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

Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 397 posts

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#321

Post by rightbyte »

abakker wrote: post #47
nneonneo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Large panels like this emit heat. Any wins from better insulation are going to be offset by needing to keep the panel’s heat well away from the refrigerated contents. Triple-paned glass insulates pretty well and for a fraction of the cost…

Triple pane glass with an e of .24 is still worse than 1.5" of polyiso foam. Glass is just not very good, even energy efficient glass is quite a bit worse than even basic insulation.

Is not a fancy thermos made with glass layers?

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#322

Post by [deleted] »

wodenokoto wrote: post #293
foxfired wrote: post #26

I do not blame cooler screen for selling this technology to anyone. But I want everyone to consider how much it takes to bring about a technology like this to a grocery store. If this is any of the big chain groceries, the manager doesn't even have the authority to put a sticker on the glass door. This was vetted by hundreds of people and none of them thought... glass? Business class tickets were purchased, hotels we…

Oh, come on. Everyone thought "glass". The whole project, from the grocery store point of view, was about testing an alternative to glass doors.

[deleted]

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#323

Post by ahartmetz »

bjterry wrote: post #89
fpgaminer wrote: post #60

This is obviously a comically idiotic idea, but ... hmm ... If someone had taken this and put it in a museum as an art installation, I would love it. Thinking about it like that ... it tickles something in my brain. Using those absolutely huge, gorgeous screens, using our most sophisticated technology ... just to display a flat, bland, skeuomorphic representation of a completely mundane part of the human experience:…

There is an art installation in Las Vegas[0] which is basically a grocery store from an alternate, mildly dystopian, dimension. This would fit in perfectly there. 0: https://www.travelandleisure.com/culture-design/visual-arts/...

I've seen the "unsettling supermarket" concept last year in a museum in Tallinn, Estonia. It's a shelf where most but not all products have the wrong brand. Coca-cola soap, Tampax cookies, Snickers canned fish, Evian ketchup and so on. I thought it was a really neat idea to make me think about the huge simplification of "brand" and what is really happening behind and around a product.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#324

Post by andyjohnson0 »

mixedmath wrote: post #149
readams wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the part where it refuses to toast your unlicensed bread.

For those unaware, this is exactly the main point of the story "Unauthorized Bread" by Cory Doctorow. I liked the story and would recommend it.

Seconded. Well worth reading.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#325

Post by cout »

Am I alone in thinking that maybe this is a good idea?

When someone opens the door in one of those cabinets, glass doors always cloud up. Then I have to wait and wait for it to be clear again, and in the meantime, some other customer will often come by, open the door, and grab something, and I have to wait all over again for it to defog.

I do see a lot of opportunity for abuse, but I also see a lot of potential.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#326

Post by wodenokoto »

fpgaminer wrote: post #60

This is obviously a comically idiotic idea, but ... hmm ... If someone had taken this and put it in a museum as an art installation, I would love it. Thinking about it like that ... it tickles something in my brain. Using those absolutely huge, gorgeous screens, using our most sophisticated technology ... just to display a flat, bland, skeuomorphic representation of a completely mundane part of the human experience:…

Not just showing something mundane, but actually showing what is behind the screen!

It’s like connecting VR goggles to a front facing camera, so you can watch what you would see if you took of the headset.

As art, I’m kinda digging it too.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#327

Post by amelius »

vagrantJin wrote: post #288
rapind wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I use to be so enthusiastic about technology. Now I almost dread the next innovation for how it will inevitably find it’s major use case in advertising. I swear I’m turning Luddite.

You're not alone. As a 28 year old in tech for the last 7 years, I am definitely a Luddite. Its heartbreaking some of the most talented minds in software engineering are just making ads appear. The internet is an ad network with content at this point.

Smart people have failed to outsmart business people.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#328

Post by ljm »

state_less wrote: post #215
jasonhansel wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Later, when it's discovered that the toaster occasionally catches on fire, users are encouraged to pay $9.99 per month for "Toaster Plus," which causes an alarm to play before the fire starts, so that you know to get the extinguisher. Then they let you customize the alarm noise, so that you can choose how to be alerted of the future house fire. Soon, companies get rich selling $3 "toaster fire ringtones." Eventually,…

Toaster plus is 5.99 if you subject yourself to an add prior to toasting.

It's like the Xbox Verification Can story.

Re: Sorry, we replaced that old technology, “see-through glass”

#330

Post by amelius »

wodenokoto wrote: post #326
fpgaminer wrote: post #60

This is obviously a comically idiotic idea, but ... hmm ... If someone had taken this and put it in a museum as an art installation, I would love it. Thinking about it like that ... it tickles something in my brain. Using those absolutely huge, gorgeous screens, using our most sophisticated technology ... just to display a flat, bland, skeuomorphic representation of a completely mundane part of the human experience:…

Not just showing something mundane, but actually showing what is behind the screen! It’s like connecting VR goggles to a front facing camera, so you can watch what you would see if you took of the headset. As art, I’m kinda digging it too.

I want VR goggles which block the ads and replace them by art.
Post reply on HN