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

81–90 of 217 posts

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#81

Post by bayindirh »

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...

A nominal water aerator limits water around 5L-6L/min levels. For every minute I don't use the water, I spend approximately two full kettles of water.

With every 5L of water I can

    - Cook 4 servings (~400 grams) of pasta.
    - Brew 5L of tea/coffee
    - Water all the plants at home two times.
    - Possibly wash most of my handwash-only dishes in one go.
    - etc.
So it's not not meaningfully wasteful. However, I can't turn off the water in the winter, because I feel very cold otherwise. However, this doesn't mean I don't waste any water or happy about what I'm doing. My only (half) relief is this water is somehow processed and reused by city for other needs, at least one more time.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#82

Post by xg15 »

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…

I suppose, one advantage would be that you can use it while almost asleep, while you need a minimum of mental presence for a shower. So if you wanted, you could: wake up; slump into the bathroom and into this thing; press the button; snooze another 15 minutes while part of your morning routine is being done for (or to) you.

Whether this is something you should do is another question...

(Also, it might be possible to extend it with hair washing if you mount one of those barber sinks at the top and then somehow automate it. Exercise left for the reader.)

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#83

Post by vasco »

smackay wrote: post #59
vasco wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ah, those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better Thinking the future will be worse with all the available evidence is of a huge ego. How main character you have to be to think that it's just as you're alive that a trend of millenia will inverse.

Technologists' very existence is based on the idea of improvement, and, as a result, making the lives of others better. Compared to other approaches, nothing has delivered quite on the same scale, though it's not without its costs.

Yep, and there's no stopping technological progress. Whoever thinks things will get worse is just being what internet investing lingo calls "gay bears" - waiting for the doom that can justify their constant state of depression and existential dread.

In fact people will get upset if you don't agree with them that the world is going to shit (and prove they are smart by predicting it).

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#84

Post by ExoticPearTree »

ale42 wrote: post #73
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Let's see: shampoo, rinse, mask, wait 30-60mins, rinse, conditioner, rinse.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#85

Post by mikro2nd »

Kuinox wrote: post #78
sneak wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm forced to disagree. Catastrophic failure would be a feature not a bug. "Natural selection against stupidity."

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#87

Post by js8 »

smackay wrote: post #59
vasco wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ah, those beautiful times when people actually cared and believed the future will be better Thinking the future will be worse with all the available evidence is of a huge ego. How main character you have to be to think that it's just as you're alive that a trend of millenia will inverse.

Technologists' very existence is based on the idea of improvement, and, as a result, making the lives of others better. Compared to other approaches, nothing has delivered quite on the same scale, though it's not without its costs.

I am not sure about this, but it depends on definition of "technologist". Is Gates or Musk a "technologist"?

I think that social democratic movement in 20th century, and also Chinese communist government, made many people's lives better, by improving their material conditions. It often involved technology, true, but the technology is not much if it's not applied en masse. (Communist government of my home country, Czechoslovakia, had famously huge success in eradicating polio.)

And I am not convinced that free market dispersal of technology is more efficient in providing it en masse than government-directed dispersal. For a striking example, watch the ending of "scientific horror story" from Angela Collier: https://youtu.be/zS7sJJB7BUI?si=rrBJPb6bHASNrPEY&t=2991

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#88

Post by eru »

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…

You are right that for able bodied people it's at best a gimmick. But it might be useful for people with limited mobility, who don't want to depend on other people washing them.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#89

Post by eru »

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...

What's meaningfully wasteful depends entirely where and when you are, and how plentiful water is locally at the moment.

Re: A washing machine for human beings, from 1970

#90

Post by eru »

bayindirh wrote: post #81
TeMPOraL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

A nominal water aerator limits water around 5L-6L/min levels. For every minute I don't use the water, I spend approximately two full kettles of water. With every 5L of water I can - Cook 4 servings (~400 grams) of pasta. - Brew 5L of tea/coffee - Water all the plants at home two times. - Possibly wash most of my handwash-only dishes in one go. - etc. So it's not not meaningfully wasteful . However, I can't turn off t…

Well, even if the city doesn't re-use the water, it doesn't just disappear.
Post reply on HN