4 ms·
They are. But then the city just ignores the "stick" half of the carrot/stick framework. Or they "lose" the contract[0]. Or they lost the sophistication war wit
by function_seven 6y ago
They are. But then the city just ignores the "stick" half of the carrot/stick framework. Or they "lose" the contract[0]. Or they lost the sophistication war with the company's lawyers, and get loop-holed out of their penalties.
It's all very slimy or amateurish, depending on how charitable you want to be towards the principals involved.
What strikes me the most from this article:
> A consumer twists a knob at the bottom of a can and activates a cooling apparatus. In about 90 seconds, the beverage temperature drops about 30 degrees.
That's it? 30°F? So if my can is at 90°F, and I'd like a cold one, I can wait a minute and a half and get a lukewarm 60° beverage. I mean, that's kinda cool maybe, but I can't imagine it's worth whatever this costs.
[0] "In response to public records requests, Youngstown provided cost projections for just 30 of the 94 agreements it granted since 1991, saying it could not locate many of the early contracts."
- kube-system 6y agoA 30 degree drop sounds completely reasonable of a use case. That takes a can from room temp to an acceptable refrigerator temp.
- function_seven 6y agoBut these are sold for outdoor use, like at the beach, or hiking, etc. If my can is room temperature, the I am very likely indoors already, with a refrigerator nearby. I'm not going to spend money on single-use chiller cans for typical day-to-day beverages. I'll just buy the normal ones and stick 'em in the fridge. Sure, there's some scenario where I might find myself in a temperate climate, and want a cold drink, and don't have an ice chest or fridge nearby. But does that happen often enough to make this technology viable? I just don't see it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]