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

Everything with a battery should have an off switch

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 613 posts

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#321

Post by shkkmo »

BenjiWiebe wrote: post #270
bombcar wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since scales inherently involve putting weight on them it should be possible to use that weight to push down a plunger generating enough electricity to run for the weigh-in. A spring would then reset it for the next time.

If there's a plunger resisting the scale going down to harvest energy, that would prevent all the force from being on the load cell, giving you incorrect readings.

Not if the plunger rests on the load cell. Then plunger just captures the work done as it is compressed, it doesn't reduce the force that passes through it (once at equilibrium.)

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#322

Post by throw10920 »

alistairSH wrote: post #290
kyaghmour wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't mean to nitpick, but please refer to my comment regarding the inability of being able to inventory everything that can possibly go wrong in a computerized system. That's especially true given that if you take any successful engineering project, you'll see that its useful lifetime usually spans several individual engineering careers. Take something like Windows, or even Android for example. The people who were…

For the example you gave, as a user, what would you do with "Error: 0xFHJAD1234"? The best you could do is report it to Apple (or whoever). But, the error alone doesn't achieve anything. You would have been better off with "Something broke, click here to send log to Apple." (which is roughly what the book recommends - replace the error with something actionable).

No, the best that you can do is paste it into Google.

Giving a user an error ID gives them a partially-if-not-completely unique identifier that they can then use to find other people struggling with the same error and possible solutions.

This is infinitely better than having no error message and having to try to type different permutations of your symptoms into Google in order to try to win search engine bingo.

Sure, if Apple quickly and responsively fixed issues, then you wouldn't need the error code. But, they don't! The problem is that "hide the error message and replace with actionable advice" only works in the idealistic case where the vendor will quickly fix the issue and/or the advice consistently fixes the problem. But, they don't, and it doesn't - the advice doesn't work unless implemented flawlessly - it's not robust.

The robust approach that will actually survive contact with the real world is "include an error message and ID code - even if you have to hide it behind a "more details" button".

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#324

Post by kemayo »

ars wrote: post #304
kemayo wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The parent post addresses this: there are so many ways for for the system to fail that it’s not feasible to “inventory every possible problem in a computerized system and then provide a graceful exit”. So where an error is not gracefully handled, the system should allow for a human to see the error and solve the problem, rather than throw away the error. Yes, that's what I said as well. It's why I said the problem…

It's definitely fair to blame the book when the book gives advice that is impossible to follow. If it's not possible to always give help and advice, sometimes you have to give an error message and unless the book mentions that then it is definitely fair to blame the book.

Eh, I read the book as presenting a maximalist vision: in a perfect world, all error messages would instead be help that lets you resolve your issue.

Since it says to hide error messages and instead provide help, anyone who hides error messages and doesn't provide help can't really be said to be following the book's advice. It feels wrong to me to blame the book for not, in every bit of advice it offers, saying "don't half-ass this incorrectly". That seems inherent to me.

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#325

Post by phaistra »

donatj wrote: post #148

Evening with batteries should have user replaceable batteries. Ideally double A's. I am a huge fan of rechargable double A's. It's the main reason my Xbox sees so much more use than my PlayStation. My PlayStation controller is seemingly always dead when I go to use it, but I can just pop some new rechargeable batteries in the Xbox.

> Evening with batteries should have user replaceable batteries

There should be a law for this. Even for cellphones. When corporations market themselves as environmentally conscious, but don't allow the replacement of common wear items in their gadgets and products, then that's how you know they are full of shit.

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#326

Post by throw10920 »

bombcar wrote: post #211
lavela wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the real problem is that you can't keep all those little features you'd wish for in your head, so while you are making a buying decision they don't factor in as much as the lower price achievable without those features.

Perhaps we need government labels like we have on food - little boxes for common things like “battery: removable” or “on/off”.

I'd love this - simultaneously beneficial to consumers, improving the market (reducing information asymmetry), and not something that laissez-faire-market-types can complain about (because you're not restricting what sellers can do, technically - you're just forcing them to reveal more information about their product, and then it's market forces that actually deal the killing blow).

More ideas: "online account required for use", "collects location data", "phone call required to cancel subscription", "memory use: 350 MB" (just like calorie counts!), and so many others...

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#327

Post by buescher »

tzs wrote: post #252
sumtechguy wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same exp. One I bought in the mid 90s. That original battery that came with it lasted nearly 10 years. Then another 5 with the new battery. I retired it when the plastic casing came apart. The LCD never turned off. That thing was a tank. The newer ones I am lucky to get a year out of the battery. Even using the on/off switch.

I've noticed something similar with remote controls. Receivers, CD players, DVD players, Blu-ray players, TVs, cable boxes...almost every one I've ever bought came with batteries that lasted for many years. Sometimes longer than the device the remote controlled. Then, when the remote needs new batteries and I put in the batteries sold in US stores they would last a year or two. The batteries that came with these devi…

I've noticed this too. A couple things:

1) The OEM battery was probably fresher than the one that wound its way through retail distribution and then sat in a drawer at your house for longer than you realize

2) By the time you have to replace a battery, your remote's PCB has had time to adsorb water and contaminants from the air, get soda spilled on it, etc and is going to have higher leakage. It will then always draw more current in standby.

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#329

Post by _Microft »

arkaic wrote: post #310

How about when my desktop won't stay asleep, because, I don't know, some update is scheduled to run, or some unknown number of errant processes that have a schedule exists somewhere. And yes, I turn off my mouse each time so table vibrations or gusts of wind are ruled out.

Assuming that you use Windows, run the Event Viewer as admin. In the Event Viewer go to "Windows Logs"->"System" and look for events from source "Kernel Power". Find a wake-up event and read the report. It will tell you what caused this event. Happy debugging!

Re: Everything with a battery should have an off switch

#330

Post by gotaquestion »

Kalium wrote: post #243

> Oh, great, this debate again! I shall use this post as ammunition next time I am arguing with our stupid design team about why we need an off switch on the stupid product we are designing, because it is a giant pain to live with devices you cannot turn off. I increasingly subscribe to the thesis that many designers and design teams design primarily in an effort to impress other designers . They don't have to use th…

It depends, I worked briefly for Flex(tronics), and my projects were entirely focused on battery life and size (or at least, the client design requirements were).

There's a difference between a customer who plans on selling a billion units, and some company like this game controller design team that clearly making some crappy kids toys. I think the OP twitter person just learned a valuable lesson.

Post reply on HN