15 ms·
I realise this is a nitpick, but: > consumers are not willing to buy cars without radar, or washing machines without advanced sensors What? Am I that out of
by dmpk2k 4y ago
I realise this is a nitpick, but:
> consumers are not willing to buy cars without radar, or washing machines without advanced sensors
What?
Am I that out of touch?
- PaulHoule 4y agoWhen my son heard that "luxury cars are being shipped without touchscreen infotainment systems" he thought "Great!" That is, a touchscreen infotainment system in a car inevitably sucks, and takes away a bit of the "luxury" that a "luxury car" has. At 19 years old he definitely is into retrotechnology, particularly when it comes to cars. He wants a boat car from the 1970s so he can get away from all the junk in modern cars.
- bigbillheck 4y ago> He wants a boat car from the 1970s so he can get away from all the junk in modern cars Hope he enjoys getting single-digit miles per gallon, and you'll have to decide how you feel about him driving around in a car without modern junk like "airbags".
- foobarian 4y ago> Hope he enjoys getting single-digit miles per gallon But where will he find the leaded gasoline to run it???
- humanwhosits 4y agothe airport
- PaulHoule 4y agoThe unleaded transition started in the early 1970s you can find plenty of boats that take unleaded gas. Of all the problems cars of that generation have the one that bugs me the most is poor rustproofing. You see people driving classic cars all the time in dry places like California and New Mexico but in Upstate NY road salt will eat a car like that alive if you drive it in the winter. So if we got a boat we'd need a garage to keep it in and another car to be a driver in the winter.
- sidewndr46 4y agoYou can't really rustproof against salt, at least for metals. It's an abrasive and it accelerates the chemical reactions on the surface of the metal.
- marvin 4y agoDon't know if you've owned e.g. a 1980s Toyota Corolla in an environment that's always-wet, always-salted for six months a year like Western Norway. The difference to modern cars is night and day: The Corolla rusts to death in five years, as in you can stick your whole arm through the holes in the wheel well if the structural integrity of the chassis doesn't fail first. Whereas most cars produced after 1990 will last about two decades without owner rustproofing. You obviously can't dictate that all redox reactions will halt, but the manufacturers have absolutely done something that makes their cars rust slower. The "end-user rustproofing" we do here generally consists of spraying some super-heavy, super-sticky oil-based coating onto the metal so it doesn't get wet. But this obviously complicates other maintenance.
- sidewndr46 4y agoIf the manufacturer or the customer applies a thick heavy undercoating I think it can make a big difference. It's robust enough to resist the abrasive nature of the salt, at least for a while. The thing is I don't think manufacturer's like adding products like that as it messes with the fuel economy results. It's actually quite heavy, despite being just a "coating"
- carlmr 4y ago>If the manufacturer or the customer applies a thick heavy undercoating I think it can make a big difference. IIRC most manufacturers, at least in Europe, at some point started zinc galvanization, this prevents most rust from forming: https://www.fj.co/blog/land-cruiser-chassis-galvanized/ https://www.fj.co/blog/land-cruiser-chassis-galvanized/
- bigbillheck 4y agoYou can just use unleaded gas, you might have to replace valves and such but it'll work.
- bluGill 4y agoMost cars ran just fine on unleaded. Unless you actually raced them, or otherwise worked the engine hard the rest of the car would die before the lack of lead killed the engine. Note that I live in an area where we salt the roads in winter. If you live in a dry desert old cars last a lot longer, and you might actually need to worry about your valves.
- megablast 4y agoIf he was really into retro tech he would get a bike.
- Arubis 4y agoRemarkably, this is debatable; it depends on how you define each of automobile and bicycle, but by many definition sets, the car came first.
- flak48 4y agoIs a boat car an amphibious car?
- Kerrick 4y agoNo, it’s a colloquialism that refers to sedans as large as a boat. Of course boats come in all sizes, but it’s usually referring to something the size of, say, a present-day Chrysler 300 or larger. A truly full-size four-door sedan. Also known as Land Yacht when they are also a luxury sedan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_yacht_(automobile) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_yacht_(automobile)
- gwbas1c 4y agoThis is a tongue in cheek example of a boat car: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w44qGwA1t58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w44qGwA1t58 Real-world examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Mark_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Mark_series
- wnevets 4y ago> Am I that out of touch? We probably are out of touch. There is a reason so much marketing is about listing all of the features a product has, it works.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago"People can be made to want" != "people want". We may be more in touch with peoples' real desires, but out of touch with what marketing wants to sell us.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- pvg 4y agohttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik
- edhelas 4y agoNope same for me. I want "dumb" devices that just do what their main goals are. I have a "dumb" fridge, a "dumb" washing machine and even a "dumb" TV that is basically a big screen with some HDMI connectors. Is is ok if in 2022 we don't actually want those smart devices ?
- xxpor 4y agoA dumb washing machine where dumb == not connected to wifi: I think most would agree. A dumb washing machine that doesn't sense the amount of clothes to pick the right amount of water: What is it, 1972 still?
- iancmceachern 4y agoExactly. Even in a "dumb" TV there are dozens of ics, lots of complexity that we don't see. Removing the smart TV part removes the equivalent of a roku stick worth of components. It doesn't change the calculus, it's a red hering. Ok, so you remove 4 ics out of 100, still in the same boat.
- tintor 4y agoI believe instead of word "dumb" you mean "aligned with customer": doesn't steal their data, doesn't extract more money from them, doesn't deny them service, doesn't prevent repair
- zorlack 4y agoIf I'm shopping for a new car I expect it to have lane-keeping and adaptive-cruise-control and a host of other safety features which require sensors. That said, I'd still drive an old beater. It's just that when I shell out for a new thing, it's because I want the new features.
- AnimalMuppet 4y agoWhen I shell out for the new thing, it's because my current one died. If I wanted the new features, I wouldn't be driving a 16-year-old car. I want airbags, anti-lock brakes, adaptive suspension, intermittent wipers, and a back-up camera. I don't need the rest. I even fear some of the rest. (Remote hackability is not a feature!) Same but even more for a washing machine. I don't need advanced sensors. I don't need my washing machine to hang out on the internet. It's not a celebrity with its own blog, it's just there to wash my clothes.
- PaulHoule 4y agoGM has been making hackable cars since 1996 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar I always wanted to make a spoof of the GM ads that promoted OnStar for "safety". That is, a white collar criminal is heading for the hydrofoil with suitcases crammed with cash and the FBI calls up OnStar to track the vehicle and turn off the ignition.
- moistly 4y agoA more likely scenario: you’re heading out to attend a million man protest. The government disagrees and disables your car. https://hothardware.com/news/bidens-infrastructure-bill-mandatory-backdoor-car-kill-switch https://hothardware.com/news/bidens-infrastructure-bill-mand...
- KerrAvon 4y agoI’m gonna need a more reliable source for that information than the white power hour over at the Daily Caller.
- foobarian 4y agoRadar was not a great example. Backup cameras would have been better - even if they were not mandatory they are the best thing since sliced bread.
- megablast 4y agoBackup cameras save a lot of lives??
- briHass 4y agoThey do, actually. Particularly children, who can be difficult to see, especially with reduced sight lines in modern cars due to aerodynamic improvements. The law to make cameras mandatory was named after: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rear-view-cameras-law-needs-to-be-acted-on/2013/09/24/dd210e8e-252d-11e3-b75d-5b7f66349852_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rear-view-cameras-la...
- est31 4y agoThe EU safety directive requires many safety features for new cars: https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/StV/Roadtraffic/new-vehicle-safety-systems.html https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/StV/Roadtraffic/n... Which is a good idea because if such a safety feature remains optional, many people won't opt for it. Making them mandatory saves lives. But it also means that if you want your car to be sold in the EU, you must integrate these features, which means you need more chips.
- nybble41 4y ago> Which is a good idea because if such a safety feature remains optional, many people won't opt for it. Making them mandatory saves lives. On the other hand, making them mandatory makes cars more expensive, which means (especially during a shortage) that some can't afford them at all while the rest are forced to do without other things to compensate; either way it reduces their qualify of life. But of course the government knows better than those actually affected by these laws where the ideal balance lies between safety and QoL.
- Beldin 4y agoOn the other other hand, you can easily use the same reasoning in favor of mandating safety features: Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive extras, more expensive than if required on all cars. That means second hand cars with these features will be significantly more expensive than those without. Which means that some can never afford these features, while others have to do without other things to compensate. Either way, quality of life is reduced - and more than in your scenario, because the features do not benefit from economy of scale as much when they're optional.
- nybble41 4y ago> Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive extras, more expensive than if required on all cars. If they were rare they might be more expensive, but otherwise it's the same system and will cost about the same amount to incorporate into a vehicle. Making it mandatory doesn't make it any cheaper. (Usually the opposite, in fact. From the POV of those manufacturing the safety systems, there's nothing quite like having the government mandate that people buy your product.) Economy of scale is not guaranteed, or even really all that common once you get past early research and development or one-off custom products and into the realm of mass production. In general commodities become more expensive in response to higher demand, not less. If these systems are something most people actually want and consider worthwhile then they'll already have the benefit of any economy of scale which may apply without the mandate.
- hinkley 4y agoThe instant gratification part of my brain is constantly at war with the environmentalist part of my brain and that passion play happens at least weekly due to my HE washing machine, which takes fucking forever to finish a load, especially now that yardwork has become a priority hobby (pre-soak + heavy soil). I don't know if the solution is fewer sensors or more sensors, but the way it fills the bowl feels like watching an episode of Monk. And not the ones where his OCD is cute, the ones where it ends up costing him dearly.
- tomcam 4y agoGood setup, excellent payoff. Thank you.
- paxys 4y agoNo, you just need to translate it in marketing terms. You don't want a car with radar, but do want one with blind spot detection, cross traffic alerts, back up camera, traction control, ABS, collision prevention. You don't want a washing machine with advanced sensors, but do want one with auto shut off, door locks, automatic tumble, balancing.
- tomcam 4y agoI would happily give up all those washing machine features for one that just kept working for the next 50 years
- iancmceachern 4y agoI thought I never would, but I've gotten used to those safety features in cars and won't ever go back for my daily driver. I'm sure many are the same.
- nawgz 4y agoThey are very useful. Augmented situational awareness is clearly valuable in a high-risk relatively-low-tolerance environment like driving at highway speeds
- wtallis 4y agoI also really don't want to be sharing a road (or parking lot) with cars that lack most of those features.
- sojournerc 4y agoHeh, ok. Never had a car with those features, and I've never been in an accident. I even drove professionally for some years before such features were available. I do wonder whether those features train people to not be able to check a blind spot by turning their head, or just being more generally aware of their surroundings on a highway.
- 4y ago
- missedthecue 4y agoThis is hacker news. Yes, you're all out of touch.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- wrycoder 4y agoSpeaking for out of touch, I used to process 50 mm wafers. 200 mm is frisbee size.