[HN Gopher] A Laptop Stand Made from a Single Sheet of Recycled ...
___________________________________________________________________
A Laptop Stand Made from a Single Sheet of Recycled Paper
Author : surprisetalk
Score : 197 points
Date : 2025-01-11 01:07 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.core77.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.core77.com)
| _ZeD_ wrote:
| So they're selling 22$ for a sheet of paper?
| dhosek wrote:
| The paper is $.01, it's the folding you're paying for.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| No you are paying for the story that you'll be able to smugly
| tell your colleagues of how much you care about the
| environment that you've purchased a recycled laptop stand,
| ignoring the fact that this was likely air shipped from Korea
| and then delivered by multiple trucks to you.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| If you're going to buy a laptop stand anyway and you have
| the choice between A) a plastic stand or B) this recycled
| stand, does it make more or less sense, in terms of
| environmental impact, to buy the plastic stand over this
| one?
|
| > ignoring the fact that this was likely air shipped from
| Korea and then delivered by multiple trucks to you.
|
| This presupposes the economies of scale. One plane is not
| leaving South Korea laden with just one laptop stand and
| nothing else, and one delivery truck is not leaving the
| Fedex or UPS depot almost entirely empty save for one
| laptop stand destined for the consumer's house.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > One plane is not leaving South Korea laden with just
| one laptop stand and nothing else, and one delivery truck
| is not leaving the Fedex or UPS depot almost entirely
| empty save for one laptop stand destined for the
| consumer's house.
|
| Who do you imagine thought of it this way, and how does
| an objection to shipping trash require you to think this
| way?
|
| What normal people imagine is that a package containing
| this displaces a package containing something else, and
| that an collective shipping container of these is a
| shipping container that wouldn't have been shipped
| otherwise.
|
| What you seem to be theorizing is that if these weren't
| being shipped, some other product would have been
| invented to take up the volume that it uses, or all other
| products would expand in order to fill the space. That
| has a burden of proof that the normal people explanation
| doesn't require.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > Who do you imagine thought of it this way, and how does
| an objection to shipping trash require you to think this
| way?
|
| The argument being presented by the person I replied to
| said verbatim: " _ignoring the fact that this was likely
| air shipped from Korea and then delivered by multiple
| trucks to you._ "
|
| > What you seem to be theorizing is that if these weren't
| being shipped, some other product would have been
| invented to take up the volume that it uses, or all other
| products would expand in order to fill the space.
|
| We don't need to theorize or invent, the plastic products
| already exist. Go to Amazon and search for "laptop stand"
| and you'll find a glut of them. So I ask again, if you're
| going to buy a laptop stand anyway and you have the
| choice between A) a plastic stand or B) this recycled
| stand, is it better, in terms of environmental impact, to
| buy one of the hundreds of plastic stands shipped from
| South Korea, or this recycled stand shipped from South
| Korea?
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Plastic which will last 10 times longer and can be
| reused.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > If you're going to buy a laptop stand anyway and you
| have the choice between A) a plastic stand or B) this
| recycled stand, does it make more or less sense, in terms
| of environmental impact, to buy the plastic stand over
| this one?
|
| I mean, if you expect the cardboard one not to last very
| long, then yes. Yes it does "make more or less sense".
| nozzlegear wrote:
| If I expected that, then I wouldn't order one in the
| first place; much the same as I wouldn't order cheap
| plastic junk from Amazon with the expectation that it's
| just going to break or I'm not even going to get what was
| pictured in the listing. So at the very least we need to
| have faith that both are decent quality if we want to
| have a debate over it.
| a12k wrote:
| I think they can just fax it, which saves a lot of the
| environmental waste you're talking about.
| lm28469 wrote:
| It fits perfectly with the $100 piece of aluminium/glass and
| plastic it's made for. Prices don't reflect the material value
| of an item
| tomasz_fm wrote:
| Terrible for your wrists though
| inatreecrown2 wrote:
| yes, it looks very uncomfortable.
| DemocracyFTW2 wrote:
| They do have a spiky edition tho, too, so maybe that's
| something
| dogma1138 wrote:
| Also terrible for the environment.
|
| The energy cost of buying this online, the carbon cost behind
| the $22 + shipping, the actual carbon cost of shipping this
| crap.
|
| We are truly living in the most idiotic timeline.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| What would a less idiotic timeline look like?
| tedunangst wrote:
| Reuse the cardboard box your laptop came in.
| cle wrote:
| Stick a book under your laptop.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| What's the carbon cost behind buying and shipping the
| book, or cutting down the tree to make the book?
| redundantly wrote:
| They didn't say to buy a book just for this.
| recursive wrote:
| Assuming you don't have a book in your possession?
| dylan604 wrote:
| this is actually more common place than you might expect.
| just like wearing tube socks vs ankle socks has become
| some sort of age delineation, owning books is as well.
| borski wrote:
| This makes me so sad.
| dylan604 wrote:
| I have no books that have any value other than I already
| own them. After moving across the country a couple of
| times with them plus all of the other various moves, I
| have thought about getting rid of them numerous times.
| The only reason I have not is just sheer laziness on
| taking them some place. My most recent move left them in
| boxes and just stored.
| borski wrote:
| https://x.com/paulg/status/1860692810279559283
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| I'm old enough to have owned a lot of paper books at one
| point, but as a Kindle owner and person who moves every
| few years, I no longer own any physical books. For
| fiction and non-fiction prose, I find an e-reader to be
| strictly superior to the paper version. I've even
| embraced e-cookbooks. The UX is markedly inferior while
| cooking, but the convenience of not having to move boxes
| and boxes of paper around with me is worth it.
| cle wrote:
| Use whatever's lying around. Some more ideas:
| - A shoebox - An old binder - A food
| container - Some coasters - Egg carton
| - Jenga blocks - Cereal box - Legos -
| Picture frame - Tennis ball (cut it in half)
| - Door stoppers - Cake pan - A screwdriver
| box - A few junk mailer magazines - Crumple
| up a couple newspaper pages
|
| Or better yet, order one of these and make 3 more with
| the shipping box it came in. That'll help once it wears
| out, or you accidentally sit on it.
| toast0 wrote:
| Not sure how many cereal boxes can hold a laptop...
| unless you're stacking them flattened, and then you need
| to eat a lot of cereal, but you can adjust height very
| precisely. :)
| redundantly wrote:
| A cereal box is likely thicker than the material used in
| the product this article talks about. It wouldn't take
| very many folds to prop up a notebook.
| wiseowise wrote:
| What an amazing idea. Carry 2kg book of necessary size
| instead of foldable cardboard. Truly genius.
| spencerflem wrote:
| What's the carbon cost of shipping a plastic stand?
|
| Fwiw I do think that non-consumtion is a more 'real' protest
| than buying recycled but if you _have_ to get something
| latexr wrote:
| > but if you _have_ to get something
|
| You don't have to get it shipped, most of the time.
| Whenever you next go to town, go into any hardware shop and
| buy whatever they have.
|
| Heck, hop on freecycle and you're bound to see someone
| giving away one of these that you can pick up for free, in
| person.
|
| Or buy one second hand.
|
| Or use a large book.
|
| Or, or, or...
| spencerflem wrote:
| Hey yeah I agree, I just thought OP was being over the
| top with the moralizing. Like, OK its a bit virtue
| signal-y but so is complaining about it. And its still
| better than plastic.
|
| I'm not sure that being shipped is much worse than buying
| from a store that also gets it shipped and wrapped in as
| much plastic. And if its a town over, you're driving
| there which is CO2 as well.
|
| Using nothing at all is better for sure and I said as
| much. Second hand stuff rules.
|
| All in all though, this sort of individual choice is
| peanuts compared to taking a single plane ride which is
| itself peanuts compared to what corporations get away
| with. So imo. having any sort of strong opinion on this
| is silly.
| latexr wrote:
| Fair, I agree with most of what you wrote.
|
| However, advertising yourself as sustainable (like this
| store does) is also a marketing move which caters to a
| specific type of audience. If your products aren't
| actually sustainable, it is valid criticism to point that
| out.
|
| Imagine having two companies selling candy. One says
| their sweets not only taste good but are good for you,
| while the other doesn't make any kind of health claim.
| Both are bad, but one of them is outright tricking you,
| which feels worse.
|
| Note I'm not claiming this is what this seller is doing.
| Maybe they _think_ what they're doing is sustainable when
| it's not. But that's all the more reason to point it out
| so they can work of something better.
| spencerflem wrote:
| I'm with you, its corny, and meant to sell product
| lnsru wrote:
| I grew in poverty. This looks to me crazy expensive.
| Sustainability comes second. These things are probably made
| overseas, shipped in a container and distributed in a small
| package. Then used few weeks, paper will wear out and then
| thrown away. But that's how quick fashion industry works
| anyway.
|
| Edit: Asus laptop had foldable stand included in the paper
| packaging.
| theogravity wrote:
| Airflow?
| a12k wrote:
| Pretty good tool for creating graphs of work to be done and
| schedule them, but that's not important now.
| ahoka wrote:
| It's surely not what they meant!
| teach wrote:
| Probably not, but don't call me Shirley. :)
| teach wrote:
| I'm sorry you're getting downvoted for your decent Airplane!
| joke.
| impure wrote:
| I don't see much point to this, it barely props up your laptop at
| all. You're still going to get tech neck. I recently got a
| nexstand, external keyboard, and mouse and it has been amazing.
| tomasz_fm wrote:
| Nexstand is the way, I got one and never looked back. I use a
| touchpad instead of a mouse though.
| harrall wrote:
| Or buy the OG, the Roost.
|
| It's pricier but lighter and more compact.
| ArlenBales wrote:
| Those are kind of ugly, at least for MacBooks.
|
| Rain Design's mStand is my favorite, blends in perfectly.
| crazygringo wrote:
| They are, but they're portable. They collapse and you throw
| it in your bag.
|
| The mStand is beautiful, but it's not portable.
| kiririn wrote:
| Never heard of nexstand but it looks suboptimal for keeping the
| small laptop screen as close as possible to your eyes
|
| My preferred design is like https://amzn.eu/d/0KB8nGM (2x U
| shapes of metal), which lets you have the keyboard underneath
| the laptop , so the laptop is as close to the edge of the desk
| as if you weren't using an external keyboard
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| If you need the laptop screen to be _that_ close, maybe you
| need glasses.
|
| I have a Roost stand and with my keyboard in front of it, the
| distance is mostly right (13" screen and it's more
| comfortable if I scale fonts up by 20% or so). It's actually
| closer to my eyes than my desktop setup (24" screen mounted
| on monitor arm)
| crazygringo wrote:
| You don't _want_ a small laptop screen as close as possible
| to your eyes. That 's asking for eyestrain and problems in
| the long-term.
|
| If you're having trouble seeing clearly, you should use
| glasses and/or increase the system-wide font size (or
| decrease the "resolution").
| zoom6628 wrote:
| This is art. Love it.
| xtiansimon wrote:
| Art of design.
| bee_rider wrote:
| It is sort of art. It looks fairly pretty I think, in a sort of
| everyday manner. But it also looks a little impractical, the
| part that might touch your wrists is very spiky. Also thought
| keyboards should be, if anything, tilted in the opposite
| direction.
|
| It seems like an ok system if you don't have to interact with
| your keyboard. But if you want to do away with the need to
| interact with the keyboard, a much more aggressive tilt could
| be used, right? This only gets you a couple inches. Ideally the
| top of the screen is around the top of your head, right? Of
| course this is for on-the-go use, so we don't expect ideal.
|
| Overall, it is art; I really do think it looks nice, but it is
| pretty impractical.
| brettermeier wrote:
| This is failed design, your wrists will hate you after using
| this.
| 404mm wrote:
| Not just design. This whole product is a failure. It does not
| make sense from any angle. In fact I don't understand how the
| website is still up and running.
| forgetfreeman wrote:
| All of the same vibes I got when I found out some outfit
| managed to take a cock ring with accelerometers and an
| associated phone app to production.
| nemoniac wrote:
| Or save yourself $22: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR5G1HFXY1U
| gwbas1c wrote:
| That does not look in any way equivalent to the stand in the
| article.
| seb1204 wrote:
| Huh, it looks very similar. Smaller in size, it fits a phone
| but otherwise very similar in my opinion. A notebook would
| need a much larger and thicker sheet I guess.
| dogma1138 wrote:
| If whoever did this cared about recycling they would just tell
| people how to do this.
|
| If the people who bought this cared about recycling rather than
| having a virtue signaling conversation starter they wouldn't have
| bought it.
|
| This is insane, the carbon value of $22 is high enough without
| the garbage of shipping this crap all over the country and
| possibly the world.
| nottorp wrote:
| Does it wiggle when you type on it?
| VyseofArcadia wrote:
| A single (very large) sheet of (unusually thick) paper.
| d--b wrote:
| Wow, such a bad vibe here!
|
| It's foldable. It's light. It's made of recycled material. It's
| cheap enough.
|
| Seems pretty smart to me.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| It does not appeal to me, but each passing year there are fewer
| and fewer new consumer products that _do_ appeal to me.
| Actually, I think this product captures the spirit of the
| times: a $20 piece of paper that presumably falls apart after a
| year - a 'laptop stand as a service'
| pipeline_peak wrote:
| It's a wonderful design, but like many recyclable products, the
| price isn't low enough to convince the average consumer.
|
| Like someone else said, release the instructions.
|
| If you want to make an environmental impact, you have to make
| something people are willing to buy. That's why Tesla became so
| successful, no one cared 10 years ago when it was a status
| symbol. Once it got to like $40k it sold like crack.
| emaro wrote:
| Oh, I didn't expect that much skepticism. I love the idea and I
| love companies that are trying to create beautiful and
| sustainable things. They even try to give people a place that
| usually don't fit in.
|
| Yes, you can fold one yourself (will it be stable enough
| though?). Yes, I wouldn't use it for a laptop either. But for a
| tablet it could work really nice.
|
| Also shipping it around the world is a bit silly, like with most
| things. Too many people will order on Amazon or buy fruits from
| the other side of the world without a second thought. Get off
| your high horse.
| ahoka wrote:
| Sustaining what?
| infecto wrote:
| Does anyone remember when standing desks started taking
| off...maybe 2016ish and there was that company making cardboard
| props to convert your desk into a standing desk. Amazing how well
| those worked for being cardboard.
| latexr wrote:
| The article is seemingly outdated. The cheapest one I could find
| in the store was 29 USD. In Euros, it's 36.37. And of course, you
| still have to pay for shipping. From Korea.
|
| This seems quite absurd. Whatever good you do the planet by using
| something out of recycled paper (thumbs up on the idea) will
| surely be offset by all the logistics of the shipping.
|
| This should have been a tutorial, not a product.
| kevingadd wrote:
| All the embellishments on it seem like they probably involved
| operating imprinting machines or printing ink onto the paper,
| too.
| harrison_clarke wrote:
| it also seems like a very small savings. the thing sitting on
| top of it is full of lithium, cobalt, etc. so why should i care
| if it's sitting on a bit of plastic/aluminum/wood?
|
| that said, a tutorial to turn the shipping box for your laptop
| (or a flat of diet coke) into a stand would be good. useful in
| a pinch
|
| edit: keyboard box might be the best box to print the fold
| lines on. you need that for a minimally ergo laptop setup
| anyway
| bko wrote:
| I often see "recycled" or similar as a signal for more
| expensive.
|
| My favorite was when I saw a jam that touted "upcycled"
| strawberries. When I looked into it, it basically meant that it
| was made from beat up ugly strawberries that would have been
| used for animal feed. Surely there would be cost savings in
| using reject fruit, right? No, an 8oz jar retails for over $8
| compared to about half that to an organic no sugar added
| alternative (I think its cheaper since I last looked though)
|
| They even get certified that they use the most undesirable
| fruit that they can find!
|
| https://mleverything.substack.com/p/what-are-upcycled-strawb...
| yoavm wrote:
| Sometimes it's a marketing stunt, but often recycling is more
| expensive. I mean, recycling a plastic bag is probably more
| expensive than making one. The unfortunate reality of our
| financial system is that it often rewards people for doing
| the wrong thing.
| bko wrote:
| If recycling is more expensive, isn't recycling the wrong
| thing?
|
| The price isn't some random number attached to an activity.
| It captures the various costs associated with it and is
| helpful in directing behaviors for this very reason.
|
| Recycling is more expensive, it likely means that there are
| associated costs (e.g. transportation, sorting, cleaning,
| processing, etc) that make it less economical than just
| throwing it in a landfill. And all these additional costs
| likely make it the "wrong" decision since they likely
| contribute to carbon emissions or otherwise wasteful use of
| the earth's resources
| adrianN wrote:
| The price rarely captures all the costs.
| davidodio wrote:
| "Costs" often ignore externalities like environmental
| damage and inequality. Landfilling or dumping plastic may
| be cheaper now, but it shifts the true cost -- centuries
| of pollution --onto vulnerable communities today. There
| is a reason the clothing dumps are in Ghana and Chile,
| rather than wealthier nations like the US or Germany.
|
| If the price to companies profiting from plastics
| included exteralities I could possibly agree with you but
| as it stands these costs are normally paid by
| disadvantaged individuals or marginalized ecosystems.
| murderfs wrote:
| The reason the clothing dumps _exist_ is greenwashing. If
| we weren 't pretending that reusing clothing is
| meaningful to the environment, we'd just burn the
| clothing locally.
| yathern wrote:
| Your way of thinking definitely isn't entirely incorrect,
| and I think a lot of times people forget that prices,
| while they can certainly have an arbitrary component, are
| largely driven by market forces, which at the very least
| will tell you something about the supply and demand of a
| product. However, I disagree with this:
|
| > And all these additional costs likely make it the
| "wrong" decision since they likely contribute to carbon
| emissions or otherwise wasteful use of the earth's
| resources
|
| I think this doesn't often hold true, yes, an efficient
| market begets economically efficient resource allocation,
| but there's more to environmentalism than efficient
| resource allocation. Your example is good, it's certainly
| more economically efficient to use less petroleum when
| transporting goods, and that efficiency can be reflected
| in final costs. But let's look at another example:
|
| Say you're buying lumber to build a house. There's a
| local lumber farm that sustainably grows and cuts down
| trees. Since its close, transportation costs (and
| associated emissions) are low - largely coming from
| amortized land costs and labor. However there's another
| company that buys cheap land from farmers in the Amazon,
| with cheaper labor, ships it up via freight, and sells it
| for marginally cheaper. The costs in the latter example
| are largely driven by transportation - and while cheaper,
| has a significantly larger carbon impact.
| gruez wrote:
| >However there's another company that buys cheap land
| from farmers in the Amazon, with cheaper labor, ships it
| up via freight, and sells it for marginally cheaper. The
| costs in the latter example are largely driven by
| transportation - and while cheaper, has a significantly
| larger carbon impact.
|
| How does this apply to recycling though? Landfills in
| developed countries have little, if any externalities,
| because they're engineered to contain waste.
|
| https://practical.engineering/blog/2024/9/3/the-hidden-
| engin...
| yathern wrote:
| Largely I agree - landfills are not nearly as bad as
| people assume based on aesthetics and history. In fact,
| putting plastic in the ground is essentially a form of
| carbon sequestration. I just disagree with the logic of
| "If recycling is more expensive, isn't recycling the
| wrong thing". There's many situations where prices do not
| correlate with environmental impact. In the case of
| recycling, I haven't done the research to be certain
| either way. I _think_ for aluminum and glass it checks
| out, but not really for most plastics.
| xp84 wrote:
| > I _think_ for aluminum and glass it checks out, but not
| really for most plastics.
|
| That's the same thing I've seen demonstrated. It's really
| too bad that the plastics industry seized on the
| opportunity to greenwash wasteful amounts of plastic
| packaging by giving people a recycling bin that claims to
| do something useful with that discarded plastic, when in
| reality it's rare for post-consumer plastic to make any
| rational sense (other than those things like we're
| discussing, where people in practice waste even more
| resources in the recycling process just to feel good that
| the plastic material itself was technically not
| 'wasted').
| rvense wrote:
| Most of the toothbrushes we've owned in our lives still
| exist. What is the cost of having them around still? I
| don't know, but I know it wasn't factored in at all when
| we bought them.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Really it depends where they end up. If you drop them on
| the street, that incurs a greater cost than landfill,
| which probably is less economic than incineration
| (plastic contains a lot of energy).
| xp84 wrote:
| Honest question (no agenda): How does burning plastic
| interact with the environment in terms of producing
| pollution and/or CO2, I guess compared with putting it in
| a landfill?
|
| I'm fine with stipulations like using some kind of
| (economically-viable) filter on the resulting smoke.
|
| All that I "know" about it is only based on vibes so
| that's why I'm asking.
| fragmede wrote:
| If stealing from a factory and selling their products
| makes you more money than owning the factory and making
| the product, then doesn't it mean that stealing is the
| right thing?
|
| The price isn't some random number attached to an
| activity. It captures the various costs associated with
| it and is helpful in directing behaviors for this very
| reason.
| kbelder wrote:
| I can't stop my wife from cleaning everything we put in
| recycling. Not just a rinse-off, but completely and
| immaculately cleaning them. Sometimes in the dishwasher.
| I think the net environmental benefit of our recycling
| may be below zero.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I couldn't convince my mom to stop washing the
| recyclables. Fortunately, our municipal sanitation
| department recently published an informational video on
| proper recycling procedures, in which they explicitly
| tell people to stop wasting water on cleaning the trash.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| I always clean ours, with the water left over after I
| have cleaned the dishes. As far as I can see it has zero
| environmental issues and means the bin doesn't smell.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _The price isn 't some random number attached to an
| activity. It captures the various costs associated with
| it and is helpful in directing behaviors for this very
| reason._
|
| It doesn't capture _all_ of the costs. Key term here is
| "externalities", which are things that should be priced
| into a transaction, but currently aren't. Like the
| environmental impact of manufacturing process.
|
| If all major externalities were priced in, and recycling
| would still be more expensive, _then_ we could
| confidently say that it 's the wrong thing to do.
| xp84 wrote:
| In terms of something like paper, you're likely right.
| There's a weird popular perception that when you go to
| the grocery store and get 4 paper bags, somewhere a
| logger fells a beautiful 1000-year-old sequoia to grind
| into paper pulp, when the reality is that the same
| managed forest land is replanted over and over with fast-
| growing trees and harvested and replanted as soon as
| they're ready. The more demand for paper, the more tree
| farms there will be, and i can think of much worse things
| than taking up more of our land with CO2-slurping trees.
| If the paper ends up in a landfill, that's fine. It's not
| toxic.
|
| Or we could use a ton of energy and chemicals to recycle
| paper (and also to clean it since all consumer recycling
| in the US is "mixed stream" meaning someone's used dirty
| yogurt container and beer bottles are all over the
| paper), and produce much worse paper.
|
| But all "recycling" is too valuable to helping people
| feel good about consumption, for us to be honest with
| ourselves about how pointless most of it is besides
| aluminum and glass, and maybe steel.
| adrianN wrote:
| Recycling a plastic bag is not necessarily better for the
| environment than burning it.
| dowager_dan99 wrote:
| good point, and countries that do this on a massive
| (clean) scale count it (probably correctly) in their
| efficiency and non-fossil fuel stats. We really under-
| report the cost ($$$ and energy) of the full recycling
| chain, both complicated parts like plastics that should
| probably be burned and capture/treat the results, and
| simple things like glass; other than reuse it should NOT
| be recycled.
| snowfarthing wrote:
| I have concluded, as a general rule of thumb, that if
| something costs more to recycle than to produce
| naturally, it is probably more harmful to the environment
| to recycle it than to create it fresh and dispose of it
| properly.
|
| There are certain exceptions to this -- nickel cadmium
| batteries come to mind -- but for things like this, the
| question isn't "is it more economic to produce it new
| than to recycle it?" so much as it's "is it more economic
| to recycle it than to dispose of it properly?"
| kijalo wrote:
| I think 'dispose of it properly' is doing a lot work
| there. I understand that for something like plastic,
| properly disposing it would be to chemically render it
| down to it's constituents rather than just landfilling
| it. If the thought was to burn it, well then how are you
| properly disposing the released greenhouse gases?
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| On the other hand if a pound of plastic being burned
| offsets a pound of coal then that is probably better for
| the environment. We are nowhere near not burning anything
| so I'm largely OK with incinerators.
| makapuf wrote:
| That probably means that recycling is not worth it, so
| the only responsible way is to reduce its usage as much
| as possible (reusing or replacing with better solutions)
| dowager_dan99 wrote:
| not really for paper though... We've largely solved
| efficient recycling of even complex mixed
| paper/plastic/coatings, a piece like this should be less
| expensive, and not shipped 1/2 way around the world to a
| market that has massive amounts of both new and old paper.
| yoavm wrote:
| I didn't mean to imply that the price for this specific
| laptop stand is justified. I read the above comment as a
| small rant about how expensive recycled things are, and
| wanted to add that sometimes it is for a good reason. Not
| always, and like others have mentioned, the plastic bag
| example might not have been the best one.
| askvictor wrote:
| > Sometimes it's a marketing stunt, but often recycling is
| more expensive. I mean, recycling a plastic bag is probably
| more expensive than making one.
|
| Depends on the price of oil. Metal recycling is far more
| cost effective that extracting from ore. Glass, too, is
| very economical to recycle.
|
| Plastic recycling was never about recycling, it was to
| convince people to use plastics.
| thfuran wrote:
| Glass can be economical to re-use, but I thought
| recycling it uses nearly as much energy as producing it
| in the first place.
| jdietrich wrote:
| _> When I looked into it, it basically meant that it was made
| from beat up ugly strawberries_
|
| That's true for basically all processed food that contains
| fruit or vegetables, for obvious economic reasons. The stuff
| that looks good goes to the supermarkets who care very much
| about shelf appeal, the rest goes to the processors who
| absolutely don't.
| nosioptar wrote:
| Stuff like Pringles are made from the nastiest rotting
| potatoes in the planet. It's been 20 years since the last
| time I set foot in a potato plant, I can still smell it.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Good. That means they're reducing food waste.
|
| A big problem with the food market is that people shop
| with their eyes, which leads to stupid amount of waste on
| fruit&vegetables section, as people prefer to go to
| another store than to buy veggies that look anything less
| than perfect.
| osrec wrote:
| In a lot of cases, that's how it works in nature too
| though. Visual appeal on the tree/bush is a big part of
| what attracts an animal to a fruit. It's just how we're
| built.
| makapuf wrote:
| I find dangerous red berries and colored frogs very
| attractive.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Right, but animals aren't as picky as humans - they'll
| eat anything that isn't rotten (and then some animals
| actually prefer rotten stuff). Meanwhile people will
| avoid buying veggies that look off even if there's no
| risk to health or taste involved.
|
| I suppose this is because most animals in the wild are
| always couple hours away from starvation and just can't
| afford being picky eaters.
| guappa wrote:
| Yeah elks love to get drunk on rotten apples. Humans
| prefer rotten grapes.
| bko wrote:
| Exactly, which is why I found it so entertaining. The idea
| that the Smuckers CEO is paying extra for beautiful fruit
| right before it get pulverized into jam is laughable. It's
| the market and price system taking care of the problem and
| opportunistic brands making up a problem that doesn't exist
| and charging users a premium to solve the non-existent
| problem
| analog31 wrote:
| Oddly enough it now means that canned tomatoes are better
| than fresh.
| bombcar wrote:
| Part of that is you can can a tomato right when it is
| most ripe and ready to be eaten, whereas if you're
| shipping it to a store, you ship it unripe and hope it
| ripens somewhat on the way.
| snowfarthing wrote:
| I find this particular notion to be rather weird. I cannot
| see how it's a "waste" if something's fed to animals instead
| of humans!
| snailmailstare wrote:
| It is a horrible waste to produce any strawberries from an
| environmental perspective compared to the least sensitive
| feed crops so feeding them to animals is more of a better
| than nothing while getting someone out of the market for
| the grades of strawberries that drive production is not.
| But any mediocre quality strawberry jam probably does that.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Opportunity cost, mostly.
| latexr wrote:
| Despite the quotes, the person you're replying to didn't
| use the word "waste" nor have they claimed using that fruit
| to feed animals would be bad. In short, they didn't make
| the argument you're against.
|
| However, in the interest of good faith discussion, I'll
| offer a rebuttal to the argument you are making. The logic
| applies when (and this is very important) that food goes to
| farm animals which will be slaughtered of humans to eat.
|
| "Waste" isn't really the right word, more like
| "inefficient", in the sense that the amount of food which
| takes for an animal to mature is orders of magnitude
| greater than what you take from it. In other words, you
| could feed significantly more people if they ate what
| you're feeding the animal.
|
| When you couple that with the environmental impact of
| raising animals as food, including deforestation and land
| use, which in turn affects us as well, it becomes a major
| issue.
| blharr wrote:
| I mean, it's a good idea, I just wouldn't buy the one in Korea
| to get shipped over here. I don't get the cynicism, someone in
| Korea had this idea and made the product, probably intended for
| other people in Korea where the shipping isn't an issue?
| latexr wrote:
| > probably intended for other people in Korea
|
| The seller is called "grape lab", with a "g" as the logo, and
| "Sustainable Design Lab" as the tagline. Everything in
| English. How is that "intended for other people in Korea"?
| andrewflnr wrote:
| > This should have been a tutorial, not a product.
|
| I love this. More tutorials, fewer products.
| tonijn wrote:
| Last time I checked 1 usd = 1 eur
| forinti wrote:
| > This should have been a tutorial, not a product.
|
| It doesn't seem too difficult to make something similar.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| It blows my mind that stands like this one as well as keyboards
| are designed with an incline requiring constant tension in the
| wrists.
|
| The natural position of the fingers when typing is below the
| wrist not above it.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| Yeah it's weird, I have a static wooden one similar to this.
| Looked good but the incline was so sharp that it was just
| awkward to use.
|
| Not sure what the thought process is behind the design of most
| of these things.
| Suppafly wrote:
| They are meant to be used with an external keyboard and mouse,
| you don't need a stand to use a laptop normally.
| leptons wrote:
| Except in the 5th photo they show someone using the laptop's
| touchpad while on the stand.
|
| This seems very uncomfortable to me as resting your hands on
| the pointed edges of the folded paper seems like an awful
| user experience.
| jerlam wrote:
| Technically, yes, but a large number of people are working on
| tables that are already too high, so positive tilt is required
| to keep their wrists in line with their forearms.
|
| A laptop stand that elevates the laptop, placed on a table that
| is already too high, requires even more positive tilt.
|
| And don't forget the large number of people who don't know how
| to touch-type and need clear visibility of all the keycaps.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| It's hard to justify $30+ for a sheet of paper, especially
| considering the fact that condensation from a nearby water bottle
| will kill this product.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| Amplified by my heavily sweating body in full coding focus
| mode...
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| Am vaguely reminded of a fancy apple-style aluminum stand I saw
| in an ad recently. That one is probably a lot more expensive.
|
| This $6 "fancy" cardboard box from Ikea has been doing the same
| job for me quite well. Can also discretely hide a power strip and
| hub inside, keeps dust off too. Just cut a small hole in the
| back.
|
| https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/tjena-storage-box-with-lid-blac...
| iLemming wrote:
| I remember the times when my monitor stand was "made" out of yet-
| to-be-recycled paper books - a few thick java references. Later,
| when I bought a new monitor I donated them to a library. I hope
| they got recycled, or at least, garbage-collected. Although I
| can't imagine anyone finding old java books in the garbage and
| find them useful for anything.
| nosioptar wrote:
| I used to dumpster dive for old compsci books at the end of
| semesters. It's how I learned java, c, perl, vim, and SQL.
| Suppafly wrote:
| >I used to dumpster dive for old compsci books at the end of
| semesters. It's how I learned java, c, perl, vim, and SQL.
|
| I'd always grab old books from school and work, but honestly
| they are horrible to learn from because things like java and
| c# have changed so much, you end up teaching yourself
| outdated stuff and then needing to relearn all of the new
| ways to do stuff. You're probably safe learning C from an
| older book though, as long as it's ansi c and not the
| original k&r book.
| iLemming wrote:
| There are some languages with books that remain relevant
| over decades, notably books for any Lisp - Common Lisp,
| Scheme, Clojure, also:
|
| - C (post-ANSI) - fundamentals largely unchanged since 1989
|
| - SQL and Erlang - basic concepts stable since 1980s
|
| - Prolog and Forth - core concepts stable since 1970s
|
| Although modern books might cover some improved practices
| or new tooling, older texts on core concepts remain
| valuable.
| pcblues wrote:
| A couple of points.
|
| It is not aesthetically pleasing at all, which is important to
| me, for whatever neurological reason. Also, I consider a laptop
| stand as just a device to raise the screen to a better ergonomic
| level on the understanding that an external keyboard and mouse
| will be used to operate the device.
|
| Otherwise, in a laptop stand, ergonomic keyboard use requirements
| pull the incline towards level, and ergonomic monitor height
| requirements pull the incline upwards, so there is no healthy
| angle for a laptop stand.
|
| As already mentioned by andrei_says_, typing fingers should be
| below the wrist (as correct piano playing has proved for
| centuries).
| oofbaroomf wrote:
| Vladimir Horiwitz begs to differ.
| dotBen wrote:
| Stands like this have to be paired with an external keyboard.
|
| Raising the monitor so that the top is as close to eye level as
| possible (while maintaining a straight back) is better
| orthopedicly.
|
| It's impossible to achieve this and a good keyboard posture, so
| you must introduce an external keyboard.
|
| Without an external keyboard, there is no value in using a
| stand, you might as well just keep the laptop in a neutral
| position.
| seb1204 wrote:
| I use my glasses case to raise the back of the computer. It
| adds a gap between table and computer. The rubber nobben on
| the underside of the laptop prevent the glasses case from
| slipping. This raises the notebook to a nice angle and the
| keyboard is still usable for me.
| segasaturn wrote:
| I like it because it's ugly.
| toast0 wrote:
| You can't get ergonomics with a (modern) laptop keyboard.
| Reaching over the touchpad is at best, a compromise.
| Unfortunately keyboard at the edge + sidemounted trackball is
| long dead, and keyboard at the edge + pointing stick didn't
| last a lot longer.
|
| Last I used a laptop at a desk on the regular, state of the art
| laptop stands were reams of printer paper. Worst case, you need
| to actually use the paper in the printer and you're out a stand
| until you restock.
| duderific wrote:
| I often observe people at my office using the laptop keyboard
| and monitor exclusively, while sitting at their desks, even
| though we are all given external monitors, keyboards and
| mice.
|
| I guess they are young and their bodies don't hurt yet.
| bluedino wrote:
| I love my Rain mStand. It's made of cast aluminum, looks great,
| works great, and I've had it for....15 years?
|
| At some point I'm sure I could easily recycle it.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Very nice, just not very portable, but definitely recyclable.
| marban wrote:
| They have the foldable mBar Pro now.
| calmbonsai wrote:
| I'm reminded of similarly useless "sustainable cardboard
| furniture" that came out about a decade ago.
|
| On the positive side, kudos to whomever in marketing/pr at the
| design firm got this useless product so much press.
|
| This is just the sort of "win" that a design consulting shop
| loves to have for actual briefs that lead to real moving-the-
| needle revenue. One example would be SmartDesign's modular slip-
| on "S-Grips" that led to the iconic vegetable peeler that then
| bled into the "design language" of every product at OXO.
| n3storm wrote:
| LoL.
|
| Not only useless but also uncomfortable. My wrists get itchy
| when looking at those zigzag bevels...
| wy35 wrote:
| Didn't know about the SmartDesign/OXO vegetable peeler, very
| interesting rabbit hole to go down.
|
| https://www.fastcompany.com/90239156/the-untold-story-of-the...
| snowfarthing wrote:
| Indeed, it's an interesting rabbit hole!
|
| I liked the part where they were looking for someone to
| manufacture the handles, and the Japanese machinist said "If
| he could make it, I can make it!".
|
| Indeed, having gone down the rabbit hole of machining (both
| to see if it would be a viable hobby and if it could even be
| a career), this was the attitude of the shop teacher: "if you
| can think it, you can probably make it". I am far more
| surprised that neither the American nor the Taiwanese
| manufacturers said this. Then again, perhaps it was because
| management didn't talk to the guys who made things!
|
| (Now that I think of it, had they done that, perhaps they
| would have gotten the answer "We can do it, but the fins will
| wear down the tool too fast, at least until we can figure out
| a better material for the tools!" instead of "Nope, we can't
| do that!")
| johnmaguire wrote:
| This is a bit of a random place to mention it, but while I very
| much like OXO goods, IKEA makes the best (in my opinion) potato
| peeler for $5 - cheaper than anything OXO makes:
| https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/ikea-365-vaerdefull-potato-peel...
| croisillon wrote:
| that's something i never understood: why do they sell peelers
| with a movable part? like we are meant to peel in curves and
| expect the knife to follow the curve beautifully? the fixed
| ones are easier to use and easier to clean!
| johnmaguire wrote:
| The hinge allows you to peel in both directions (i.e.
| forwards and backwards across your potato/carrot/etc.
| without lifting the peeler.) It also means it can track a
| rough surface more easily. I haven't had any issues with
| the hinge, and I use a dishwasher for cleaning - what
| issues have you run into?
| croisillon wrote:
| i'm almost never using a movable one but:
|
| - on the practicity: i can do exactly what i want with a
| fixed one, without risk for the blade to slip
|
| - small dust and bits tend to gather at the junctions and
| sit there
| HPsquared wrote:
| I find the movable ones cut a thinner peel, probably the
| blade is held at a more optimal angle if it can find its
| own position, or maybe my particular movable one is just
| better-made than my fixed one.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| For produce with a tougher skin than innards, the blade
| will deflect off the inside of the skin and steer itself
| along that interface.
| pomian wrote:
| Brilliant write up. I remember using the old ones, and only
| last year found the oxo model. truly amazing. Many important
| lessons in product design in that article; with the most
| important in the last sentence - it has to work!
| nordsieck wrote:
| > I'm reminded of similarly useless "sustainable cardboard
| furniture" that came out about a decade ago.
|
| Apparently no one learned their lesson, because the cardboard
| olympic village beds were also (allegedly) pretty terrible.
| brudgers wrote:
| Cardboard furniture brought to mind Frank Gehry:
|
| https://www.vitra.com/en-us/product/wiggle?srsltid=AfmBOooT-...
|
| Expressing patronage of sustainability is emotionally
| equivalent to expressing patronage of artistry. Functionally a
| $10 chair from Goodwill will support a person equally well (and
| also be an expression of patronage for a person with options).
| nox101 wrote:
| MUJI used to have lots of that (20-25yrs ago). Shelves made
| from cardboard tubes, etc... You could tell, one bump and it
| would be destroyed. I think they got rid of most of them.
| uxp100 wrote:
| 60 or 70 years ago.
| larodi wrote:
| indeed useless, you can use arbitrary anything - a book, a
| notebook, the earpods, the wallet -> all work. besides the
| thing blowing wind does not make much real difference it seems.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| What about those jaring things touching the palm, don't look
| comfortable
| soheil wrote:
| I'd only be interested if I can also use it as a Japanese fan.
| soheil wrote:
| Had a very different image in mind of what a sheet of paper
| looked like.
| lexicality wrote:
| This looks like the kind of thing you get given as a cheap
| branded gift in a conference and it breaks before the conference
| is over. As soon as you put enough downward force to damage one
| of the folds or it gets damp, you're heading directly to rip-
| city.
| habaryu wrote:
| Anybody has an idea on how the industrial process for this kind
| of origami works? I've seen videos online and it requires a lot
| of pinching and folding. I'm very curious to know how a machine
| could do that.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| On top of all of the other criticisms, this isn't functionally
| what I want. I still would end up looking down to see the laptop.
|
| I guess it's better for people who only work on laptops and don't
| want to have separate keyboards and pointing devices.
|
| I travel a lot and I use a Roost laptop stand
|
| https://www.therooststand.com/
|
| A standard Apple keyboard and mouse, and a portable USB powered
| monitor that gets power and video from one USB cable and monitor
| stand
|
| https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0C4KH2GH3
| alias_neo wrote:
| I got a roost when they launched, still have it, practical and
| durable, I imagine I'll always have it.
|
| The problem with this paper one is that the paper will wear
| within a couple of years, and if you spill your coffee on it or
| anything like that or put it down on a coffee-ring stain, it's
| straight in the bin.
|
| I fail to see the value in something made from recyclable that
| is essentially disposable rather than a roost which can be made
| from recycled plastic and last forever.
|
| The roost also only cost about double to triple this to buy.
|
| EDIT: I see the roost is quite a bit more expensive now, but
| longevity and ergonomics wise I'd say still well worth it.
| gruez wrote:
| Why is it so expensive? It looks and functions exactly like a
| dozen other similar stands on aliexpress.
| scarface_74 wrote:
| I'm not going to buy a knock off good from Aliexpress for a
| product that I have used everyday for the past two years
| across over two dozen cities.
| douglee650 wrote:
| Why the heck is there a beer in the background of pics? Lol
| causality0 wrote:
| _made from a single sheet of recycled paper_
|
| Do they mean a single sheet of seriously thick card stock? Sheets
| of paper do not weigh 45 grams.
| euroderf wrote:
| It's origami, yes ? Surely someone here at HN can find a folding
| pattern and an appropriate size & weight of paper.
| r33b33 wrote:
| Fire hazard
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| this seems kind of absurd... I have a laptop stand. it collapses
| into my hand. its made from steel. it cost me $15. it will last
| much longer than this.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-01-13 23:00 UTC)