wOrSE in EvERy WAY
(Is such an outrageous claim true? Click to generate ad revenue and maybe find out!)
Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
151–160 of 202 posts
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#152Misled
I've been seeing the misspelling of the past tense of lead (led) incredibly often in the past couple years. It's clearly confusing that lead is an actual word, so it may seem right and likely doesn't get caught by auto-correct, although I assume grammar correction should catch it.
Merriam Webster lists it as a valid spelling, and even uses that spelling in one of the example sentences
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, we have evidence of things that have been said e.g. in Facebook's board meetings. So those things do exist.
Facebook is also kind of an outlier IMO. There will be a scandal where Facebook is caught doing something, and then you get a bunch of people talking about "tech companies", or "Facebook and Google", and then you read the details ... and it was Facebook, with everyone going "well, the rest probably are too".
Outlier in candor.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#154I was with the article until this point: > If long lived light bulbs are worse products, why would they need a cartel to enforce a the thousand hour limit? Well, it's because people think long lasting bulbs are a good product: Lifespan is something everyone can understand, and has a direct effect on when you will have to go back to the store: if you saw two 60 W bulbs in a store, one claiming to last 400 hours and th…
Seeing how many people buy 6000k LEDs for sunset/night lighting (e.g. a bedroom), no, people don’t give a shit about lighting. The most caring of average consumers would notice their bedroom looks like a hospital, but refuse to buy 2700k or 3000k because "they look like piss" when they go to the store at midday.
And with the stupid habit of talking about lights in input watts (skimmed over in the article), we’d get what’s described in the article, albeit less dramatic: people would buy the bulb that lasts 50% longer and not notice the lower lumen output.
Consumers are not educated at all in lighting, especially when the industry does not help (re: watts, but also temperature, color rendering, flicker, etc)
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are a lot of people for whom the choice is not “spend $20 every two years, or spend $200 today and never again” but instead “spend $20 today or just not have a working coffee maker”
cf Vimes' theory of boots[0] which is basically the same point. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
Again I don't really think many of these concepts really apply any longer. I'm currently wearing $10 Chinese knock-off shoes that are lasting for years comfortably, while there are plenty of low income types running around in Air Jordans because of marketing.
This is part of the reason I have a bit of a personal crusade against marketing and advertising. I think its currently one of the main things that is realistically keeping the poor poor. Endless creation of artificial demand and instilling false hope about what 'luxury' goods would do for a person is just screwing over poor people. Some hip hop and other stuff has started going down this track [1], but it's still outvolumed a few hundred times over by the culture of glorifying being exploited by corporations.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#156I don't understand this one. Yes, I want the long-life lightbulb. No, that doesn't somehow make it worse in every other way. The point is so obvious, I couldn't follow the logic in this argument. Nobody is buying or selling 120 Watt short-life bulbs to brag about their tremendous brightness. Long Life (LL) bulbs are not some kind of marketing ploy. We buy them understanding that we're going to minimize the hidden cos…
Are you taking about modern long life bulbs? This article is taking about design choices for original format bulbs over 100 years ago.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, moreover, the argument is a particular kind of apologism for one or another kind of profiteering. Basically, "the people criticizing this (profiteering) don't understand the full details of how business (give some business details)". But then, actually, even with all the details, the alleged profiteering is actually happening and naturally people running these business know lots of details but they like money t…
I really dislike the rhetorical trick of framing any opposing argument as “apologist”. It’s the new “shill”; an attempt to attack motives rather than argument.
What is apologism then?
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#158> "Therefore, this was done so that people would always need to buy more light bulbs." This is wrong, but it's the type of wrong that cites its sources and hides in the part you'd never think to fact check Just as a general point: I haven't seen a product decision that wasn't sold with some official explanation why it's "really for the good of everyone". Google's Manifest v3 was about reducing performance bottlenecks…
The macro point is that complex systems are complex and have competing priorities, so it’s facile to say “I don’t agree with the decision, therefore any reasoning that supported the decision must be 100% intentional malicious bullshit.” I’m old, I’ve had a varied career, I’ve been in small group meetings in startups and VCs and megacorps. I have never once heard the kind of “obviously this is an evil decision, but he…
In every company I have worked so far, for the very large majority of decisions I've seen everyone try to act very ethically and morally. However, every once in a while, a temptation to make a greedy decision comes up, and what I see during the discussions of these kinds of decisions, where everyone already knows they want to make the choice that would be harmful to the customer, is that the usual detailed discussion of pros and cons that normally happens is reduced, and everyone implicitly somehow knows to focus on only talking about just the pros, both for the company and the customer. Sometimes cons for the company are mentioned, and it feels very performative, as if just to give the appearance of balance. At times when I or some other individual speaks up about the obvious harm to the customer, usually ignorance is feigned, people pretend not to understand the harm, or they counter with all the "pro-customer" points that have already been said so far.
It's never an overt thing like how you portrayed it, but it happens every single time when the perceived payoff is too enticing to pass up.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah a genuinely nice machine is going to set you back plenty, but is built to last forever and can be easily repaired to achieve that. On the other hand a French Press costs like $10, lasts forever, and makes an amazing cup of coffee. But the $20 coffee machines are basically just a scam, but one that works because people just don't appropriately weight longevity.
I don't know if $20 coffee makers are really a scam. I've been using my $20 Mr. Coffee for like 5 years now without an issue, still makes coffee and more than likely will for a long time. You might debate the quality of the coffee it makes, but I've long since learned I don't have the palate for it to matter.
Yeah I've never had a $20 coffee maker or toaster die, they're too simple to have anything go wrong. It's always been when I splurged on a slightly fancy one it has broken, since they add a bunch of crap that can now go wrong.
Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way
#160The author critisizes one incorrect claim, but also makes claims that are in turn incorrect. For instance: > In truth, increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way... but people think they want a long lasting lightbulb Here the author writes "people think they want a long lasting xyz". Well, people do not merely THINK they want a long lasting xyz. They really WANT it. Why are projects not infin…
Europe has more cultural norms around the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few, that's why. Would you add 50% to your city's energy use (at the time often generated locally, from coal - you know what that means - 50% more smoke in your lungs) just for better CRI? Would your neighbor agree to 50% worse air just so you could have better CRI?