7 ms·

I upgraded from a 95 4Runner to a 22 Outlander and it’s like a spaceship on wheels in comparison. Literally every piece of the car is in a different class and

I upgraded from a 95 4Runner to a 22 Outlander and it’s like a spaceship on wheels in comparison. Literally every piece of the car is in a different class and the tech is insane that just didn’t exist then, I mean it basically drives itself. It’s dramatically safer, more efficient, comfier, faster, quieter. I no longer hate long drives, they’re quite nice. The speakers are amazing and the road noise is basically gone. I can stream anything, talk to friends anywhere in the world while driving, massage and heat my back, and do it all with half the gas at a cost that’s equivalent to the 4Runner when it was new back then. It also goes 110 as comfortably as the 4Runner would do about 60, and breezes up hills that the latter would break a sweat on. I press a button for roadside assistance, I lock and start/stop it from my phone, I don’t have to bother with the key, the list just never ends. Meanwhile a car from 1965 honestly is a lot more similar to a 95 than a 95 to today.

nosianu 4y ago
The main point though is that you don't accomplish more. You get from A to B in about the same time. How much you like the experience does not change that there is not really a difference in the outcomes. I find it regrettable that sooo many comments focusing on "like" rather than actual hard results. The original topic is about the latter, not about the subjective experiences. And for results, a 1960s care got you from A to B pretty much the same as a 2022 one. That does not make the subjective aspect invalid, but I would at least like to see some self-awareness in comments that we are talking about at least two separate things, and arguments for one are not useful for the other. . Recently I also found myself thinking about another aspect. It was when I looked at the tram station not far form my house, which for a year or so has been upgraded to have a display with the expected arrival times of the next three trams. It sure is very convenient! However, compared to a similar transport system of fifty years ago, which achieved the same thing, we now have a lot of additional effort to maintain such infrastructure. It got waayyyy more complex, all the electronics, and software has to be written and maintained, screens installed and maintained, computer infrastructure - all just for some slight improvement in convenience. Is it worth it? I have no conclusion, I just have to think about that when I hear yet another "we need more 'Fachkräfte'" (skilled workers). How many people do we need for mostly just minor convenience upgrades? Sure, the transport system also can get more efficient with things like those displays. But here again, A LOT of additional effort, planning and thinking has to go into it for such gains to not just be theoretical. If we can afford it - sure, why not. It's just that I have to think about the challenges ahead: The more stuff we produce and have to use energy on the worse for climate change and resource use. I think it is good when new stuff is tried, but I have doubts that all those many minor "upgrades" are worth spreading so far. The effort for minor gains is gigantic, and we don't have free power, overabundance of skilled workers and free (material) resources (yet?). How much worse would for example said city tram system really be with less sophistication and IT? I've become a bit skeptical about my own line of work. IT is nice and all and I love it, but it also takes a lot of effort to prepare and also to maintain. Here took, too many only look at the gains, which of course do exist. But there is a bias "newer and more complex is better" IMO. Very much related: "Humans solve problems by adding complexity, even when it’s against our best interests" https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-problem-solving-nature/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-prob... Nature (paywall, try Sci-Hub): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 > Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving > A series of problem-solving experiments reveal that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more efficient. I think our economic and financial system is an additional driver. Not doing something is "being lazy" and is punished (unless you are wealthy already). If you manage to sell stuff that is useless or even detrimental, you are fine, and there still is a wide gap between this and doing something criminal. It looks to me like our own biases and our society and systems push us towards increasing complexity just for complexity's sake. Then come the biases that let us find the justifications but not see the downsides nearly as clearly. We also have a huge bias for measurable/quantifiable outcomes, and what things with an attachment to money. All this complexity relies on huge supply chains also for maintenance. Given the possible issues ahead, both political and climate, maybe less complexity and more locality and less international-network requirement might be a good idea.
- nwienert 4y ago
  What a horribly myopic take, it completely changes the "outcomes". I am way more productive and happy: - I save more money so I have more to spend towards productive uses. - I don't die as often, living is productive. - I listen to podcasts, diverse videos (just listening) or music, learning more during my drive. - I call friends and family, enhancing connections and communicating more. - The car drives for me, leaving me more relaxed and energized when I reach my destination, and I am more likely to travel further than I would normally. - The car is much safer, lowering anxiety, so I use it more often for productive uses and generally feel safer and happier, and therefore more productive. - It accelerates and coasts at higher speeds easily, so I get there faster. - My back doesn't get sore nearly as easily (I get back pain easily sitting up), a huge productivity boost. - The AC is cooler and heat is faster, sound is nicer, every material is nicer, tint is stronger, wipers are automatic and fast, lights are automatic and fast, etc etc - all this adds up to lower stress and higher safety, meaning less death, less injury, higher likelihood to use it productively, and less stress. To wave away these things as minor is a very Thiel-like thing to do, but I find it ridiculous. You want to go to space? To be in the most inhospitable environment possible? What does that do for us, again? I'd rather have better Wifi and more legroom on a flight than a rocketship that went 2x faster but didn't have either. We didn't get flying cars, we got unlimited knowledge and communication at the speed of light, even when flying through air. I'd like to fly a car, but again: Cars from then 2020s are spaceships compared to cars from the 90s, while cars from the 90s are not really much different than those from the 60s. Within a decade we likely have self-driving electric cars completely dominate, and suddenly the Theilians look silly because all these "non-important" advances like, oh, computers and AI, suddenly solved a big problem, ignoring the fact that those same computers are already solving medical problems left and right, landing rockets from space, folding proteins, re-inventing Chess and Go, saving millions of man-hours of work, connecting people all over the world and greatly enhancing their general knowledge, amongst a few hundreds of other things.
  - nosianu 4y ago
    To get to your conclusion you ignore 99% of what my comment si about and concentrate on a single thing, cars. I don't like these kinds of arguments where people carefully select one minor thing and pretend it's the main point. I wrote about quite ab bit more, and cars were not even close to the center of my post! > I call friends and family, enhancing connections and communicating more. I also question the validity of statements such as these. It does not seem to me to be supported by evidence that our connections between people - and lets concentrate on connections between already connected people to remove the question if new tech lets us make new ones more often - are qualitatively better than in the past. I would think such a statement very much deserves a [Citation needed] response. I think a lot of your statements are equally... creative and subjective, or worse ("I don't die as often, living is productive.").
unchocked 4y ago
A 95 4Runner restored to like new condition would be an excellent ride today, Gad mileage notwithstanding. Run out vs. new is a straw man w/r/t/ old tech vs new.
- nwienert 4y ago
  It was super well maintained, nothing was wrong with it.
  - cudgy 4y ago
    You replaced all the shocks, suspension bushings, motor mounts, tie rods, seat cushions, etc? Without doing all that, you cannot compare the ride of a 20 year old car to a new car. You probably thought the car had nothing wrong with it, but you just got used to the harsher ride due the components wearing out over time.
    - nwienert 4y ago
      Yea, actually it was fully restored by the previous owner who was a mechanic, new engine (and gaskets which were famous for exploding on those models), suspension and all. Under 100k miles too and the body was perfect, even interior was amazing. I loved the car, but it just absolutely doesn’t compare to modern cars.
- throw__away7391 4y ago
  I haven't owned a car in well over a decade, but new cars in the 80s and 90s were just trash compared to the 2000s, and aside from the absence of manual transmissions and some models putting too many features behind touch-screens they only seem to have gotten better.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    I'd say around early 90s things started changing for the better in US cars... before then they were complete trash.
RachelF 4y ago
Your 22 Outlander won't last as long as your 1995 car. There's just too much tech in it that will go wrong, or be unsupported in 10 years. No one will know how to fix it. We are adding complexity where we should not be, but then cars are designed to be sold, not to be used for more than 3 years.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- 1123581321 4y ago
  Completely wrong, in aggregate. Vehicle longevity and reliability have significantly increased over that time period. However, when an unproven new car is compared to an old car that has already survived for a long time, it’s possible you may be right.
  - iratewizard 4y ago
    The same new cars that need the entire transmission replaced if any one thing goes wrong in it? Compared to those poorly built old cars where you could blow a gasket and just put a new one in?
    - 1123581321 4y ago
      Yes, exactly those. I would recommend reasoning backwards from the longevity statistics to the potential reasons for the changes to the designs of individual parts and systems.
      - iratewizard 4y ago
        Based on my calculations, it was money.
        1123581321 4y ago
        Sort of. Try looking at the relationship between longevity, resale value, purchase price and margin.
helloworld11 4y ago
But let's see how well your 22 Outlander functions in 26 years. Also, if you were in a poorly developed, remote area with simple infrastructure and no fully-modern auto mechanic shops, then your lovely car breaks down. How would you handle that? The 95 4Runner would be a much easier car to deal with. We often buy nice, comfortable, complex things with the assumption that the comfort and niceness of now as well as the infrastructure that lets them function well are static things that will never cease. Of course, they're not, and sometimes they can recede very abruptly.
- nwienert 4y ago
  Ok swap in a 22 Tacoma. You're arguing the specific when you should argue the general. Your second point is shifting the entire conversation to something else entirely.
chrisco255 4y ago
The point is not "how smooth your ride is" or "how nice your stereo system is" or what incremental bougie feature was added to standard cars in the ensuing 30 years. Fundamentally, you're not able to go anywhere with your 22 Outlander that a 95 4Runner wasn't able to go. You're not able to get anywhere quicker. Ok, manufacturers started caring about quality again after functional obsolescence faded away due to consumer tastes and competition. These are all iterative changes. You still stop at red lights. You still sit in traffic. You still have the same speed limit as everyone else. While someone from the 90s airdropped into 2022 would be impressed with the stock features of a '22 car, they would not experience any fundamental shift in the movement of goods and people. We still using the same barges, shipping containers, trains, cars & highways, and jets that we were back then.
- nwienert 4y ago
  It goes much faster (acceleration and confidence at high speeds), using half as much gas, at least 2x safety, while able to be more way productive while I drive, if I choose to (I mean I can call video call anyone at any time - show that to someone in the 90s and their mind would be blown). The car stops for me if I forget to stop behind cars, and it auto drives even in traffic, even to a stand-still in bumper-to-bumper. Having just done two 12+ hour road trips, each, in both cars, I can say that it's not the same. The 4Runner I arrive tired, angry, back hurting, and dizzy from focusing on the road every second, having spent way more on gas. With the new car, I basically enjoy podcasts and movies on my dash while keeping an eye on the road and it does the rest. We literally have mostly automated driving while turning cabins into ultra-premium dens filled to the brim with every comfort from massage to heat, and people claim it's not tangibly different. It's so, so different. Even lives saved due to all the safety features and hardware is like hundreds of thousands of human-years of productivity. Reducing it down to "technically they go the same speed" is a silly game to play, I can reduce any opposing argument down in a very narrow and specific way and "win", but that's not the game. I stand by cars being a great example of progress, and again we're talking velocity of change - compare 1968 car to 1995 cars to today, and it's not really debatable which one is a bigger leap. Finally, this bits vs atoms is stupid. It's another arbitrary way of slicing things to win an argument. But even if we did want to cut out computers, phones, AI, high speed internet, etc - which we totally shouldn't - you only have to look to SpaceX, or all the crazy new manufacturing tech like industrial 3D printers and AI-powered robotic arms that are actually driving all the innovation in things like cars.

nosianu 4y ago

The main point though is that you don't accomplish more. You get from A to B in about the same time. How much you like the experience does not change that there is not really a difference in the outcomes. I find it regrettable that sooo many comments focusing on "like" rather than actual hard results. The original topic is about the latter, not about the subjective experiences. And for results, a 1960s care got you from A to B pretty much the same as a 2022 one. That does not make the subjective aspect invalid, but I would at least like to see some self-awareness in comments that we are talking about at least two separate things, and arguments for one are not useful for the other. . Recently I also found myself thinking about another aspect. It was when I looked at the tram station not far form my house, which for a year or so has been upgraded to have a display with the expected arrival times of the next three trams. It sure is very convenient! However, compared to a similar transport system of fifty years ago, which achieved the same thing, we now have a lot of additional effort to maintain such infrastructure. It got waayyyy more complex, all the electronics, and software has to be written and maintained, screens installed and maintained, computer infrastructure - all just for some slight improvement in convenience. Is it worth it? I have no conclusion, I just have to think about that when I hear yet another "we need more 'Fachkräfte'" (skilled workers). How many people do we need for mostly just minor convenience upgrades? Sure, the transport system also can get more efficient with things like those displays. But here again, A LOT of additional effort, planning and thinking has to go into it for such gains to not just be theoretical. If we can afford it - sure, why not. It's just that I have to think about the challenges ahead: The more stuff we produce and have to use energy on the worse for climate change and resource use. I think it is good when new stuff is tried, but I have doubts that all those many minor "upgrades" are worth spreading so far. The effort for minor gains is gigantic, and we don't have free power, overabundance of skilled workers and free (material) resources (yet?). How much worse would for example said city tram system really be with less sophistication and IT? I've become a bit skeptical about my own line of work. IT is nice and all and I love it, but it also takes a lot of effort to prepare and also to maintain. Here took, too many only look at the gains, which of course do exist. But there is a bias "newer and more complex is better" IMO. Very much related: "Humans solve problems by adding complexity, even when it’s against our best interests" https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-problem-solving-nature/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2021/04/16/bias-prob... Nature (paywall, try Sci-Hub): https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00592-0 > Adding is favoured over subtracting in problem solving > A series of problem-solving experiments reveal that people are more likely to consider solutions that add features than solutions that remove them, even when removing features is more efficient. I think our economic and financial system is an additional driver. Not doing something is "being lazy" and is punished (unless you are wealthy already). If you manage to sell stuff that is useless or even detrimental, you are fine, and there still is a wide gap between this and doing something criminal. It looks to me like our own biases and our society and systems push us towards increasing complexity just for complexity's sake. Then come the biases that let us find the justifications but not see the downsides nearly as clearly. We also have a huge bias for measurable/quantifiable outcomes, and what things with an attachment to money. All this complexity relies on huge supply chains also for maintenance. Given the possible issues ahead, both political and climate, maybe less complexity and more locality and less international-network requirement might be a good idea.

nwienert 4y ago
What a horribly myopic take, it completely changes the "outcomes". I am way more productive and happy: - I save more money so I have more to spend towards productive uses. - I don't die as often, living is productive. - I listen to podcasts, diverse videos (just listening) or music, learning more during my drive. - I call friends and family, enhancing connections and communicating more. - The car drives for me, leaving me more relaxed and energized when I reach my destination, and I am more likely to travel further than I would normally. - The car is much safer, lowering anxiety, so I use it more often for productive uses and generally feel safer and happier, and therefore more productive. - It accelerates and coasts at higher speeds easily, so I get there faster. - My back doesn't get sore nearly as easily (I get back pain easily sitting up), a huge productivity boost. - The AC is cooler and heat is faster, sound is nicer, every material is nicer, tint is stronger, wipers are automatic and fast, lights are automatic and fast, etc etc - all this adds up to lower stress and higher safety, meaning less death, less injury, higher likelihood to use it productively, and less stress. To wave away these things as minor is a very Thiel-like thing to do, but I find it ridiculous. You want to go to space? To be in the most inhospitable environment possible? What does that do for us, again? I'd rather have better Wifi and more legroom on a flight than a rocketship that went 2x faster but didn't have either. We didn't get flying cars, we got unlimited knowledge and communication at the speed of light, even when flying through air. I'd like to fly a car, but again: Cars from then 2020s are spaceships compared to cars from the 90s, while cars from the 90s are not really much different than those from the 60s. Within a decade we likely have self-driving electric cars completely dominate, and suddenly the Theilians look silly because all these "non-important" advances like, oh, computers and AI, suddenly solved a big problem, ignoring the fact that those same computers are already solving medical problems left and right, landing rockets from space, folding proteins, re-inventing Chess and Go, saving millions of man-hours of work, connecting people all over the world and greatly enhancing their general knowledge, amongst a few hundreds of other things.
- nosianu 4y ago
  To get to your conclusion you ignore 99% of what my comment si about and concentrate on a single thing, cars. I don't like these kinds of arguments where people carefully select one minor thing and pretend it's the main point. I wrote about quite ab bit more, and cars were not even close to the center of my post! > I call friends and family, enhancing connections and communicating more. I also question the validity of statements such as these. It does not seem to me to be supported by evidence that our connections between people - and lets concentrate on connections between already connected people to remove the question if new tech lets us make new ones more often - are qualitatively better than in the past. I would think such a statement very much deserves a [Citation needed] response. I think a lot of your statements are equally... creative and subjective, or worse ("I don't die as often, living is productive.").

unchocked 4y ago

A 95 4Runner restored to like new condition would be an excellent ride today, Gad mileage notwithstanding. Run out vs. new is a straw man w/r/t/ old tech vs new.

nwienert 4y ago
It was super well maintained, nothing was wrong with it.
- cudgy 4y ago
  You replaced all the shocks, suspension bushings, motor mounts, tie rods, seat cushions, etc? Without doing all that, you cannot compare the ride of a 20 year old car to a new car. You probably thought the car had nothing wrong with it, but you just got used to the harsher ride due the components wearing out over time.
  - nwienert 4y ago
    Yea, actually it was fully restored by the previous owner who was a mechanic, new engine (and gaskets which were famous for exploding on those models), suspension and all. Under 100k miles too and the body was perfect, even interior was amazing. I loved the car, but it just absolutely doesn’t compare to modern cars.
throw__away7391 4y ago
I haven't owned a car in well over a decade, but new cars in the 80s and 90s were just trash compared to the 2000s, and aside from the absence of manual transmissions and some models putting too many features behind touch-screens they only seem to have gotten better.
- pixl97 4y ago
  I'd say around early 90s things started changing for the better in US cars... before then they were complete trash.

RachelF 4y ago

Your 22 Outlander won't last as long as your 1995 car. There's just too much tech in it that will go wrong, or be unsupported in 10 years. No one will know how to fix it. We are adding complexity where we should not be, but then cars are designed to be sold, not to be used for more than 3 years.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
1123581321 4y ago
Completely wrong, in aggregate. Vehicle longevity and reliability have significantly increased over that time period. However, when an unproven new car is compared to an old car that has already survived for a long time, it’s possible you may be right.
- iratewizard 4y ago
  The same new cars that need the entire transmission replaced if any one thing goes wrong in it? Compared to those poorly built old cars where you could blow a gasket and just put a new one in?
  - 1123581321 4y ago
    Yes, exactly those. I would recommend reasoning backwards from the longevity statistics to the potential reasons for the changes to the designs of individual parts and systems.
    - iratewizard 4y ago
      Based on my calculations, it was money.
      - 1123581321 4y ago
        Sort of. Try looking at the relationship between longevity, resale value, purchase price and margin.

helloworld11 4y ago

But let's see how well your 22 Outlander functions in 26 years. Also, if you were in a poorly developed, remote area with simple infrastructure and no fully-modern auto mechanic shops, then your lovely car breaks down. How would you handle that? The 95 4Runner would be a much easier car to deal with. We often buy nice, comfortable, complex things with the assumption that the comfort and niceness of now as well as the infrastructure that lets them function well are static things that will never cease. Of course, they're not, and sometimes they can recede very abruptly.

nwienert 4y ago
Ok swap in a 22 Tacoma. You're arguing the specific when you should argue the general. Your second point is shifting the entire conversation to something else entirely.

chrisco255 4y ago

The point is not "how smooth your ride is" or "how nice your stereo system is" or what incremental bougie feature was added to standard cars in the ensuing 30 years. Fundamentally, you're not able to go anywhere with your 22 Outlander that a 95 4Runner wasn't able to go. You're not able to get anywhere quicker. Ok, manufacturers started caring about quality again after functional obsolescence faded away due to consumer tastes and competition. These are all iterative changes. You still stop at red lights. You still sit in traffic. You still have the same speed limit as everyone else. While someone from the 90s airdropped into 2022 would be impressed with the stock features of a '22 car, they would not experience any fundamental shift in the movement of goods and people. We still using the same barges, shipping containers, trains, cars & highways, and jets that we were back then.

nwienert 4y ago
It goes much faster (acceleration and confidence at high speeds), using half as much gas, at least 2x safety, while able to be more way productive while I drive, if I choose to (I mean I can call video call anyone at any time - show that to someone in the 90s and their mind would be blown). The car stops for me if I forget to stop behind cars, and it auto drives even in traffic, even to a stand-still in bumper-to-bumper. Having just done two 12+ hour road trips, each, in both cars, I can say that it's not the same. The 4Runner I arrive tired, angry, back hurting, and dizzy from focusing on the road every second, having spent way more on gas. With the new car, I basically enjoy podcasts and movies on my dash while keeping an eye on the road and it does the rest. We literally have mostly automated driving while turning cabins into ultra-premium dens filled to the brim with every comfort from massage to heat, and people claim it's not tangibly different. It's so, so different. Even lives saved due to all the safety features and hardware is like hundreds of thousands of human-years of productivity. Reducing it down to "technically they go the same speed" is a silly game to play, I can reduce any opposing argument down in a very narrow and specific way and "win", but that's not the game. I stand by cars being a great example of progress, and again we're talking velocity of change - compare 1968 car to 1995 cars to today, and it's not really debatable which one is a bigger leap. Finally, this bits vs atoms is stupid. It's another arbitrary way of slicing things to win an argument. But even if we did want to cut out computers, phones, AI, high speed internet, etc - which we totally shouldn't - you only have to look to SpaceX, or all the crazy new manufacturing tech like industrial 3D printers and AI-powered robotic arms that are actually driving all the innovation in things like cars.