3 ms·

I know this is an article about Lisp and the specific usage of this term in the context of software acceptance, but when you use a title that provocative I want

I know this is an article about Lisp and the specific usage of this term in the context of software acceptance, but when you use a title that provocative I want to speak specifically about the idea of "Worse is Better" with respect to a more literal idea of "sometimes things get worse overtime but you are told they have improved" For example, why is it that central vacuums are more rare in 2024 than they were in the 1980s, despite them being superior in every way compared to regular ones? "Worse" vacuums are "better" for the economy? (because Dyson makes jobs and consumes resources?)

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
Central vacuums are worse in at least one specific way: Cost of fixing or replacing them when they break.
- ezekiel68 2y ago
  True; but my family and neighbors had them and they seemed to last forever. Maybe they were made so well that the company couldn't gain repeat sales often enough.
- floren 2y ago
  Also, I can take my regular vacuum out into the garage and clean the car.
pjc50 2y ago
What the heck is a central vaccum? One plumbed into the house? Isn't that spectacularly expensive?
- stonemetal12 2y ago
  >A main disadvantage of central vacuums is the higher initial cost. In the United States, the average central vacuum system has an installed cost of around $1,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_vacuum_cleaner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_vacuum_cleaner Considering the price of a house it isn't "spectacularly expensive". On the other hand vs the price of a hoover yeah a bit. Since it sits in a closet or garage and doesn't move, weight becomes a non issue so it can be a real behemoth of a vacuum.
  - pm215 2y ago
    Seems like it could be rather expensive to retrofit, compared to cost of putting it in the house to start with (certainly I couldn't imagine getting it retrofitted into my UK house -- the labour alone to dig channels into walls and then make good again and redecorate would dwarf the equipment cost). But the thing about features put in a house when it's built is that they have to meet the economic bar of "do potential buyers value them enough to pay XYZ more than they otherwise would", which can be quite hard. If the average buyer wouldn't value the house at an extra $1000 then it's not worth the builder installing one...
  - jen20 2y ago
    I have one (in a ~2yo house). It's a nice idea, but practically the hoses are a pain in the ass, and I still use my Dyson almost exclusively.
- kragen 2y ago
  Yes, one plumbed into the house.
- sophacles 2y ago
  > Isn't that spectacularly expensive? Not spectacularly expensive when installed as the house is built. It's another run of pvc pipe in the walls before you close them up. Approx a day of labor and some pipe are the added expense - not much in terms of house building cost at all. Hardwood floors are much more expensive - and still need to be swept or vacuumed.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago

Central vacuums are worse in at least one specific way: Cost of fixing or replacing them when they break.

ezekiel68 2y ago
True; but my family and neighbors had them and they seemed to last forever. Maybe they were made so well that the company couldn't gain repeat sales often enough.
floren 2y ago
Also, I can take my regular vacuum out into the garage and clean the car.

pjc50 2y ago

What the heck is a central vaccum? One plumbed into the house? Isn't that spectacularly expensive?

stonemetal12 2y ago
>A main disadvantage of central vacuums is the higher initial cost. In the United States, the average central vacuum system has an installed cost of around $1,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_vacuum_cleaner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_vacuum_cleaner Considering the price of a house it isn't "spectacularly expensive". On the other hand vs the price of a hoover yeah a bit. Since it sits in a closet or garage and doesn't move, weight becomes a non issue so it can be a real behemoth of a vacuum.
- pm215 2y ago
  Seems like it could be rather expensive to retrofit, compared to cost of putting it in the house to start with (certainly I couldn't imagine getting it retrofitted into my UK house -- the labour alone to dig channels into walls and then make good again and redecorate would dwarf the equipment cost). But the thing about features put in a house when it's built is that they have to meet the economic bar of "do potential buyers value them enough to pay XYZ more than they otherwise would", which can be quite hard. If the average buyer wouldn't value the house at an extra $1000 then it's not worth the builder installing one...
- jen20 2y ago
  I have one (in a ~2yo house). It's a nice idea, but practically the hoses are a pain in the ass, and I still use my Dyson almost exclusively.
kragen 2y ago
Yes, one plumbed into the house.
sophacles 2y ago
> Isn't that spectacularly expensive? Not spectacularly expensive when installed as the house is built. It's another run of pvc pipe in the walls before you close them up. Approx a day of labor and some pipe are the added expense - not much in terms of house building cost at all. Hardwood floors are much more expensive - and still need to be swept or vacuumed.