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

A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

core77.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 217 posts

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#111

Post by bayindirh »

eru wrote: post #109
bayindirh wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think so. Just because you're not in a water-stressed place doesn't make you eligible to keep taps open 24/7. This mentality is what brought us to today.

Who is 'us' and what do you mean by 'today'? And what do you mean by 'eligible'? In most places I've been to, you just pay your water bill, and then you can leave your taps running. It's about as productive as buying bread just to toss it in the trash, of course.

us: the humanity in general, today: the state of world water stress level [0], [1], eligible: the correctness of the thing you are doing regardless of the legality of the thing you're doing.

IOW, "I pay the bill, now get off my lawn" is something you can do. But should you really do it, just because you can do it?

[0]: https://www.wri.org/data/water-stress-country (This is decade old, we're worse now)

[1]: https://riskfilter.org/water/explore/map

If you think you can do whatever you want regardless of the things you're causing, then we're on a completely different page, and continuing this little chat has no point. We can't converge and agree on a point.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#112

Post by xg15 »

fecal_henge wrote: post #108
xg15 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suppose, one advantage would be that you can use it while almost asleep, while you need a minimum of mental presence for a shower. So if you wanted, you could: wake up; slump into the bathroom and into this thing; press the button; snooze another 15 minutes while part of your morning routine is being done for (or to) you. Whether this is something you should do is another question... (Also, it might be possible to…

Your vision lacks the ultimate destination: This will replace the bed.

That sounds like that one guy a few years ago who wanted to replace all kitchen cupboards with dishwashers.

Gonna steer clear of those directions. All things in moderation, etc.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#113

Post by pantalaimon »

bayindirh wrote: post #81
TeMPOraL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that a problem though? The other day I got a whole lecture on HN, complete with math, proving that keeping the water running entire time while showering isn't meaningfully wasteful... I still can't believe it on an emotional level, but the math checks out...

A nominal water aerator limits water around 5L-6L/min levels. For every minute I don't use the water, I spend approximately two full kettles of water. With every 5L of water I can - Cook 4 servings (~400 grams) of pasta. - Brew 5L of tea/coffee - Water all the plants at home two times. - Possibly wash most of my handwash-only dishes in one go. - etc. So it's not not meaningfully wasteful . However, I can't turn off t…

The water is cheap and plentiful, what's wasteful is heating the water and throwing that away.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#114

Post by pantalaimon »

Kuinox wrote: post #60
vishnugupta wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better. David Graeber has written eloquently about this https://davidgraeber.org/articles/of-flying-cars-and-the-dec...

Flying car is simply a bad idea, thats why there is none.

Flying cars just look cool in movies and immediately take the scene to the future. Movies don't need to concern themselves with practicality too much.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#115

Post by Kuinox »

pantalaimon wrote: post #114
Kuinox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying car is simply a bad idea, thats why there is none.

Flying cars just look cool in movies and immediately take the scene to the future . Movies don't need to concern themselves with practicality too much.

Exactly why the cybertruck should never have been something more than a concept car.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#116

Post by Kuinox »

mikro2nd wrote: post #85
Kuinox wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Catastrophical failure would be way worse. Flying is less energy efficient. You need to find cheaper and clean energy source. You need to find a tech that allow to fly quietly. Forcing to make people walk more is better for the society as a whole.

I'm forced to disagree. Catastrophic failure would be a feature not a bug. "Natural selection against stupidity."

"Worse" was not for people in the vehicle but the people below. After car forced us to be aware of our surrounding when walking, flying car would force us to be aware of the sky too.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#117

Post by sneak »

ndjdjddjsjj wrote: post #103
sneak wrote: post #66

Before I clicked, I thought it was going to be a washing machine with a three position knob that says “hot wash, cold wash, off”. modern washing machine UI is terrible.

On/off would do! Just make delicate 30C all the things. If you need sterilization, use a powder that does that.

30C is a bad choice for colors/dyed fabrics. Cold wash is important.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#118

Post by bayindirh »

pantalaimon wrote: post #113
bayindirh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A nominal water aerator limits water around 5L-6L/min levels. For every minute I don't use the water, I spend approximately two full kettles of water. With every 5L of water I can - Cook 4 servings (~400 grams) of pasta. - Brew 5L of tea/coffee - Water all the plants at home two times. - Possibly wash most of my handwash-only dishes in one go. - etc. So it's not not meaningfully wasteful . However, I can't turn off t…

The water is cheap and plentiful, what's wasteful is heating the water and throwing that away.

The maps, surveys and projections say otherwise, but of course you're free to believe what you believe.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#119

Post by ndjdjddjsjj »

sneak wrote: post #117
ndjdjddjsjj wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On/off would do! Just make delicate 30C all the things. If you need sterilization, use a powder that does that.

30C is a bad choice for colors/dyed fabrics. Cold wash is important.

Never done cold and been OK, but anything I care enough I would take to a professional dry cleaner anyway.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#120

Post by idiomaddict »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #84
ale42 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on how much hair the man still have... some will definitely not do it in 2 minutes. And most women I know don't need 15 minutes to wash their hair.

Let's see: shampoo, rinse, mask, wait 30-60mins, rinse, conditioner, rinse.

Do you think every woman does this regularly without pay? My entire shower takes 8 minutes as a woman.
Post reply on HN