[HN Gopher] A washing machine for human beings, from 1970
___________________________________________________________________
A washing machine for human beings, from 1970
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 111 points
Date : 2024-11-28 01:38 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.core77.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.core77.com)
| SoftTalker wrote:
| How many hundreds of gallons of water for a bath, then? I didn't
| see that in the story.
| do_not_redeem wrote:
| If it works anything like a modern dishwasher, it would use
| less water than a normal bath or shower.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| But if it worked that way (using a small amount of water over
| and over to clean) would be gross and unsanitary in this
| case. One could filter it but that costs a lot of energy and
| changing a filter weekly on your shower pod would not be very
| green.
| _ZeD_ wrote:
| it's not unsanitary on your plates, why should it be on
| your skin?
| sitharus wrote:
| Your plates can be washed with temperatures that would
| scald you and with chemicals that dissolve your skin.
|
| But you don't want to sanitise your skin, just get the
| dirt off, so I don't see any real issues.
| ashoeafoot wrote:
| And your colon lining if not washed away thoroughly
| iancmceachern wrote:
| The issue is that water would be so dirty and gross. The
| same water that washed your rear end will then be sprayed
| on your face. If you are only using a few gallons (not
| like a bath which has dozens) that's pretty gnarly.
| eru wrote:
| > But if it worked that way (using a small amount of water
| over and over to clean) would be gross and unsanitary in
| this case.
|
| Have you ever taken a bath?
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Yes. Imagine bath water but with the same amount of dirt
| that would be in 50 gallons in a bath in 5 gallons in
| this thing. It would be 10x grosser.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| It looks like it completely fills and drains that big chamber
| at least a couple of times. If it were just a sprayer
| mechanism yeah that could be somewhat water-efficient.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| It doesn't matter. Really doesn't.
|
| We are talking about a device from 50 years ago where concerns
| were wildly different than the ones today. Water was cheap and
| plentiful.
| seeknotfind wrote:
| As someone reading this while taking a shower, I'm questioning
| how this could be redesigned to work today. How are you supposed
| to use your phone if your head is sticking out?
| do_not_redeem wrote:
| Mount the phone on the top in front of your head. Every day
| alternate which arm you wash, and which one you scroll with.
| fluorinerocket wrote:
| How are you browsing HN in the shower?
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| I'd instead like to ask why! "Why is Gamora?"
| readyplayernull wrote:
| Beware of the LED!
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42259278
| eru wrote:
| You have nothing to fear, if you are recording anyway.
| drivingmenuts wrote:
| I can see why this didn't catch on, but on the other hand, I
| kinda want one.
| rawgabbit wrote:
| You are in luck. If you attend the Osaka Expo next year. You
| can see the updated version.
|
| https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15482351
| ndjdjddjsjj wrote:
| Ok im sold
| veunes wrote:
| 15 minutes and no hair-washing
| freediver wrote:
| 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.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Reminds me the early periods of personal computers.
| quitit wrote:
| I don't think we've lost the willingness to test products that
| push human/mechanical boundaries. I think rather it is about
| not retreading on the learned boundaries that we've already
| established or "solved". So now we see concepts that test
| different kinds of human/machine integration. Such as worn AI
| devices, headsets, and the future idea of brain chips.
|
| As for automatic washers: The idea isn't totally gone -
| enclosed automated pet washers are around. (Despite being
| clearly terrifying for some pets.)
| veunes wrote:
| It's interesting to consider how our priorities have shifted
| makeitdouble wrote:
| 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 ?
| latkin wrote:
| It's the robot bath from Roujin Z, but in real life
|
| https://youtu.be/X5i0JU_NsZU?t=464
| totetsu wrote:
| Yes, that and the start of the 1999 Chinese film shower
|
| https://youtu.be/pxeOQVBLcvM?si=_g0_cHz4LPliGuMR&t=59
| Brajeshwar wrote:
| This should have multiple stepper sizes, and I will use the kids'
| settings regularly for my kids. Yes, I know the security
| concerns, and I will watch them, talk to them, or read a book
| while they are being washed.
| Animats wrote:
| Reminds me of my high school, where the gym showers were a car-
| wash arrangement, a corridor of sprays through which all the guys
| were herded nude after gym class.
| peterpost2 wrote:
| Oh wow, where was this?
|
| If I would have to guess Soviet Russia?
| Animats wrote:
| About ten miles from the Pentagon.
| 7402 wrote:
| and also in the town in Massachusetts with the motto, "The
| Birthplace of American Liberty."
| jandrese wrote:
| > 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 minutes means it takes about 3 times longer than a shower, and
| it doesn't seem to do your hair.
| maronato wrote:
| And uses orders of magnitude more water
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| 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...
| MrDrMcCoy wrote:
| Link?
| distances wrote:
| 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.
| eru wrote:
| Yes, unless you take cold showers.
| bayindirh wrote:
| 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.
| eru wrote:
| Well, even if the city doesn't re-use the water, it
| doesn't just disappear.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Yeah, but getting rid of chemicals and returning it to a
| non-poisonous state for the nature is a big plus.
|
| You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's
| your problem now, nature. Cope!".
| eru wrote:
| Yes, I mean when you are 'wasting water' you are mostly
| wasting the effort it takes to clean the water. Not the
| water itself.
|
| As opposed to eg 'wasting petrol', where the petrol
| really is gone afterwards. At least it has been
| chemically transformed.
| shepherdjerred wrote:
| > You can't dump everything to the soil and say "that's
| your problem now, nature. Cope!".
|
| Nature couldn't care less. Nature works on much larger
| timescales than humans. It's the humans that are
| impacted.
|
| Just like climate change, plastic, and all other
| environmental issues -- humans are paying (or will pay)
| the price, not nature.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| The water is cheap and plentiful, what's wasteful is
| _heating_ the water and throwing that away.
| bayindirh wrote:
| The maps, surveys and projections say otherwise, but of
| course you're free to believe what you believe.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| That's the thing, dollars are usually a better indicator,
| unless something somewhere is burning money to prevent
| prices from reflecting real scarcity.
| bayindirh wrote:
| We're drinking one of the cheapest drinking water in the
| world, but this doesn't change the reality of sinkholes
| appearing where we deplete the water in our country.
|
| So, the prices might not be rising that quickly for now,
| but sinkholes are giving us the warning.
|
| Prices don't always point correctly, esp. when there are
| other economic and socioeconomic factors at play.
| bagels wrote:
| If you live in Minnesota, sure. Not as true in Australia.
| eek2121 wrote:
| Water is by far the most abundant resource on the planet
| (70+% of earth is water), and we have methods to remove
| salt and contaminants from almost all of it. We can even
| turn urine into drinking water.
|
| I wouldn't worry about wasting it. We'll die from
| something else long before water becomes an issue.
| bayindirh wrote:
| The amount, abundance and share of water among everything
| on this planet doesn't mean anything if none of it is in
| that dam nearby your city and you can't utilize it.
|
| Similarly, that spring water has no use if you can't
| extract it and get out from the hands of capitalistic
| companies (cough Nestle & CocaCola cough) which
| monopolize said spring and suck it dry without giving it
| to you.
|
| Don't forget, Nestle's CEO told that "water is something
| they package and sell, and that water is not a human
| right". So don't expect it to get that abundant resource
| and use it the way you wish.
|
| So, water is precious. You need to be mindful about it.
| bagels wrote:
| Water already is an issue in many places. It's expensive
| and in limited supply because we can't drink salt water
| and storage, treatment and delivery cost money.
| crooked-v wrote:
| For the US in particular, water issues come down
| overwhelmingly to unfettered agricultural use, often with
| crops like alfalfa that are both mostly water by weight
| and are shipped out of the country to other places.
| Domestic use is only a fraction of the total.
| gambiting wrote:
| And in some other places it's so abundant that water
| companies don't even bother metering it, you just pay one
| flat fee a month and you can use as much as you like.
| eru wrote:
| What's meaningfully wasteful depends entirely where and
| when you are, and how plentiful water is locally at the
| moment.
| bayindirh wrote:
| I don't think so. Just because you're not in a water-
| stressed place doesn't make you eligible to keep taps
| open 24/7.
|
| This mentality is what brought us to today.
| eru wrote:
| Who is 'us' and what do you mean by 'today'? And what do
| you mean by 'eligible'?
|
| In most places I've been to, you just pay your water
| bill, and then you can leave your taps running.
|
| It's about as productive as buying bread just to toss it
| in the trash, of course.
| bayindirh wrote:
| us: the humanity in general, today: the state of world
| water stress level [0], [1], eligible: the correctness of
| the thing you are doing regardless of the legality of the
| thing you're doing.
|
| IOW, "I pay the bill, now get off my lawn" is something
| you can do. But should you really do it, just because you
| can do it?
|
| [0]: https://www.wri.org/data/water-stress-country (This
| is decade old, we're worse now)
|
| [1]: https://riskfilter.org/water/explore/map
|
| If you think you can do whatever you want regardless of
| the things you're causing, then we're on a completely
| different page, and continuing this little chat has no
| point. We can't converge and agree on a point.
| samatman wrote:
| Of course it does.
|
| The Great Lakes have 1/5th of the world's freshwater.
| Absolutely enormous volumes of that water run out the St.
| Lawrence into the sea, continually, all the time.
|
| I don't have any reason to leave my taps open all the
| time, and my water is metered so I would pay for such
| profligacy in money I could put to some useful purpose.
|
| But I can certainly do it without creating any meaningful
| environmental stress. This would just briefly divert it
| from its destiny in the Atlantic.
| bayindirh wrote:
| Just because you live near a lucky point on earth,
| thinking that everyone has the same luxury is a bit
| absurd.
|
| I traveled through Mongolia for a week. Every camp we
| stayed had a water tank, and water use was extremely
| constrained. Same for electricity and heat.
|
| Your position is akin to getting power from the first
| distribution point near a nuclear power plant and saying
| that electricity is indeed infinite for everyone on the
| planet.
|
| Just because you don't prepay (but pay as you go) for
| fresh water doesn't mean that everyone has that luxury. I
| have shared a couple of maps down there. Maybe you should
| give them a look about our planet's state.
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| It doesn't use any water. It just makes the water dirtier.
| maronato wrote:
| And it doesn't use any electricity either. It just moves
| electrons around.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| 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.
| phinnaeus wrote:
| This thing doesn't wash your hair though.
| nameequalsmain wrote:
| I'm a man but washing and using conditioner will take a lot
| longer than 2 minutes. I have very long hair though.
| ale42 wrote:
| 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.
| ExoticPearTree wrote:
| Let's see: shampoo, rinse, mask, wait 30-60mins, rinse,
| conditioner, rinse.
| idiomaddict wrote:
| Do you think every woman does this regularly without pay?
| My entire shower takes 8 minutes as a woman.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| Of course there are other factors, including biological
| ones, but yes I agree not every woman does this
| regularly.
|
| Many do though.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| You're faster than me, a man with short hair :). Rinse,
| gel, shampoo, rinse, shampoo, rinse - but the warm water
| also cleans the mind and soothes the soul, so I'm not in
| _that_ big of a hurry to end one of the best ways to
| relax and unwind I have. It usually adds up to 10
| minutes.
|
| I have a family member, also male with short hair, who
| used to take 20-30 minute showers every day, driving
| others in the house insane - but that was the "I'm a
| first-year medical student, I just learned how many bugs
| there are on everything, and how ugly diseases they
| cause; also, have you heard of SARS?" effect. Other
| symptoms include going though copious amounts of hand
| disinfectant. Fortunately that went away over time, as
| they improved their feeling for actual risks.
| standardUser wrote:
| I have extremely thick hair, but only use shampoo once
| every few weeks because too much absolutely ruins my hair
| texture. Nonetheless, just rinsing my hair thoroughly
| with warm water and then cold water takes at least 5-6
| minutes per shower.
|
| I think the greater point is that hair maintenance varies
| greatly from person to person, and it is absurd to assume
| every male only needs 2 minutes or every female needs >
| 15 minutes. A great example of the stupidity of
| stereotype and how it leads us away from useful thought.
| OldSchool wrote:
| Ouch, the germicidal UVC is even more hazardous than the UVA
| and UVB tanning rays!
| xg15 wrote:
| 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.)
| fecal_henge wrote:
| Your vision lacks the ultimate destination: This will replace
| the bed.
| xg15 wrote:
| That sounds like that one guy a few years ago who wanted to
| replace all kitchen cupboards with dishwashers.
|
| Gonna steer clear of those directions. All things in
| moderation, etc.
| eru wrote:
| 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.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Safely getting into and out of it looks _very_ challenging
| for people with limited mobility.
|
| But the article's final photo is of completely different
| model - far more accessible, far safer, and for "the health
| care sector".
| eru wrote:
| Yes, the original prototype is obviously just there to show
| off the models. I was thinking about more practical and
| less sexy versions that might actually see production.
| eek2121 wrote:
| Gimmick? Maybe, I'd love to try something like this.It may
| not save time, but i bet it feels glorious.
| aitchnyu wrote:
| What does the ultrasound do?
| gregschlom wrote:
| 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 sounded
| modern.
| at_a_remove wrote:
| 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.
| BlueUmarell wrote:
| Thanks for your contribution to science. On a related
| topic, I guess there are more than 1 person that tried
| looking directly into a laser, though. And multiple times.
| wyclif wrote:
| Before I clicked through, I was hoping this was going to be about
| right-to-repair washing machines for clothing.
| veunes wrote:
| Instead, it's a quirky look at the technological optimism of
| the '70s
| bowsamic wrote:
| Do we have to complain about the title of every single post
| here?
| mdtrooper wrote:
| And the hair?
| veunes wrote:
| I think that's the reason why it didn't catch on
| alejohausner wrote:
| That's very funny. Good one.
| veunes wrote:
| It makes me wonder about maintenance and how users felt about
| being "washed" in such a detached, mechanical way...
| t-3 wrote:
| I mean, washing isn't some kind of profoundly enjoyable
| experience, is it? The soaking in hot water is what feels good,
| and this lets you do that without any of the annoying scrubbing
| and such.
| bargle0 wrote:
| I think the application for this is to return some dignity and
| independence to people who have physical trouble washing
| themselves. Of course the form factor of the 1970 prototype
| wouldn't do that, but that can be fixed.
| maronato wrote:
| It fills with (hot) water up to the neck, which feels like a
| huge risk for unattended disabled people
| skynet97 wrote:
| > unattended disabled people
|
| What a condescending and all around horrible way to refer to
| a whole group of people with a plethora of diverse physical
| limitations. Reading sentences fragments like this as a
| disabled person basically ruins my day. Thanks for letting me
| know that I will never be a part of this world.
| gsck wrote:
| Must be a sad world living in a state of permanent victim
| hood
| maronato wrote:
| You're right, and I'm sorry for not being more specific. I
| was thinking of people who have trouble washing themselves,
| since that's what GP was talking about.
|
| I'll be more mindful of the diversity of disabilities in
| the future.
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| There was a similar (contemporary?) Japanese model shared on
| here a few days ago, which was basically the same sans ladder.
| As long as there's nothing to stumble over on your way in, and
| it's not too hard to get situated in the chair, one of those
| would be amazing for people with mobility issues.
|
| There was a New Yorker short story I read years ago about an
| elderly woman in a nursing home, and this wasn't the point of
| the story at all, but the main thing I remember is how the
| woman wanted to live with her daughter until her daughter
| pointed out that assisted/accessible bathing would be
| impossible in the daughter's tiny apartment shower.
| skynet97 wrote:
| I would be mightily surprised if the independence of disabled
| people were even a thought in the 70s.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| 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?
| vasco wrote:
| > 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.
| smackay wrote:
| 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.
| vasco wrote:
| 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).
| js8 wrote:
| 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
| vishnugupta wrote:
| > 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...
| Kuinox wrote:
| Flying car is simply a bad idea, thats why there is none.
| js8 wrote:
| Car (for personal transport) is also a bad idea, yet there
| is plenty of them.
| Kuinox wrote:
| 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.
| baud147258 wrote:
| I'm not sure Paris has one of the best public transit in
| the world or maybe that's just an indicative of the sorry
| state of public transit worldwide. I mean I wouldn't call
| world-class a system where just a single failure easily
| strands 1 million people halfway to their destination and
| where trains are delayed and cancelled routinely, often
| without information given to passengers.
|
| I'm in favor of more public transportation, but if you
| think people use car willingly in and around Paris, I
| don't think you've tried it; it's so bad that only people
| with no viable choice will use a car. Or maybe you could
| explain (for example) how my sister in law was supposed
| to carry her two baby kids to the daycare using an
| overcrowded metro (and bonus, through stations without
| working elevators) or how my brother was supposed to
| carry the equipment he was using to constructions sites
| he was working. And then you've got all the places where
| taking a car is a 30 min trip vs 2 hours by bus or public
| transportation (thankfully the Grand Paris initiatives
| are helping a lot there).
|
| For now, removing cars in Paris just push them around the
| city, because the public transportation network isn't
| ready.
| Kuinox wrote:
| For a lot of destination you can take 2-3 differentes
| routes.
|
| The rest of your comment try to justify car usage by
| taking less than 5% of the transit in the city, when
| there is already exception or infrastructures made for
| the scenario you described (except elevators and
| accessibility, thats a big issur in paris intra-muros).
| Yes, there are a lot of people that use the car when they
| can not use it, thats still most of the car traffic.
| baud147258 wrote:
| > Yes, there are a lot of people that use the car when
| they can not use it, thats still most of the car traffic.
|
| so, do you have any data to back up that assertion? (I
| won't claim that I have any favorable to my argument,
| just the observation that driving in and Paris around
| Paris is pretty bad)
|
| > For a lot of destination you can take 2-3 differentes
| routes.
|
| most alternative routes usually take longer and end up
| congested whenever the main route is having issues.
| Kuinox wrote:
| The average is still 1.3 person per car, if you get
| outside a little you will see tons of single person in
| cars, and not in minitruck like artisans.
|
| https://www.paris.fr/pages/le-bilan-des-deplacements-a-
| paris...
|
| Indicate 13% of the traffic is for utilitary vehicule.
| This number include people taking their utilitary
| vehicule for personal reason. 50% is for personal
| vehicules.
|
| Also, why were you driving around Paris ?
|
| > most alternative routes usually take longer
|
| It depends.
| nradov wrote:
| How do people get around Paris when transit employees
| don't feel like working that day?
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| They don't, because that would be the whole point of a
| total shutdown in a coordinated, all-modes transit
| employees strike. Ask people in London, they have that on
| a semi-regular basis.
|
| Otherwise, there is no such thing as "transit employees
| not feeling like working" - thanks to the magic of
| economy holding a metaphorical gun to the heads of most
| people. You work whether you feel like it or not.
| Kuinox wrote:
| There are multiple route to get from point A to B. For
| example, from Versailles to Invalides, you can take: RER
| C then Metro 8. Or TER N then i can choose from two
| different metro line at Montparnasse Or TER U then RER A.
|
| There is also buses, bus since the rail is faster, I
| never take it.
|
| In case of strike the network is never fully down, people
| that can remote work do it, so there is a lot less of
| people transiting. On the biggest strike you can loose an
| hour or two while commuting, for small strike, it will
| get more crowded.
| sneak wrote:
| I disagree entirely. Single person octocopters running
| autonomously would be awesome.
| Kuinox wrote:
| 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.
| mikro2nd wrote:
| I'm forced to disagree. Catastrophic failure would be a
| _feature_ not a bug. "Natural selection against
| stupidity."
| eru wrote:
| Alas, that doesn't really work, if catastrophic failure
| also harms innocent bystanders.
| Kuinox wrote:
| "Worse" was not for people in the vehicle but the people
| below. After car forced us to be aware of our surrounding
| when walking, flying car would force us to be aware of
| the sky too.
| nradov wrote:
| Humans have always needed to be aware of their
| surroundings. Plenty of pedestrians were hit by horse-
| drawn vehicles before cars were even invented.
| MichaelZuo wrote:
| How can they be aware of something so high up it appears
| smaller than the average pigeon?
| vel0city wrote:
| Having my children die because someone's poorly
| maintained octocopter broke down and flew into the side
| of my home isn't "natural selection against stupidity".
|
| It's like you think the only victims of drunk drivers are
| the drunks themselves.
| samatman wrote:
| I, too, imagine a person in my head, and then immediately
| wish that they die in a terrible accident, possibly
| taking innocent lives in the process, because I decided I
| don't like the imaginary person I just created. In my
| head.
| pantalaimon wrote:
| Flying cars just look cool in movies and immediately take
| the scene to the _future_. Movies don 't need to concern
| themselves with practicality too much.
| Kuinox wrote:
| Exactly why the cybertruck should never have been
| something more than a concept car.
| bradley13 wrote:
| Interesting article, but jeezum, he could have said the same
| thing with 1/10 the words. You can skip entire paragraphs and
| mess nothing.
|
| 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:.
| drooby wrote:
| That's Graeber for you.
|
| "Bullshit Jobs" should have also remained a blog post.
| js8 wrote:
| Today, we would instead make an app that would matchmake
| important people, who desire to be effortlessly washed, with
| less-than-important people, who are willing to wash others for
| less than a minimum wage. It's sharing (and caring) economy!
|
| 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).
| skalarproduktr wrote:
| Came here with the idea of this being about how someone made
| terrible pre-1970 washing machine UX into something much better.
| Can't say I'm disappointed though! I'm wondering if cleaning-
| intensity ultrasound could cause issues for humans?
| qball wrote:
| >cleaning-intensity ultrasound could cause issues for humans?
|
| Apart from it being loud as fuck? (They _say_ it 's ultrasonic,
| but there's some harmonic around 15,000 Hz that they all
| exhibit for some reason- both the bucket cleaners and the
| plaque picks at the dentist's office- and if you can still hear
| that frequency it is quite unpleasant.)
|
| Most of the cleaning action of this thing is just mechanically
| being sprayed; I think they threw the ultrasonic cleaning
| action in just because they could. I'm sure it makes you feel
| cleaner though.
| ginko wrote:
| Back in high school lab I remember we were told not to put our
| hands into ultrasonic cleaners because it messes with your bones
| or joints or something like that.
|
| Was that just bullshit?
| eru wrote:
| They probably wanted to keep you from making a mess. (And
| perhaps also wanted to mess with you.)
| bell-cot wrote:
| It depends on the frequency, intensity, and duration of the
| ultrasound.
|
| Which probably aren't documented for the ultrasonic cleaners.
|
| Plus "if you don't know, play it safe".
| sneak wrote:
| Before I clicked, I thought it was going to be a washing machine
| with a three position knob that says "hot wash, cold wash, off".
|
| modern washing machine UI is terrible.
| eru wrote:
| Our Miele washing machine isn't too bed, if you ever had even a
| brief look at the manual.
|
| The main annoyance I can find is that it's overly cautious
| about when it lets you open the door. I guess they take mild
| annoyance and waiting for the user, over Miele being
| responsible for major water spills.
| ndjdjddjsjj wrote:
| On/off would do! Just make delicate 30C all the things. If you
| need sterilization, use a powder that does that.
| sneak wrote:
| 30C is a bad choice for colors/dyed fabrics. Cold wash is
| important.
| ndjdjddjsjj wrote:
| Never done cold and been OK, but anything I care enough I
| would take to a professional dry cleaner anyway.
| Freak_NL wrote:
| 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, 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?
| makeitdouble wrote:
| > 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)
| Freak_NL wrote:
| > the models being women has no impact on the subject
|
| It's part of the context; design doesn't exist in isolation.
| Was this prototype aimed at women? Was it just sexism or its
| off-shoot 'sex sells'? Or were there actually male models,
| but the author isn't mentioning it?
|
| I would also argue that explicitly ignoring the fact that
| these models were women amounts to erasure, which is probably
| not intended, but a consequence of doing this.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| If we get back to how it was originally presented:
| https://www.expo70-park.jp/cause/expo/sanyo/
|
| It was part of a world expo, and from the text we can see
| it was set as a futuristic vision targeted at anyone that
| could use the apparatus. The official description also has
| no focus on the models or who it should be used for in any
| specific detail.
|
| I get your point on the models all being women, but as that
| has more to do to the period than the machine itself, it
| isn't remarkable in itself. It would be like commenting on
| the show guides being sexy women when discussing Mercedes'
| prototype at 90s cars. Pointing at the sexism and gender
| gap doesn't help the subject.
| saxonww wrote:
| Hypercorrection.
|
| I think it's historically been OK to refer to any person using
| they/them/their. More recently, even in progressive circles I
| think, it's still OK as long as you don't have information
| about the person's preference that would make neutral pronouns
| offensive to them. Basically, it's fine until you know it's
| not.
|
| It's true that all the supporting pictures in the article are
| of women, and you're likely right that all the demonstration
| models were probably women. But the machine is not gender-
| specific, the process of using it doesn't seem like it would be
| gender-specific, and the author was generalizing a series of
| demonstrations instead of a specific demonstration with a
| specific model. The subject of the sentences/paragraph you're
| concerned about - 'the demonstration model' - is itself gender
| neutral. For all of these reasons I think it makes sense why
| they/them pronouns were used here. Not strange or controversial
| at all.
| eru wrote:
| I interpreted that sentence as meaning that someone else would
| set the water temperature?
|
| I don't know if all the models were women, perhaps they had
| some guys as well? (Or the author just doesn't want to commit,
| because they don't know?)
|
| We see some pictures of models, but we don't know if those are
| all the models they had.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| TIL Panasonic bought Sanyo in 2009. We had a lot of Sanyo stuff
| when I was a kid, presumably because it was cheaper :/
| riiii wrote:
| I'm pretty sure if the automatic mixer/heat adjustment on the
| shower were to be invented today it would be a subscription add-
| on.
| rkagerer wrote:
| And it would interrupt the cycle every few minutes with an ad.
| ndjdjddjsjj wrote:
| And their public mongodb hacked into 6 months later causing
| the company to go bust 12 months later. 18 months later there
| is a Github project that impersonates the server as a
| workaround.
| mikro2nd wrote:
| I'm disappointed. Where's the ashtray?
| standardUser wrote:
| I for one like the voyeuristic/exhibitionist aspect of all of
| these devices.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-28 23:01 UTC)