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

Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

maurycyz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 202 posts

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#181

Post by AngryData »

brookst wrote: post #134
xg15 wrote: post #133

> "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…

People rarely state out loud their nefarious intents when they can easily try and justify it under a completely different framing. Most people aren't dumb enough to state out loud their intent to do what the majority of people find abhorrent even if it is exactly what they intent to do.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#182

Post by brookst »

AngryData wrote: post #181
brookst wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

People rarely state out loud their nefarious intents when they can easily try and justify it under a completely different framing. Most people aren't dumb enough to state out loud their intent to do what the majority of people find abhorrent even if it is exactly what they intent to do.

I mean if your argument rests on reading the minds of people you haven’t even met, I’m not super convinced.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#183

Post by pie_flavor »

somenameforme wrote: post #173
pie_flavor wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not proof of collusion that they abandoned bespoke hardware right as consumer hardware was getting good. That is exactly when you want to abandon bespoke hardware. It is not proof of collusion that neither one lowered prices for the cheaper tech. Both were trying to appease shareholders who were sick of the massive up front capital investment that heavily subsidized hardware caused. Again: both had the same inc…

Since you're ignoring words and just repeating the same fallacies, I'll respond in bullet point format to make it easier for you to read: - Retail vs customized hardware has nothing whatsoever to do with subsidized or not. You can have subsidized retail hardware, or custom hardware sold for profit. - Agreeing to collude on one issue that is mutually beneficial does not preclude competition in other ways. - There have…

"You're ignoring what I said", says the guy who proceeds to repeat himself ignoring what I said.

> You "can" have subsidized retail hardware

But neither corporation's shareholders wanted them to for capital reasons.

> or custom hardware sold for a profit

But that'd be an insane waste of money for a platform that's more inconvenient to develop for.

> Agreeing to collude on one issue that is mutually beneficial does not preclude competition in other ways.

But when you're in danger of going under, it's time to stop leaving cash on the table properly, especially when you will win a bidding war.

> There have been tens of thousands lawsuits related to price-fixing and other anti-competitive behavior by corporations

But not against these corporations in this context.

> you saw heavily subsidized high end hardware be the norm for consoles for decades

Because in that span of time it was a good idea: they had lots of cash and were pushing the envelope of what hardware was capable of.

> Then suddenly Microsoft and Sony stop doing so at the exact same time

Because in that span of time, it stopped being a good idea: PC hardware had started being ahead of what they could offer. And you are calling an eleven year period "exact same time".

> extremely overt but also impossible to prove so long as they didn't leave a paper trail.

In other words, you have literally zero evidence this is true and are just going off of vibes, even though as I've just laid out, everything that happened is exactly what you'd expect to have happened if they weren't.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#184

Post by m463 »

GeorgeTirebiter wrote: post #146
m463 wrote: post #60

Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly, Roy - Bladerunner (1982) also, I enjoyed the last lines of the article: Also, to preempt the orange site, I'm not saying that planned obsolescence doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, Tyrell is incorrect. https://www.replacementlightbulbs.com/ohmslaw.html which gives the equation: Life(actual) = Life(rated) x ( V(rated) / V(actual) ) ** 13 NOTE that 13th (!) power. Doubling brightness only requires a small voltage increase, but it causes the lifespan to be roughly 9% due to this law. Hams have known about this for decades, where is it common to run 14V or 12V lamps on 6.3 volts for…

I'm pretty sure there is some movie math that you haven't considered.

Just like Han Solo made the Kessel run in 12 parsecs.

Lucas acknowledged the misnomer in 1977, saying that Han modified "the navigational system to get through hyperspace in the shortest possible distance"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Falcon#Kessel_Run

related:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#185

Post by AngryData »

brookst wrote: post #182
AngryData wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People rarely state out loud their nefarious intents when they can easily try and justify it under a completely different framing. Most people aren't dumb enough to state out loud their intent to do what the majority of people find abhorrent even if it is exactly what they intent to do.

I mean if your argument rests on reading the minds of people you haven’t even met, I’m not super convinced.

You don't have to read minds, just look at what corporations actually do in the real world. It doesn't matter if the people in the company spend 90% of their time talking or thinking about doing good things if the remaining 10% of shitty things end up being implemented far more often. Defusing the responsibility of decisions away from individuals, both psychologically and legally, enables large companies to do shitty things in the name of profit.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#186

Post by turgidpost »

xg15 wrote: post #133

> "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…

That’s why Wikipedia has an Early Life section.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#187

Post by somenameforme »

pie_flavor wrote: post #183
somenameforme wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since you're ignoring words and just repeating the same fallacies, I'll respond in bullet point format to make it easier for you to read: - Retail vs customized hardware has nothing whatsoever to do with subsidized or not. You can have subsidized retail hardware, or custom hardware sold for profit. - Agreeing to collude on one issue that is mutually beneficial does not preclude competition in other ways. - There have…

"You're ignoring what I said", says the guy who proceeds to repeat himself ignoring what I said. > You "can" have subsidized retail hardware But neither corporation's shareholders wanted them to for capital reasons. > or custom hardware sold for a profit But that'd be an insane waste of money for a platform that's more inconvenient to develop for. > Agreeing to collude on one issue that is mutually beneficial does no…

I'm not ignoring what you're saying - you're just repeating plainly falsifiable or illogical claims. By contrast you've laid out no reasonable arguments to what I've said. You even tried to claim companies engaging in anticompetitive was some sort of inconceivable conspiracy, in spite of the fact that Sony and Microsoft have been repeatedly busted for anticompete conspiracies, even within the Playstation and XBox section of their business. You're concocting unsound bad faith arguments, and then repeating them.

And once again, if either company actually competed on hardware from the PS4 gen onward, they would have dominated the market. They chose to collude instead which maximized revenue, but only thanks to the collusion. And the person who paid for this is the consumer who was left paying much more than they normally would to get much less than they normally would.

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#188

Post by hdgvhicv »

brookst wrote: post #137
somenameforme wrote: post #129

Earlier 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.

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”

Better to spend $20 now and invest that $180 you spend. At 8% that $180 is $210 after 2 years, so buy the next one and invest the $190 etc

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#189

Post by AlexeyBelov »

turgidpost wrote: post #186
xg15 wrote: post #133

> "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…

That’s why Wikipedia has an Early Life section.

This seems unrelated?

Re: Increasing the lifespan of a bulb makes it worse in every other way

#190

Post by cobzilla »

bananabiscuit wrote: post #158
brookst wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There are a few other paths to these types of decisions that also don’t require overt malice.

The most prevalent, almost universal, is that macro strategy is set without consideration of what it really takes to accomplish the goals. So the discussions are framed by resource constraints and decisions are rationalized by those constraints.

Likewise, group discussions at high levels are almost always abstracted into corporate-speak that removes clarity to the point where nobody can even decipher the original intent. Honestly, even when thinking about decisions or talking 1 on 1, it’s easy to mask real consequences with obtuse language. It’s a coping mechanism for many.

It’s been extremely rare that I’ve ever heard anyone say anything that could be directly considered condoning unethical behavior. Establishing plausible deniability is an involuntary reflex for lots of people.

Generally the decisions made on the ground that seem like greed or malice are more often made as part of some survival strategy.

It’s all quite messy and disheartening, but inevitably human.

Post reply on HN