5 ms·

We can make things that last for decades, we just choose not to. Planned obsolescence is a business strategy, as is rapid breakdown of things we buy. A generi

by b112 1y ago

We can make things that last for decades, we just choose not to. Planned obsolescence is a business strategy, as is rapid breakdown of things we buy. A generic example, fridges could easily last 40 to 50 years without maintenance. They wouldn't be all that more expensive either. Volvo, and the B-52 bomber program showed this, with Volvo having some models unchanged for 20 years. The B-52 has been in service longer than most people have been alive. Each time an early wear or failure point is found in the B-52, it is documented, fixed, and rolled out to all B-52s. Their ancient, but more reliable than newer bombers and require less maintenance. We could do this for everything. Design a fridge, and after 10 years collect the failures and see how they broke. Keep selling the same fridge, the same parts, and eventually it's a rock. We don't do this, companies don't do this, because it's not best for profit. So my point is robot maintenance could be minor, and if it was purely a lease model, would remain minor... because the company would profit from lower overall maintenance costs. Lastly, compare a robot to a car driving 100s of thousands of KM. I've driven new cars to 150000km with almost no failure of any kind (except brakes. tires). So maybe not as bad as thought.

rimunroe 1y ago
> A generic example, fridges could easily last 40 to 50 years without maintenance. They wouldn't be all that more expensive either. Volvo, and the B-52 bomber program showed this, with Volvo having some models unchanged for 20 years. The B-52 has been in service longer than most people have been alive. B-52s require regular inspections and maintenance just like any other aircraft. A fridge is less complicated, but it's still a machine. Even my grandfather's clock needed some work done every couple decades, and it didn't contain refrigerant, a compressor, fans, or have to deal with condensation.
- b112 1y ago
  Yes but how old are the B-52s? And how much maintenance? All the parts that have been shown to wear rapidly, have been reengineered and updated across the fleet. Compared to newer platforms, it's a rock.
  - rimunroe 1y ago
    I was responding to you saying we could make fridges which could easily last 40-50 years without maintenance (and somehow not cost much more). > Yes but how old are the B-52s? And how much maintenance? They get heavy, months-long maintenance where they replace major components (often including major structural ones) every four years. Presumably there is more frequent minor maintenance before then. I don’t imagine their age of 70ish years is really relevant since I assume they’re approaching Ships of Theseus at this point.
    - b112 1y ago
      I was responding to you saying we could make fridges Well OK, but you starting out by discussing the B-52, so I responded in kind. They get heavy, months-long maintenance where they replace major components Unless the documentary I watched was wrong, and of course it could be, that isn't "just replace things because". Instead, it's "if those components need replacement". Now, I do recall that sometimes they'll discover an early-wear component, and do fleet-wide upgrades to fix that flaw. But that's different than maintenance to replace worn parts, for of course all B-52s fly different missions, have different wear as a result. My point is, some of those B-52s are being inspected, but not having much done to them, where as others a lot more. I don't think you can really, fairly compared a long running platform like the B-52 with a newer aircraft. Not in terms of stability of the platform, because the concept here is "fixing engineering defects that exhibit early wear". Whenever I buy a car, I attempt to never buy the first year of a model revision. I wait until near the end of that run, often 4 or 5 years in, as car manufacturers constantly update assembly and build to deal with parts they've seen as early-wear. This isn't really debatable in a meaningful way, it's simply what's done. And that's my point. If you look at my original post, I specify that the way to get 'stable', is to keep the exact same platform, and improve early wear points. The post I responded to said: Wear-and-tear, particularly on a heavy lifting robot, would probably be their biggest cost and might always outweigh the cost savings. So you can see why I was specifying how this can be mitigated. But all of that said, we clearly know this really isn't true. While people will still use shovels, we now have backhoes for a reason. People could use horses, but we have cars for a reason. Mechanical replacements exist for almost everything, and the wear and tear is cost effective and worth it, even with the price of fuel, maintenance, and regular upkeep. And, even along with the fact that companies engineer for planned obsolescence and forced replacement.
dragonwriter 1y ago
> A generic example, fridges could easily last 40 to 50 years without maintenance. They wouldn't be all that more expensive either. Volvo, and the B-52 bomber program showed this, with Volvo having some models unchanged for 20 years. The B-52 has been in service longer than most people have been alive. Neither Volvos (presumably, a reference to their cars) nor B-52s are maintenance-free, even if they have long service lives with proper maintenance, so I don’t see how either supports your argument that fridges could easily be made to last decades without maintenance.

by b112 1y ago

rimunroe 1y ago

> A generic example, fridges could easily last 40 to 50 years without maintenance. They wouldn't be all that more expensive either. Volvo, and the B-52 bomber program showed this, with Volvo having some models unchanged for 20 years. The B-52 has been in service longer than most people have been alive. B-52s require regular inspections and maintenance just like any other aircraft. A fridge is less complicated, but it's still a machine. Even my grandfather's clock needed some work done every couple decades, and it didn't contain refrigerant, a compressor, fans, or have to deal with condensation.

b112 1y ago
Yes but how old are the B-52s? And how much maintenance? All the parts that have been shown to wear rapidly, have been reengineered and updated across the fleet. Compared to newer platforms, it's a rock.
- rimunroe 1y ago
  I was responding to you saying we could make fridges which could easily last 40-50 years without maintenance (and somehow not cost much more). > Yes but how old are the B-52s? And how much maintenance? They get heavy, months-long maintenance where they replace major components (often including major structural ones) every four years. Presumably there is more frequent minor maintenance before then. I don’t imagine their age of 70ish years is really relevant since I assume they’re approaching Ships of Theseus at this point.
  - b112 1y ago
    I was responding to you saying we could make fridges Well OK, but you starting out by discussing the B-52, so I responded in kind. They get heavy, months-long maintenance where they replace major components Unless the documentary I watched was wrong, and of course it could be, that isn't "just replace things because". Instead, it's "if those components need replacement". Now, I do recall that sometimes they'll discover an early-wear component, and do fleet-wide upgrades to fix that flaw. But that's different than maintenance to replace worn parts, for of course all B-52s fly different missions, have different wear as a result. My point is, some of those B-52s are being inspected, but not having much done to them, where as others a lot more. I don't think you can really, fairly compared a long running platform like the B-52 with a newer aircraft. Not in terms of stability of the platform, because the concept here is "fixing engineering defects that exhibit early wear". Whenever I buy a car, I attempt to never buy the first year of a model revision. I wait until near the end of that run, often 4 or 5 years in, as car manufacturers constantly update assembly and build to deal with parts they've seen as early-wear. This isn't really debatable in a meaningful way, it's simply what's done. And that's my point. If you look at my original post, I specify that the way to get 'stable', is to keep the exact same platform, and improve early wear points. The post I responded to said: Wear-and-tear, particularly on a heavy lifting robot, would probably be their biggest cost and might always outweigh the cost savings. So you can see why I was specifying how this can be mitigated. But all of that said, we clearly know this really isn't true. While people will still use shovels, we now have backhoes for a reason. People could use horses, but we have cars for a reason. Mechanical replacements exist for almost everything, and the wear and tear is cost effective and worth it, even with the price of fuel, maintenance, and regular upkeep. And, even along with the fact that companies engineer for planned obsolescence and forced replacement.

dragonwriter 1y ago

> A generic example, fridges could easily last 40 to 50 years without maintenance. They wouldn't be all that more expensive either. Volvo, and the B-52 bomber program showed this, with Volvo having some models unchanged for 20 years. The B-52 has been in service longer than most people have been alive. Neither Volvos (presumably, a reference to their cars) nor B-52s are maintenance-free, even if they have long service lives with proper maintenance, so I don’t see how either supports your argument that fridges could easily be made to last decades without maintenance.