3 ms·
The problem there is almost certainly people using "efficient" when they mean "fast" or "productive." Easiest example for that, in the past, was people mistake
by taeric 3y ago
The problem there is almost certainly people using "efficient" when they mean "fast" or "productive." Easiest example for that, in the past, was people mistakenly thinking gas stoves were more efficient than electric. Not even getting into induction, which can also be fast, the standard electric stove tops were far more efficient than the gas counterparts.
So, my guess on why people don't use this is that they can get more output from other designs. Even if they are "less efficient."
- sholladay 3y agoThis reminds me of how annoying “efficient” appliances are. To comply with increasingly strict energy and water regulations, modern washing machines have small capacities. But that just means I have to do two loads. It’s not actually efficient at all. Certainly not time efficient. Each load probably has some energy and water overhead as well, so more is worse. Also, since agitators require energy, they are becoming less common, so the clothes are less clean, too, and that probably leads to extra loads being done. The way we talk about and regulate efficiency is all messed up.