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

271–280 of 343 posts

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

#271

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bumby wrote: post #239
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> economics may say it’s best to let Taiwan specialize in semiconductors, but that may not be optimal once you factor in other dimensions like national security. Humans are not Homo Economicus And those other dimensions come at a cost. National security seems like a reasonable thing to pay a cost for. Enriching an oligarch does not. A lot of protectionism is about the latter.

Sure, just like the hypothetical yard work has a cost. I think what you’re illustrating is that protectionism doesn’t make people poorer per se, but it’s bad when it’s abused for individual purposes rather than broader purposes.

> what you’re illustrating is that protectionism doesn’t make people poorer per se

It makes people materially poorer and redistributes wealth, typically up. That is a fair price to pay in some circumstances, e.g. bolstering defence manufacturers.

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

#272

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

NeoTar wrote: post #55
psychphysic wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ironically, LEDs being so efficient means I need to use the central heating more often. My CFL TV used to provide some respite, not now I have an OLED.

I hope your heating is more energy efficient than heating with electric light bulbs though! (And it should be - worst comes to worst basic electrical heating can be effectively 100% efficient, and heat pumps can do better)

Light bulbs are resistive heaters, and they are also 100% efficient at making heat. Some of it just bounces around the room as light first.

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

#273

Post by ceejayoz »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #267
ceejayoz wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2023-04-13/... > Deaths attributed to malnutrition more than doubled, from about 650 in 2018 to roughly 1,400 in 2022, according to preliminary death certificate data from the California Department of Public Health. The same trend occurred nationwide, with malnutrition deaths more than doubling, from about 9,300 deaths in 2018 to roughly 20,500 in 2022, according to th…

These are people too elderly and feeble to take care of themselves, and often people who have medical conditions that prevent them from being able to absorb nutrition from food in addition to that. This has literally nothing to do with it being impossible to afford food. Also in the same period there were around 300,000 deaths due to obesity with around 30,000 in california.

Sure. It just cites “low income” as a risk factor for fun.

The claim was that no one dies of involuntary malnutrition. The claim is false.

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

#274

Post by Dylan16807 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #247
wizzwizz4 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and they have no hope of ever figuring it out on their own. It's not a case of not understanding , or not having the skills , or it being “unreasonable to think they might” do anything. https://butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine... https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2022/04/12/its-not-about-the... I get not understanding, but can you try not to be so obnoxious about it, please? It's clear you don't h…

No, you are using a tiny subset of a group to make broad assertions about the entire group. That is not logically valid. I accept there are sick people. But not all people are sick. Most poor people do in fact make themselves inexpensive food at home. That you and others want to claim it is impossible for them to do so is bizarre.

The thing you describe is not in those comments.

Also please go answer the question over in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36232600 of what ingredients go in the sandwich.

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

#276

Post by morcheeba »

Retric wrote: post #248
brookst wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not lighting a science experiment, you are the science experiment. (or something like that)

Except people have already done these experiments, and it turns out trichromacy is quite common among humans. If you actually dislike LED lighting then you should also notice issues with LED screens not just lightbulbs. Instead you like most people dislike bad LED lightbulbs which are common because most people are buying them without testing em. Which means most manufacturers don’t actually optimize for light qualit…

If the spectrum of the LEDs match the sensitivities of the eyes, then everything is fine. But LEDs are narrow spectrum; they won't reproduce color the same way as a broad spectrum light source will.

As for LED screens, those are emissive and work great for simulating any color. However, they are not good light sources for lighting objects because they're narrow spectrum.

If the object you're lighting up is broad-band reflective (like paper with broadband black pigments), then everything is good. But as soon as you get narrow-band pigments, colors are going to be distorted.

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

#277

Post by Dylan16807 »

HPsquared wrote: post #9
stuckinhell wrote: post #4

That's cool, but inflation is still hitting me harder than I expected at the grocery store with 3 hungry kids. This article and honestly a lot of articles by the WaPo seem tone deaf lately.

Inflation is the economics version of "software getting slower faster than hardware gets faster". In other words, the increased output is being diverted to areas that don't produce value.

No it's not.

Sometimes shifts in money flow happen alongside inflation, but inflation itself acts as a tax on savings and has basically no other long-term effect. In the long term inflation will make prices double and wages double and the effect is nothing. There's no actual difference between a $2 big mac and a $20 big mac.

What you're describing is changes in productivity and spending and overhead, not inflation.

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

#278

Post by nostromo »

brookst wrote: post #231
dmonitor wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m lighting a room, not a science experiment

If you're not lighting a science experiment, you are the science experiment. (or something like that)

I worry we’ll find the high speed strobe almost all LEDs emit are harmful for humans or animals. We’re told they strobe too fast for us to perceive (sometimes true, sometimes not). But unperceptible doesn’t mean it’s not harmful.

A lot of people that use their iPhone’s slow motion video function indoors at night are surprised to see they are surrounded by a disco of blinking lights.

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

#279

Post by mikewarot »

_yb2s wrote: post #176
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #88

> Back in the prehistoric era a person would have to gather, chop and burn wood for roughly 10 hours a day for six days straight in order to produce the equivalent light of a modern lightbulb shining for about an hour. This feels like a very odd comparison/metric. It doesn't really matter how many lumens/watts it has, I think a better metric is "How much does it take to 'comfortably' light a single room for 1 hour".…

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…

Don't they have "appliance" bulbs in your locale?

These are incandescent lamps designed to work in ovens, a territory unlikely to ever be colonized by LED bulbs.

Other than the slightly smaller wattage, they should fit your needs just fine. They work in normal sockets.

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

#280

Post by tourmalinetaco »

nostromo wrote: post #278
brookst wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're not lighting a science experiment, you are the science experiment. (or something like that)

I worry we’ll find the high speed strobe almost all LEDs emit are harmful for humans or animals. We’re told they strobe too fast for us to perceive (sometimes true, sometimes not). But unperceptible doesn’t mean it’s not harmful. A lot of people that use their iPhone’s slow motion video function indoors at night are surprised to see they are surrounded by a disco of blinking lights.

Is this even an LED exclusive problem? I was taught this is mainly due to alternating current, and is seen in filaments as well.
Post reply on HN