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

A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

mstdn.social

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 531 posts

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#501

Post by joshuamorton »

Spooky23 wrote: post #493
joshuamorton wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was able to find a print ad for this thing[0], and it has 9.5 cubic feet of storage. Modern "full size" fridges have 2-3x as much storage (20-30 Cubic feet!), are going to be vastly cheaper to run/use, and have built in ice and water makers. And you get can similar sized, simple fridges (that are still probably vastly cheaper) for like the same price as that one, but minimum wage is like 8x higher today. [0]: https…

In those days you went to a small market nearby and bought a meal sized portion of food. They didn’t have Costco.

The people purchasing the top of the line, best in class Imperial refrigerator marketed toward postwar suburban families were not going to the small market nearby, they were going to a supermarket in their car to live the American Dream.

See the difference between the normal[1] and top of the line[2] friges.

[1]: https://www.automatice.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?showdoc~1275~Fr...

[2]: https://www.automatice.org/cgi-bin/index.cgi?showdoc~1595~Fr...

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#502

Post by ffhhttt »

user3939382 wrote: post #72
ethbr0 wrote: post #16

1950-1970 seems like a local optimum in UX that we've yet to surpass. My personal, completely-unsupported theory is it was a combination of 3 qualities. (1) New types of things, while unlike anything that came before, were still simple and understandable enough that someone without formal engineering training could understand their use and offer improvements . (2) Engineering was still seen as something that was appr…

There probably are a mix of factors. A big one that I see is that consumers moved away from "pride in ownership". Modern consumer culture weighs absolute price more than price per quality, so you get products that reflect that priority. Real inflation is also about double the rate of the official numbers IMHO, so the resources to invest in quality aren't as available.

> Real inflation is also about double the rate of the official numbers IMHO,

It’s funny that one reason CPI hasn’t increased as fast as nominal prices in some cases is because it also factors in the quality of goods.

e.g. modern cars are more expensive but also significantly better (they both have more features and last longer) I think this applies to a whole bunch of other products too.. I don’t know how accurate it is though, guess it depends on user preferences.

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#503

Post by ffhhttt »

picadores wrote: post #158
jrochkind1 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, in general, things we buy today are a lot more "affordable" while being lower quality. Googling says the average cost of a refrigerator in 1950 was $250 to $400 (for 10 cubic feet -- a fridge today is 20 to 30 ft^3), which would be $3K to $5K in 2023 dollars. If you pay $3K to $5K for a fridge today (for a fridge 2-3x as big as the 1950 fridge), do you get a better longer-lasting one? I'm not sure.

With the service per lifetime measurment stick, its still increddibly cheap. We are definatly poorer if you take the Terry Pratchet boot economics yardstick.

How? 5-10 years for 5-10x less seems like a better deal cost (if not environment..) wise. Even if you ignore energy usage.

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#504

Post by XajniN »

JohnFen wrote: post #470
MostlyStable wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure that the reason they stopped getting made was influx of dramatically cheaper toasters, at a time when the idea of paying top dollar for premium kitchen tools was not very common. I'm also pretty sure that fixing all of your issues would not be hard with a modern re-design. It would just result in a ~$100+ toaster. The crazy thing is is that _there are more expensive toasters than that_, that are basic…

Toasters are one of the more obvious appliances to show how bad things have become. Outside of getting one of those conveyor-belt continuous restaurant toasters, I simply cannot find a new toaster at any price point that does a good job of making toast. Even low-end toasters from the '60s outperform high-end toasters these days.

I bought this thing [1] a few years ago, still works very well with consistent results. The brand is called Breville in the US [2].

[1] https://www.sageappliances.com/eu/en/products/toasters/bta82...

[2] https://www.breville.com/us/en/products/toasters.html

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#505

Post by ciex »

UncleMeat wrote: post #81
quartz wrote: post #25

Wait is this actually better? It's well presented in the ad but: - that removable veggie holder in the door looks crazy heavy and super awkward to put back in place (lining up at a sharp angle while gripping likely slick sides) - you have to open the refrigerator door to get at the freezer - the door compartments are narrow and probably can't handle odd sized containers - the shelves have holes in them so anything th…

Yeah the only two features that this fridge has that my fridge doesn't have are the pull out shelves and the removable bin for vegetables. I've got no idea why you'd really want the removable bin for vegetables. Carry all my veggies over to the sink first and then pick out the ones I want? And look at how small that thing is. Pull out shelves seem nice I guess, but they'd only be useful on lower shelves. My fridge se…

My fridge has pull-out shelves. They are very nice the 2x per year I use them.

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#506

Post by ImHereToVote »

bsder wrote: post #490
drakythe wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember when looking at old technology that still works Survivorship Bias is a thing to be aware of. Yes, that elderly family member with the 1950’s fridge makes us jealous. But how many of their friends who bought that same fridge had to upgrade because theirs crapped out? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias

Part of "Survivorship Bias" is also "repairability". My father used to replace the control thermostat in our refrigerator about every 5 years and the compressor somewhere between every 10-15 years.

Yeah but did all that environment saving that your father did make him feel as virtuous as someone who buys a green certified product?

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#507

Post by pikahumu »

r0fl wrote: post #176
pikahumu wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to fly without the security theatre today then a first-class ticket won't cut it. You'd need to get a private jet, which is of higher relative cost than a plane ticket was in the 60s.

Many first class tickets have priority check in, and separate priority security at many major airports. You avoid a lot of the security theatre that way.

No, you don't avoid it. You just reduce the wait time in line.

It's not just about the queues. Even with first class you still need to get body-scans, pat-downs, get your hand luggage searched, perhaps take off shoes and belt, and throw away the water bottle you just purchased inside the airport and the toothpaste you forgot to move from hand luggage to checked-in.

That has become so normalized that most people just shrug, but it's a quite humiliating treatment and most of it is meaningless beyond the mere appearance of security.

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#508

Post by oblio »

dagw wrote: post #186
oblio wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It probably depends on where you are, but you can absolutely find brands where the production quality is higher. It's like with electric bikes. You can buy VanMoof (bling) or Gazelle (quality).

but you can absolutely find brands where the production quality is higher The problem is that those are mostly targeting professional kitchens and generally aren't what people want in their home kitchen. Finding something that will perform and last like a professional grade piece of kit, while still work and look good in your designer home kitchen is very hard.

That's always been the case.

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#509

Post by rsynnott »

amluto wrote: post #355
rsynnott wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, ovens last more or less forever, and haven't had significant efficiency gains in a long time. They're probably the thing you're least likely to want to replace. There's often far more of an incentive with, say, fridges; if you have a 20 year old one, the replacement will likely pay for itself in a few years in power savings. > The obvious safety mechanism to turn off the gas if the burner isn’t lit? Nonexistent…

Wow. I have literally never seen a flame failure device on a residential stove in the US. I’ve seen them on gas fired ovens with pilot lights. (Don’t get a gas fired oven with a pilot light. As far as I can tell, they have no redeeming features unless you like the broiler hidden under some of them. They make for pretty bad ovens, and they suck for indoor air quality.)

For whatever reason, while gas stoves are fairly common in Ireland (I think they are in decline now, as induction offers most of the same advantages, along with its own), gas oven are practically non-existent; haven't seen one in years.

Didn't realise they were still a thing in the US, though it makes _sense_, I suppose; on a 110V system an electric oven is going to be a more expensive wiring job than on a 230V one.

Re: A fridge from 70 years ago has better features than the fridge I own now

#510

Post by ben_w »

treeman79 wrote: post #467
ben_w wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That you'd be able to see it with the naked eye? α = 4GM/((c^2)b), where b is the impact parameter[0]. Apparently human visual acuity is 0.3 milli-radians, so if b = 1 meter, that's approximately "the moon" (in at most a 1 meter radius volume)… …assuming I didn't mix up my units in this formula I never used before, though it feels about right given the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth is ~ centimetres. [0] never hea…

There is also Superman’s key. Made of neutronium. https://dcmovies.fandom.com/wiki/Fortress_Key_(All-Star_Supe... Last I tried to calculate (poorly), if you were to touch it. You liquify and be sucked into it just before contact.

(Superhero physics is vague and unrealistic at the best of times).

Assuming "dwarf star material" means "neutronium" (which is unstable at any level less than a neutron star) and the "half million tons" mass quote for the key…

That's about the energy content of all the world's fossil fuel reserves being released in a 10 minute half-life.

Post reply on HN