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

Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

airships.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 223 posts

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#201

Post by gwbas1c »

devilbunny wrote: post #195
gwbas1c wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, you clearly have no sense of humor. In all seriousness, all you need to do is take bathroom breaks at chargers. That's all it takes, and you can't hold it for 300 miles.

Eh, my response was about as funny as the original joke. Seriously, though, don’t drink anything and you won’t have to pee. That’s only 4 hours. There’s usually one stop an hour or two after leaving, but after that? I typically don’t eat or drink anything if there’s distance to cover. Refuel, get back on the road. I can eat when I get there.

> Seriously, though, don’t drink anything and you won’t have to pee. That’s only 4 hours.

That's not healthy. General road safety is that you need to stop every ~2 hours.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#202

Post by doubled112 »

gmac wrote: post #179
devilbunny wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t dislike electric cars, but I don’t poop every 3 hours, and it doesn’t take 30 minutes to do so. When EVs can reliably (including charging infrastructure) do charging as fast as ICE refuels, with 300 miles/500 km between 20-80%, they will win with most people in the US and Canada. Otherwise, we just drive too far, too often. It’s not far off. But until then, it’s not truly a replacement for ICE. Yes, I really…

Do you really find you can reliably sustain your full attention that long? My EV can do 3 – 5 hours on the motorway between charges (depending on weather conditions and speed), but to avoid fatigue I always want a break within 3 hours or so. And by the time I've parked, gone inside, queued up for and drunk a tea or coffee, used the facilities, and checked the next leg of my trip, that's half an hour and the car is re…

Yes. I used to make a 750km trip fairly regularly without stopping.

The exceptions were bad weather days. Stop, check in, fuel up, etc. Never know when the storm will get bad and you’ll be sleeping in the car.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#203

Post by hnlmorg »

fragmede wrote: post #163
hnlmorg wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a little like celebrating the reduction of heroin usage while ignoring that fentanyl addition has sky rocketed. While I do agree that vaping is better than smoking. The real crux of the problem is the addition that needs treating. Celebrating the rise of vaping feels a little like celebrating an own goal. You’ve put all that time and effort into reducing the effects of smoking and yet you haven’t actually solv…

But without the inordinately deleterious effects of smoking, why is it a bad thing? Nicotine is a powerful nootropic and enhances cognitive function. If there was a healthy way to get it into the body, it would be celebrated as a good thing. The comparison to look at is caffeine and coffee. Is a coffee addict someone we look down on, and hope they would quit? I'm not arguing that vaping is healthy, just that, cultura…

I don’t really think it’s fair to compare vaping to drinking coffee. But there are plenty of people who have given up coffee for health reasons. And it’s much easier to cut down on drinking coffee than vaping (from a dependency standpoint)

Alcohol and alcoholism is probably a better comparison here.

But the thing that worries me the most about vaping is:

1. The frequency in which people vape. It’s almost never just a couple of puffs a day to help with concentration. It’s usually just as heavy as when people smoked. And it’s much easier to lose track of how much you vape compared with drinking coffee (I had a friend who, for months, didn’t even realise he was vaping the equivalent of 40 packs of cigarettes a day because he just bought the same solution each time without thinking about it’s concentration)

2. The fact that you’re pulling hot gas into your lungs. Yeah it’s significantly better than smoking but we don’t really know the long term effect this might cause. And by long term, I mean people who vape heavily for years.

We could all be walking ourselves into another health crisis in 20 or 40 years but “it’s ok because it isn’t as bad as smoking”.

I hear stories all the time about people trying to hack their diet, or brain, or whatever biological. And it so often ends up going wrong. From people adding caffeine to their protein drinks and accidentally ODing, to other people having serious side effects for “herbal remedies”. It’s all just nuts when we’ve already known for millennia what a healthy diet and exercise looks like.

And this is my complaint about vaping. When it’s used to help people from quitting smoking then I’m all for them vaping. But when it’s used as just another recreational drug but sold as a “healthy alternative”, well that’s when I’m going to take issue.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#204

Post by dangus »

jpadkins wrote: post #191
dangus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still being studied, but the idea that it’s safe seems to be a very odd default. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/e-cigarettes/health-effects.html Why would your default assumption be that putting foreign (and poorly regulated) substances into your lungs is more likely than not safe? This is especially true since it’s a drug that doesn’t even have much claim to fame for positive recreational or medicinal benefits.

vapor has been used for medicine delivery for a long time, especially for patients who can't swallow pills. Also gov regulation is not the only form of regulation. Fear of getting sued by your customers into bankruptcy is an effective regulation on putting harmful substances into your vape.

> Fear of getting sued by your customers into bankruptcy is an effective regulation on putting harmful substances into your vape.

Not really:

https://mjalterlaw.com/the-ford-pinto-memo-the-cost-to-repai...

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#205

Post by dangus »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #146
dangus wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still being studied, but the idea that it’s safe seems to be a very odd default. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/e-cigarettes/health-effects.html Why would your default assumption be that putting foreign (and poorly regulated) substances into your lungs is more likely than not safe? This is especially true since it’s a drug that doesn’t even have much claim to fame for positive recreational or medicinal benefits.

The vast majority of that CDC information page is about the health effects of nicotine itself. There's a relative lack of specific information about the health risks of the vapor. "Cancer-causing chemicals" is vague (I live in California, I see prop 65 signs all over the place, I ignore them like every good Californian). "Heavy metals" is also vague - is the amount of tin that I might inhale via vaping actually a pro…

Did you scroll down at all? I’m counting at least 5 risks that are not nicotine.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#206

Post by dangus »

kortilla wrote: post #113
dangus wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of the alternative which was “nobody really smokes or vapes” it’s not really a good outcome. Sure, smoking rates cratered. It was great. But now vaping rates have gone up and it just didn’t have to happen that way at all. Go back a few years and less people vaped with similarly low smoking rates. Vaping didn’t replace smoking, its net new usage.

No, the context was getting a handle on smoking, not some alternative goalpost. As lung cancer rates plummet from lack of second hand smoke nobody should ever lament that even if people are doing something else not great. Classic “perfect is the enemy of good”.

We don’t actually know the lung cancer rates of vaping yet because the population of people who have been doing it for 30+ years is zero.

I’m not even advocating for banning vapes, just maybe not having free market capitalism for new potentially harmful product categories by default.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#207

Post by slopinthebag »

DaedalusII wrote: post #133
slopinthebag wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pouches are great, a clean way to get Nic with very few adverse health problems as a result.

absolutely not true they erode your gums and the accelerated rate of nicotine absorbtion probably has side effects we do not yet understand

proof?

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#208

Post by WalterBright »

xethos wrote: post #187
WalterBright wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boeing proved it safer . The reason is the increased complexity of more engines increased the risk of a major problem. My source is I was told this by the engineers who where involved.

Now see, the worst part is, I believe you. Your username pops up frequently enough, and is recognizable enough, that I consider you a reasonable, thoughtful person. And the rationale makes sense - juggling multiple engines is extremely complex But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source

> But now way in hell can I, in good conscience, repeat that without a source

googling "why are twin engine jets safer than quad engine jets?" should provide the needed information.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#209

Post by devilbunny »

gwbas1c wrote: post #201
devilbunny wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, my response was about as funny as the original joke. Seriously, though, don’t drink anything and you won’t have to pee. That’s only 4 hours. There’s usually one stop an hour or two after leaving, but after that? I typically don’t eat or drink anything if there’s distance to cover. Refuel, get back on the road. I can eat when I get there.

> Seriously, though, don’t drink anything and you won’t have to pee. That’s only 4 hours. That's not healthy. General road safety is that you need to stop every ~2 hours.

“General road safety”? I’m curious where you get this idea. I’m not accusing you of making it up, just wondering where it comes from.

As for health, it’s fine as long as you aren’t chronically dehydrated. Your kidneys won’t fail if you don’t urinate every two hours every day.

Re: Hindenburg’s Smoking Room

#210

Post by hnlmorg »

b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #169
hnlmorg wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, maybe do neither ?

if you aren't already a smoker? yes, absolutely. but if you are, and you are not the one in ten who has the iron will to quit cold turkey and never relapse, you're better off getting your nicotine fix delivered by ANY medium other than toxic smoke.

Which comes back to my original complaint: vaping has grown so exponentially that there are people vaping who were never old enough to have started smoking.
Post reply on HN