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

Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 343 posts

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#211

Post by comfypotato »

_yb2s wrote: post #199
comfypotato wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't look or feel the same to me. I used to be in this camp before branching out and trying some different LEDs. Unless it is literally the glowing filament that you like looking at, which is reasonable, you can definitely find a bulb that looks and feels the same. That was my point in repeating myself saying that it 100% exists. If you’re not in a place to financially experiment with a few bulbs that’s diffe…

It just seems like a solution looking for a problem... incandescent lights are exactly the perfect solution for my use case, I am completely happy with them. The whole problem LED bulb mandates are trying to solve is mostly a problem of unnecessary and excessive lighting which is causing tons of light pollution, interrupting peoples circadian rhythm, etc. If people used a very dim light near their body just between s…

Noises of crotchety old fart grumbling in the distance

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#212

Post by comfypotato »

laverya wrote: post #206
comfypotato wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As I mentioned in some other comments, I settled on a lamp with a fully adjustable color and brightness. It’s lots of diodes, and the net effect is very nice. In other words, I’m agreeing with your article that the fixed bulbs typically don’t hit the mark.

Are you sure that your "fully adjustable" bulb is giving you the spectrum you think it is? Syonyk's posted a few RGB bulb reviews recently, and they tend to have a lot more blue light than you'd think. And if you use the RGB functions, they tend to get REALLY spiky instead of having a smooth emissions curve. https://www.sevarg.net/2023/04/08/ecosmart-smart-bulb-review... + https://www.sevarg.net/2023/03/11/philips-sm…

The color spectrum I’m talking about is just temperature, not really RGB.

I like the warm parts of the spectrum more than incandescents, which is really my whole point.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#213

Post by santoshalper »

_yb2s wrote: post #199
comfypotato wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It doesn't look or feel the same to me. I used to be in this camp before branching out and trying some different LEDs. Unless it is literally the glowing filament that you like looking at, which is reasonable, you can definitely find a bulb that looks and feels the same. That was my point in repeating myself saying that it 100% exists. If you’re not in a place to financially experiment with a few bulbs that’s diffe…

It just seems like a solution looking for a problem... incandescent lights are exactly the perfect solution for my use case, I am completely happy with them. The whole problem LED bulb mandates are trying to solve is mostly a problem of unnecessary and excessive lighting which is causing tons of light pollution, interrupting peoples circadian rhythm, etc. If people used a very dim light near their body just between s…

No, the problem they are trying to solve is not light pollution, it is that incandescent bulbs use several times as much electricity as LEDs.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#214

Post by wizzwizz4 »

wiseowise wrote: post #208
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take this as a teaching opportunity Here's who can't practically afford that: Someone with 3 kids working 80 hours a week in service or truck driving. Or someone that is disabled. Or someone that has severe mental health issues. There are quite a few prerequisites that you assume exist that just don't in a poor American household and the primary one that doesn't exist is time. Beyond the time you need to plan, s…

[flagged]

Maybe they didn't. Maybe their sibling died and their ex left them with the kids from the last relationship and now they're looking after 3 kids they never expected to have to care for on their own.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#215

Post by ryeights »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #186
ryeights wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is objectively “bad” about that, but it is an insane stretch to call that “great food.” That is subsistence eating. Moreover—can you put beans, rice, eggs, and mixed veggies in a sandwich? Because a sandwich was one of OP’s “$40/mo” suggestions. A food budget where a simple ham and cheese sandwich is an unimaginable luxury is ridiculous to propose as a reasonable target.

Why isn't it great food? People line up to get rice, veggies, and beans, onion, and chicken in a tortilla at Chipotle, but if you combine those ingredients at home you are 'subsistence eating'?

Well there you go, add chicken and tortillas to the mix and your budget doubles just for dinner. People generally enjoy eating more than just the bare-bones, most minimal staples.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#216

Post by wizzwizz4 »

ltbarcly3 wrote: post #195
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are not dumb people, they are my friends and neighbors who are being systematically oppressed. Unless you're working a blue collar job in America you don't see this

Right, I'm saying they aren't dumb. If what you are saying is true they would have to not only be dumb, but barely have human level intelligence. You believe that your friends and neighbors are completely incompetent at things that are trivially easy, and they have no hope of ever figuring it out on their own. You are actually claiming that there are tens of millions of adult humans, who have lived 20, 30 years, and…

> and they have no hope of ever figuring it out on their own.

It's not a case of not understanding, or not having the skills, or it being “unreasonable to think they might” do anything.

https://butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine...

https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2022/04/12/its-not-about-the...

I get not understanding, but can you try not to be so obnoxious about it, please? It's clear you don't have these problems. If they seem to you to be absurd struggles to have, read some Albert Camus.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#217

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bumby wrote: post #202
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how is the case if it's zero sum Trade isn’t zero sum. Ricardian mechanics is what overturned mercantilism. You paying more for your neighbour to do work than someone down the street deprives you of money and everyone of economies of scale.

Doesn’t this break down once your utility function goes beyond strict economics? E.g., economics may say it’s best to let Taiwan specialize in semiconductors, but that may not be optimal once you factor in other dimensions like national security. Humans are not Homo Economicus

> economics may say it’s best to let Taiwan specialize in semiconductors, but that may not be optimal once you factor in other dimensions like national security. Humans are not Homo Economicus

And those other dimensions come at a cost. National security seems like a reasonable thing to pay a cost for. Enriching an oligarch does not. A lot of protectionism is about the latter.

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#218

Post by AndrewKemendo »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #216
ltbarcly3 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, I'm saying they aren't dumb. If what you are saying is true they would have to not only be dumb, but barely have human level intelligence. You believe that your friends and neighbors are completely incompetent at things that are trivially easy, and they have no hope of ever figuring it out on their own. You are actually claiming that there are tens of millions of adult humans, who have lived 20, 30 years, and…

> and they have no hope of ever figuring it out on their own. It's not a case of not understanding , or not having the skills , or it being “unreasonable to think they might” do anything. https://butyoudontlooksick.com/articles/written-by-christine... https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2022/04/12/its-not-about-the... I get not understanding, but can you try not to be so obnoxious about it, please? It's clear you don't h…

I love both the spoons theory (and it's popping up everywhere) and Camus!

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#219

Post by throwaway32908 »

wiseowise wrote: post #208
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take this as a teaching opportunity Here's who can't practically afford that: Someone with 3 kids working 80 hours a week in service or truck driving. Or someone that is disabled. Or someone that has severe mental health issues. There are quite a few prerequisites that you assume exist that just don't in a poor American household and the primary one that doesn't exist is time. Beyond the time you need to plan, s…

[flagged]

This is everyone's problem if we ever hope to retire

Re: Amount of work that once bought an hour of light now buys 51 years of it (2017)

#220

Post by NovaDudely »

As pessimistic as I can be, thinks like this are why am not extremely worried about the future. Even if we decline a lot and oil cost $1,000 a barrel - that is still an absolute bargain compared with what people have lived through in the past.
Post reply on HN