121–130 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The maps, surveys and projections say otherwise, but of course you're free to believe what you believe.
That's the thing, dollars are usually a better indicator, unless something somewhere is burning money to prevent prices from reflecting real scarcity.
So, the prices might not be rising that quickly for now, but sinkholes are giving us the warning.
Prices don't always point correctly, esp. when there are other economic and socioeconomic factors at play.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> gender neutral pronoun I can't speak for the author, but it can just be easier to just go for a more impersonal tone. At no point do you need to keep in my the gender of the people and the writing is a lot clearer (the models being women has no impact on the subject, which is the machine, so it's noise in this case)
> the models being women has no impact on the subject It's part of the context; design doesn't exist in isolation. Was this prototype aimed at women? Was it just sexism or its off-shoot 'sex sells'? Or were there actually male models, but the author isn't mentioning it? I would also argue that explicitly ignoring the fact that these models were women amounts to erasure, which is probably not intended, but a consequen…
It was part of a world expo, and from the text we can see it was set as a futuristic vision targeted at anyone that could use the apparatus. The official description also has no focus on the models or who it should be used for in any specific detail.
I get your point on the models all being women, but as that has more to do to the period than the machine itself, it isn't remarkable in itself. It would be like commenting on the show guides being sexy women when discussing Mercedes' prototype at 90s cars. Pointing at the sexism and gender gap doesn't help the subject.
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...
Interesting article, but jeezum, he could have said the same thing with 1/10 the words. You can skip entire paragraphs and mess nothing. tl;dr: it all leads to this conclusion: replace "capitalism [with a system that] is based on a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth and power:.
"Bullshit Jobs" should have also remained a blog post.
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."
It's like you think the only victims of drunk drivers are the drunks themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Car (for personal transport) is also a bad idea, yet there is plenty of them.
Yes, it's taking ages in order to get ride of thoses in of Paris. You need to not hurt thoses who are brainwashed by cars and keep taking it despite having one of the best public transit in the world.
I'm in favor of more public transportation, but if you think people use car willingly in and around Paris, I don't think you've tried it; it's so bad that only people with no viable choice will use a car. Or maybe you could explain (for example) how my sister in law was supposed to carry her two baby kids to the daycare using an overcrowded metro (and bonus, through stations without working elevators) or how my brother was supposed to carry the equipment he was using to constructions sites he was working. And then you've got all the places where taking a car is a 30 min trip vs 2 hours by bus or public transportation (thankfully the Grand Paris initiatives are helping a lot there).
For now, removing cars in Paris just push them around the city, because the public transportation network isn't ready.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Many do though.
> After five minutes of that, the machine would then fill the chamber with hot water for a three-minute ultrasonic bath. This was followed by a two-minute hot rinse cycle. Next, the chamber would drain and the user was blasted with warm air to dry off. They were additionally exposed to both infrared and ultraviolet light to kill germs. All in all, it was a 15-minute cycle. It's apparently also a tanning booth. 15 min…
You are right that for able bodied people it's at best a gimmick. But it might be useful for people with limited mobility, who don't want to depend on other people washing them.
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…
I wouldn’t worry about wasting it. We’ll die from something else long before water becomes an issue.