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

Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

johnwhiles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

891–900 of 982 posts

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#891

Post by igetspam »

account-5 wrote: post #865
ok_dad wrote: post #856

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternately just keep a beard and trim it with a 20 dollar buzzer occasionally.

I thought this, grew one, and found it more of a pain to maintain than shaving was. Flaky skin, itchy, and a lot of work to stop those things. Plus I still had to shave/buzz around it to make it neat. Shaving is a lot less hassle. I use a DR razor, have for years.

I would pay good money for a way to rid my muzzle and neck of hair. Unfortunately, the results I've seen from laser removal just leave things lighter, not gone.

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#892

Post by brandonmenc »

conjecTech wrote: post #525
brandonmenc wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safety razor user chiming in. The only bad thing about it is that it makes flying with just a carry-on impossible. I still spend a not insignificant ~$250/yr on blades and shaving cream to shave face and head daily.

That number seems incredibly high to me. The most I've seen blades go for in any kind of volume is around $0.20/blade. Even if you were discarding them every day, that would only account for $70/year. You can admittedly buy some rather nice shave soap, but $180/year still seems aggressive. I admittedly don't shave every day, but I've been using a safety razor since 2013. I went back and tallied up all of the purchase…

I buy Feather blades at around 44 cents a blade, and I use a new blade every day.

I have coarse hair, so that dulls the blade faster. And shaving a whole head probably counts as like three face shaves (in terms of both blades and shaving soap.)

For soap I use Proraso (which is cheap) or Taylor of Old Bond Street (unscented - they call it "organic" - which is not cheap.)

In the past I stretched blades and spent far less, but the experience was not as enjoyable.

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#893

Post by spiderice »

ericmay wrote: post #604
hattmall wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reminds me of George W Bush vs Al Gore in that Bush had a modest ranch house with all the eco friendly features and Gore, the environmentalalist had some 20,000+ foot megamansion.

Yea... it was unfortunate that so many people focused on that instead of the general problem and now we are barreling toward a very bad outcome. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what wealthy people do - they're going to be just fine regardless of what the rest of us do, except that if we kick and scream about their big houses and refuse to do anything we just wind up inheriting the problem and they're still right where…

> If Gore sold his megamansion they'd say "hey you are still flying", if he stopped flying they'd say "hey you're still driving a car"

This is not true at all. People aren't stupid. They know the difference between Mega mansions/private jets and driving a car. Sure, there might be a few trolls online that will still say "But you don't grow your own vegetables". But it would definitely not become a nation wide focus in a way that living as hypocritically as Al Gore does.

You're comment comes off as really dismissive. Almost like you're saying "the people calling him out for his mega mansion are just as bad as people who would call him out for not growing his own vegetables".

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#894

Post by gruez »

diogenescynic wrote: post #698
gruez wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's both/ Read the article I linked above "most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their bloodstream" so these chemicals are toxic in the finished product (which they then digest when using) and during manufacture. The "product" in this case being "non-stick pans", or various other consumer products? The wikipedia article seems to suggest the latter. >they are still produced internationally and are imported into the U…

>I'm inclined to believe that there's a bunch of ways for PFAS to get into people's bloodstreams, but cookware isn't one of them You have the burden of proof to prove your claim/belief. I already provided a source that says "80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home." which you're making the illogical leap that that must not include pans coated in these chemicals that we use to cook on...…

>You have the burden of proof to prove your claim/belief. I already provided a source that says "80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home." which you're making the illogical leap that that must not include pans coated in these chemicals that we use to cook on... That seems illogical. Yes there are other sources of PFAs, but you're trying to exclude one of the most obvious sources.

If you really want to talk about "burden of proof" and whether something "seems illogical", I'm going to take the easy way out and point out that PFAS is a set of substances which include PTFE ("teflon") as well as PFOA (used in the manufacture of PTFE). We have been conflating the two, which means many of the sources you provided for PFAS are actually invalid, at least in the context of discussing whether non-stick pans are "poisonous".

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#895

Post by driverdan »

zevv wrote: post #296
algoatecorn wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I got rid of our TV last year when we moved. It was a nice break, but we want at least one in the house, so we're currently shopping around for a nice 4K 70+ inch. I've come to realize the market is headed toward a TV without any ports. You'll plug it in and immediately prompted to link with wifi so you can log into your streaming services. Fuck that. I'm hell-bent on getting something with zero smart fun…

A TV without smart software and a lot of ports is called a PC monitor.

Unfortunately very few, if any computer monitors support a remote.

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#896

Post by diogenescynic »

gruez wrote: post #894
diogenescynic wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm inclined to believe that there's a bunch of ways for PFAS to get into people's bloodstreams, but cookware isn't one of them You have the burden of proof to prove your claim/belief. I already provided a source that says "80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home." which you're making the illogical leap that that must not include pans coated in these chemicals that we use to cook on...…

>You have the burden of proof to prove your claim/belief. I already provided a source that says "80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home." which you're making the illogical leap that that must not include pans coated in these chemicals that we use to cook on... That seems illogical. Yes there are other sources of PFAs, but you're trying to exclude one of the most obvious sources. If you…

That's right... move the goalposts and don't provide any evidence again. You're arguing in bad faith so this is a waste of both our time.

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#897

Post by hedora »

bscphil wrote: post #435
hedora wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option 3: You are obviously wrong. Take a tally of all the pollution you create in a week, and you'll probably find that plastic waste from the kitchen is rounding error. Be sure to include stuff like heating and cooling, transport, clothing, and any other purchaes you make. (99% of the stuff we buy will eventually be garbage, after all.)

"Obviously" goes way too far here, even if you are including greenhouse gasses in the tally, which aren't pollution by traditional standards. My apartment's electricity and the public transportation I use to get around are powered by renewable energy sources that don't create pollution. In the average week (or month) 95% of the plastic waste I create is from inefficiently packaged foods, which definitely counts as "k…

What about clothes, bedding, consumables, etc? Don't forget the stuff thrown away while producing that stuff.

Also, you should figure in depreciation on things like the apartment itself, vehicles, and transportation of the stuff you buy.

100% renewable energy is great, if true where you are. Most places still use natural gas peaker plants, at least.

Consuming electricity during the day is cleaner than at peak, but even if you're producing your own energy (or your utility is 100% greenhouse free, regionally), the electricity you use could have displaced dirty production elsewhere on the grid. (Also, even solar and wind produce pollution -- they have embodied carbon and finite lifespans).

I'm not arguing against reducing household plastic waste, but the idea that you see most of the pollution that's created by stuff you consume is optimistic.

Anyway, according to the EPA, US municipal solid waste is 12.2% plastic (excluding construction waste, sewage sludge, etc). The US is likely higher than most places:

https://www.epa.gov/facts-and-figures-about-materials-waste-...

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#898

Post by crossroadsguy »

mgraczyk wrote: post #680

I appreciate the writing style, but this article is shockingly naive to me. Convenient consumer products tend to sell better than less convenient ones, even if the product is worse. That's the entire story. People have finite time, so when they receive more income they will tend to spend it to reduce the time they spend doing things that they don't care about. I for one hate spending time doing all the things that th…

I couldn’t avoid cuts even with those gliding-smooth-precision-etc razors so I just use a Philips beard trimmer. As quick as it gets, doesn’t give that weirdly smooth look during the first day after the shave and facial hair remains mostly soft now; during shaving days they would grow to be very hard. No soap, no after whatever splash et al needed. One purchase runs for years literally. I have used them without a mirror. I shaved my head with it once and it was a perfect shave.

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#899

Post by hedora »

xyzzyz wrote: post #425
hedora wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At regular cooking temps, the chemicals still leach into the food. Also, you should throw a teflon pan out if it has a single scratch, since it leaches much more rapidly after that.

I don’t think Teflon leaches into food at normal cooking temperatures (it’s a very stable chemical), but even if it did, it’s totally fine, as Teflon is biologically inert. It is used in medicine for implants, catheter linings etc.

Teflon is definitely not biologically inert.

It leaches estrogen analogues (sometimes called xenoestrogens), and ~ 100% of people alive today have biologically active levels of those compounds in their blood.

In particular, Teflon brand nonstick coating contains PTFE and PFOAs. This has been settled science for at least 20 years.

Re: Shaving is an example of how consumer products extract more money

#900

Post by gruez »

diogenescynic wrote: post #896
gruez wrote: post #894

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You have the burden of proof to prove your claim/belief. I already provided a source that says "80 percent of human exposure comes from consumer products in the home." which you're making the illogical leap that that must not include pans coated in these chemicals that we use to cook on... That seems illogical. Yes there are other sources of PFAs, but you're trying to exclude one of the most obvious sources. If you…

That's right... move the goalposts and don't provide any evidence again. You're arguing in bad faith so this is a waste of both our time.

>That's right... move the goalposts

Technically the original discussion was about PTFE (ie. the stuff used on pans), not PFAS (which is what your sources reference since your first reply). If anything, you're the one who moved it my subtly moving the discussion to be about PFAS. I suppose it's "moving the goalposts" to bring the discussion back to PTFEs, so I do apologize if you think that me replying to your comments constitutes acceptance of moving the discussion to be about PFAS.

>don't provide any evidence again

Here's my "evidence"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polytetrafluoroethylene#Safety

>PTFE is stable and nontoxic at lower temperatures

Post reply on HN