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

A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

core77.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 217 posts

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#71

Post by makeitdouble »

Freak_NL wrote: post #68

The future of the past looked so much more interesting. Not practical, but certainly interesting. 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, th…

> gender neutral pronoun

I can't speak for the author, but it can just be easier to just go for a more impersonal tone.

At no point do you need to keep in my the gender of the people and the writing is a lot clearer (the models being women has no impact on the subject, which is the machine, so it's noise in this case)

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#73

Post by ale42 »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #41
jandrese wrote: post #16

> 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…

For a man sure, you can do your hair in 2 minutes. But if you’re a woman it is going to be a multiple of 15 minutes.

Depends on how much hair the man still have... some will definitely not do it in 2 minutes. And most women I know don't need 15 minutes to wash their hair.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#74

Post by makeitdouble »

freediver wrote: post #9

Truly remarkable creative thinking in a way that does not exist today. This was a year after humans landed on the Moon, and I can understand the inspiration that drove the 70s.

we have actual adaptive beds that auto adjust your position, firmness, temperature and fully monitor your sleep to improve it.

But they sure don't have a funky 70s style design, perhaps that's the part that's missing for most people ?

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#76

Post by Kuinox »

js8 wrote: post #64
Kuinox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying car is simply a bad idea, thats why there is none.

Car (for personal transport) is also a bad idea, yet there is plenty of them.

Yes, it's taking ages in order to get ride of thoses in of Paris.

You need to not hurt thoses who are brainwashed by cars and keep taking it despite having one of the best public transit in the world.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#77

Post by [deleted] »

Freak_NL wrote: post #68

The future of the past looked so much more interesting. Not practical, but certainly interesting. 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, th…

[deleted]

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#78

Post by Kuinox »

sneak wrote: post #67
Kuinox wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flying car is simply a bad idea, thats why there is none.

I disagree entirely. Single person octocopters running autonomously would be awesome.

Catastrophical failure would be way worse.

Flying is less energy efficient. You need to find cheaper and clean energy source.

You need to find a tech that allow to fly quietly.

Forcing to make people walk more is better for the society as a whole.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#80

Post by distances »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #46
maronato wrote: post #40

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...

Was that about water, or about energy spent on heating the water? My gut feeling is that keeping the water running would roughly double the amount of water, so double the energy.
Post reply on HN