3 ms·

This assumes a bidet is objectively better than a regular toilet. That is debatable. It's not debatable these electric showerheads are objectively better, just

by Alupis 2y ago

This assumes a bidet is objectively better than a regular toilet. That is debatable. It's not debatable these electric showerheads are objectively better, just because some poorer communities around the world use them.

kragen 2y ago
well, it only assumes that bidets are subjectively better to many people, which they certainly are; it doesn't rely on the assumption of an objective, observer-independent scale of valuation in the way you're describing (bidets aren't an alternative to a regular toilet, and the fact that you think they are is a minor indicator of why it's difficult for even widespread, highly beneficial innovations to become universal even after centuries) not only is it debatable whether or not electric showers are better in that sense, i have in fact debated it; i refer you to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41250642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41250642 and eagerly await your opinion
- Alupis 2y ago
  If given the option, free of charge, to continue using electrified showerheads or using whole-home water heating... how many would continue to use electrified showerheads? The fact that they are only common in poor and impoverished areas, tells you everything you need to know. This argument is a lot like asserting instant-coffee is better than fresh brewed coffee because some people have no alternative choice.
  - kragen 2y ago
    probably most people would continue to use either what they're familiar with or what they think is fancier, with little regard to what they would actually like more—in the same way that many people have opted to live in suburbs where the commute makes them miserable, or drink and smoke heavily despite the impact on their health, or date abusive partners humans are not automatically strategic. one reason is that they're subject to many kinds of irrationality; the particular species you are currently exhibiting is known as 'the fallacy of affirming the consequent' a pretty large fraction would continue using electric showers just because they're familiar with them—but that is at best only a very weak argument. we can do better than that by debating their actual advantages and disadvantages, as i did in the linked comment, rather than mindlessly subscribing to vox populi, vox dei if given the option, free of charge, to install a bidet in your house, would you take it? evidently not, because you don't know what a bidet is or how to use it. the same could be said of most people installing a computer in their house 50 years ago. or many modern innovations today, like a gfci, corningware, and borosilicate oven dishes, some of which have fallen out of use because consumers didn't understand them using a cellphone instead of a landline was only common in impoverished areas 30 years ago, and even today, having front-door locks that are hard to pick are still only common in impoverished areas. also, speaking lingala is only common in impoverished areas. that's not because there's anything wrong with lingala finally, as it happens, my wife prefers instant coffee to fresh-brewed coffee

by Alupis 2y ago

kragen 2y ago

well, it only assumes that bidets are subjectively better to many people, which they certainly are; it doesn't rely on the assumption of an objective, observer-independent scale of valuation in the way you're describing (bidets aren't an alternative to a regular toilet, and the fact that you think they are is a minor indicator of why it's difficult for even widespread, highly beneficial innovations to become universal even after centuries) not only is it debatable whether or not electric showers are better in that sense, i have in fact debated it; i refer you to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41250642 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41250642 and eagerly await your opinion

Alupis 2y ago
If given the option, free of charge, to continue using electrified showerheads or using whole-home water heating... how many would continue to use electrified showerheads? The fact that they are only common in poor and impoverished areas, tells you everything you need to know. This argument is a lot like asserting instant-coffee is better than fresh brewed coffee because some people have no alternative choice.
- kragen 2y ago
  probably most people would continue to use either what they're familiar with or what they think is fancier, with little regard to what they would actually like more—in the same way that many people have opted to live in suburbs where the commute makes them miserable, or drink and smoke heavily despite the impact on their health, or date abusive partners humans are not automatically strategic. one reason is that they're subject to many kinds of irrationality; the particular species you are currently exhibiting is known as 'the fallacy of affirming the consequent' a pretty large fraction would continue using electric showers just because they're familiar with them—but that is at best only a very weak argument. we can do better than that by debating their actual advantages and disadvantages, as i did in the linked comment, rather than mindlessly subscribing to vox populi, vox dei if given the option, free of charge, to install a bidet in your house, would you take it? evidently not, because you don't know what a bidet is or how to use it. the same could be said of most people installing a computer in their house 50 years ago. or many modern innovations today, like a gfci, corningware, and borosilicate oven dishes, some of which have fallen out of use because consumers didn't understand them using a cellphone instead of a landline was only common in impoverished areas 30 years ago, and even today, having front-door locks that are hard to pick are still only common in impoverished areas. also, speaking lingala is only common in impoverished areas. that's not because there's anything wrong with lingala finally, as it happens, my wife prefers instant coffee to fresh-brewed coffee