource for more info: https://www.waveformlighting.com/tech/what-is-the-difference... https://www.waveformlighting.com/tech/calculate-duv-from-cie...

Post reply on HN