61–70 of 217 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And uses orders of magnitude more water
Is that a problem though? The other day I got a whole lecture on HN, complete with math, proving that keeping the water running entire time while showering isn't meaningfully wasteful... I still can't believe it on an emotional level, but the math checks out...
Ah, those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better. I guess this is where Star Trek got the idea of "sonic showers" from?
> those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better. David Graeber has written eloquently about this https://davidgraeber.org/articles/of-flying-cars-and-the-dec...
tl;dr: it all leads to this conclusion: replace "capitalism [with a system that] is based on a far more egalitarian distribution of wealth and power:.
Ah, those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better. I guess this is where Star Trek got the idea of "sonic showers" from?
We would also call this a "minimum viable product" and promise that in some future update, the less-than-important people involved will be replaced by AI (and become even less important).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better. David Graeber has written eloquently about this https://davidgraeber.org/articles/of-flying-cars-and-the-dec...
Flying car is simply a bad idea, thats why there is none.
Was that just bullshit?
modern washing machine UI is terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better. David Graeber has written eloquently about this https://davidgraeber.org/articles/of-flying-cars-and-the-dec...
Flying car is simply a bad idea, thats why there is none.
I'm curious why the author of this piece decided to use the gender neutral pronoun for the women who modelled this odd machine. They wrote:
> The demonstration model would climb into the six-foot-tall machine via ladder, then enter the chamber, with their head sticking out of the top. They'd set the water temperature, then the machine would start spraying them with jets of warm water, like the pre-wash cycle at a car wash.
These models were all women. This was the 1970s, and the photos support the reasonable assumption that this was not a demonstration where male models were used. Using gender neutral pronouns is sensible in many cases — I didn't go as far as to look into the author's biography for example, so I refer to them as they for the nonce — but is doing so when the gender is known (and possibly relevant given the social context of that time) now on the rise, or is this just hypercorrection?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On solid objects at least (like jewelry) it dislodges particles of grime / dirt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_cleaning . No idea if this also works on soft tissue. Edit: the Wikipedia page above says "the ultrasonic action is relatively benign to living tissue but can cause discomfort and skin irritation.". So maybe it was just a gimmick. Ultrasound cleaning was fairly new at the time, so maybe it sound…
Oh, ultrasonics can definitely harm flesh if focused. Yes, I am the guy who tested it with a room humidifier. I knew it would hurt, I did it anyway.
> After five minutes of that, the machine would then fill the chamber with hot water for a three-minute ultrasonic bath. This was followed by a two-minute hot rinse cycle. Next, the chamber would drain and the user was blasted with warm air to dry off. They were additionally exposed to both infrared and ultraviolet light to kill germs. All in all, it was a 15-minute cycle. It's apparently also a tanning booth. 15 min…
And uses orders of magnitude more water