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

Generation Junk

walterkirn.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 471 posts

Re: Generation Junk

#81

Post by sneeze-slayer »

_dark_matter_ wrote: post #47
pinko wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fear Consumer Reports is having their lunch eaten by Wirecutter, and while they seem attached to a very dated organizational model & visual design aesthetic, CR is SO much more rigorous and honest an organization. I pay for a sub on principal.

Totally agreed. I actually have both and Wirecutter recommendations have been utterly useless for me. Their entire focus has become "buy buy buy", just look at their homepage with deals and articles.

Truly. I think since Wirecutter recommendations are free (at least for NYT subscribers), they make money with affiliate advertising and make more money by having readers who spend money.

So, their interest in getting me to spend more money is at odds with my interest in buying a quality product (or skipping it if they all suck!). At least Consumer Reports is a paid product who only gets paid by me.

Re: Generation Junk

#82

Post by ericbarrett »

willis936 wrote: post #27
fullstop wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A toaster in 1951 was $21, which is about $250 today. I would argue that a $250 toaster today is still not a "buy it for life" item, but it would certainly have a lot of bells and whistles and almost no user-serviceable parts.

Toasters are an interesting case study. I went on a tear last year after being fed up with every toaster doing the same bad job. I thought maybe someone made a proper toaster. What I found is that when you pay more the coat of paint gets nicer and maybe there's an MCU+LCD, but the guts and logic are identical. There is no good commercially available toaster today. It's sending a very loud message about how markets op…

They are probably all made with the same guts from one or two manufacturers. Same with microwaves, nearly every model from $100 to $5000 is made by Midea. (Source: Wirecutter)

Re: Generation Junk

#83

Post by analog31 »

willis936 wrote: post #27
fullstop wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A toaster in 1951 was $21, which is about $250 today. I would argue that a $250 toaster today is still not a "buy it for life" item, but it would certainly have a lot of bells and whistles and almost no user-serviceable parts.

Toasters are an interesting case study. I went on a tear last year after being fed up with every toaster doing the same bad job. I thought maybe someone made a proper toaster. What I found is that when you pay more the coat of paint gets nicer and maybe there's an MCU+LCD, but the guts and logic are identical. There is no good commercially available toaster today. It's sending a very loud message about how markets op…

The MCU is the problem. They toast by time. This just can't work well. My parents' Sunbeam had a temperature sensor.

Re: Generation Junk

#84

Post by fipar »

somewhat_drunk wrote: post #40
irjustin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern cars are much, much more reliable and durable than ones built at any time in the past. Forget "durability" - safety is paramount. Those old cars were tanks, simpler, last longer and easier to repair but absolute death traps and dump smog. [Edit] Guess they didn't last longer, either way I'm happy to leave behind the cars of yester-year... even the 90's a bit sketch (though WAYYYY better).

They didn't last longer. https://auto.howstuffworks.com/under-the-hood/diagnosing-car...

Well, they do (present tense) last longer in the sense that they’re still around and working, which of course doesn’t mean newer cars are worse. It’s a bit like saying someone who’s 70 lives longer than someone who’s 7.

I think newer cars seem to be more reliable but older cars probably lasted longer than you think, it’s just that your view is skewed due to the market you’re used to (reading your link, while a million miles is a lot, though not unheard of for a taxi, the mention of 17 years as if that’s and old car is something I find surprising.

It’s common where I live to see cars from the 60s or 70s still being driven. And I don’t mean maintained classics (though those exist too), I mean just old rusty cars that still work.

All this to say that while you’re most likely right about newer cars being more reliable (and they’re certainly safer, which is more important), that doesn’t mean older cars stopped working after 20 or 30 years, it just seems your view is skewed because you live in a place where a 17yo car is considered old.

Re: Generation Junk

#85

Post by Gigachad »

asylteltine wrote: post #57
fullstop wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A toaster in 1951 was $21, which is about $250 today. I would argue that a $250 toaster today is still not a "buy it for life" item, but it would certainly have a lot of bells and whistles and almost no user-serviceable parts.

I’ve had the same toaster for at least 5 years and it’s fine. It’s… a toaster

It's kinda just random luck I'd think. My toaster is about 15 years old now, just a generic Breville one. Still works fine.

I imagine anything that would break in a toaster is absolutely trivial to fix, but you are working with mains electricity so in most places you probably need a license to service it. Which just costs more than a brand new toaster.

Re: Generation Junk

#86

Post by c22 »

Almost everything I buy works great. But I also do a lot (sometimes months) of research before I buy anything. I like to ask my friends what they have and how long they've had it/how they feel about it. If I can, I borrow things and try using them a bit before buying one for myself. I keep an eye out for clever design and quality materials. I often come across low-quality products and I elect not to buy them. I try not to get myself into situations where I "need a carrot peeler on short notice," but if I do I definitely start by calling around and seeing if any of my friends or neighbors has one I can borrow.

Sometimes I end up paying much more than the cheapest, or even average priced analogues on the market, but probably not as often as you might think.

The market produces to fill demand, so I vote with my wallet for the types of products I want to see in the world.

I drive an old car that pollutes more than a newer car because it already exists and I'll never save enough carbon in emissions to make up the cost of producing a brand new hybrid vehicle. I try to maintain my car so it lasts as long as possible. I also try to drive safely so-as to avoid wrecking it. If I live long enough I may drive a hybrid car sometime in the future (there are still a lot of old cars sitting around, though).

Sometimes I buy antique juicers and they are usually very robust and durable. Not because they're old, but because they're survivors.

On the very rare occasions that I do find myself in the market for some junk I usually have no problem finding it for free or very low cost on craigslist.

Re: Generation Junk

#87

Post by paleface »

willis936 wrote: post #27
fullstop wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A toaster in 1951 was $21, which is about $250 today. I would argue that a $250 toaster today is still not a "buy it for life" item, but it would certainly have a lot of bells and whistles and almost no user-serviceable parts.

Toasters are an interesting case study. I went on a tear last year after being fed up with every toaster doing the same bad job. I thought maybe someone made a proper toaster. What I found is that when you pay more the coat of paint gets nicer and maybe there's an MCU+LCD, but the guts and logic are identical. There is no good commercially available toaster today. It's sending a very loud message about how markets op…

Modern retail toasters, don’t seem to be able to fit a proper standard English sized, slice of bread - the size of which, I’m not convinced has increased over time - but rather, the toasters have been designed primarily with US sized slices (which I’m under the possibly erroneous impression, are smaller?!), as the target market.

Quite annoying…

Re: Generation Junk

#88

Post by edrxty »

woopwoop wrote: post #37
irjustin wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Modern cars are much, much more reliable and durable than ones built at any time in the past. Forget "durability" - safety is paramount. Those old cars were tanks, simpler, last longer and easier to repair but absolute death traps and dump smog. [Edit] Guess they didn't last longer, either way I'm happy to leave behind the cars of yester-year... even the 90's a bit sketch (though WAYYYY better).

They were simpler and easier to repair, but they absolutely did not last longer.

On average they didn't (oh no, that repair costs more than the "car is worth" as if that's a metric that actually means anything) but it was far easier to keep one running indefinitely. You could take an engine to a small machine shop and get the head and block resurfaced, valves reamed and cylinders lapped. Without any electronics to fail it was just a block of metal that was slowly losing material and a quick hit with a file could even out any imperfections leaving it like new, just with very slightly more displacement.

Modern engines are way more reliable because they have coatings and materials that will last nearly indefinitely in most parts of the engine but they're built on proprietary sensors and electronics that need a steady stream of replacements and secret software to debug.

We could make cars last indefinitely from a supply chain perspective, but commoditizing software and electronics would make them very marginally more expensive. We absolutely can't have that because, drum roll for the 1000th time, 99% of the population doesn't give a flying fuck and wants cheap shit at all costs.

Re: Generation Junk

#89

Post by Gigachad »

fullstop wrote: post #15
upon_drumhead wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our few year old kitchen aid has been a nightmare of broken plastic internal parts. I will weep when my mother passes, but I will be taking her mixer and ditching mine.

Some plastic parts are intentional / sacrificial. Even so, the old mixers were definitely built to last.

Plastic gears have lower friction and don't require greasing. They aren't really bad on their own. The problem is you can't find replacement parts when they break.

Re: Generation Junk

#90

Post by Kon-Peki »

crooked-v wrote: post #6
drcode wrote: post #4

I feel arguments like this always ignore the fact that buying a toaster in 1950 was a major investment for a family, and if you want to spend $2000 on a high-end toaster in 2023, which is probably equivalent in inflation-adjusted price to the 1950s toaster, it will probably also be very nice.

For me, I think the prime comparison is the KitchenAid stand mixer. You can get a new one that's functionally identical to the classic models that have lasted forever... and it'll run you at least $350 even during a major sale.

KitchenAid sells 4 or 5 different versions of their stand mixers with retail prices ranging from $350 - $1000+. There is a reason for the price difference.
Post reply on HN