4 ms·

Well, I still feel the age of the platform, its use case, means that the B-52 is a good thing to point to. But, OK, fair enough... the rigors of military maint

by b112 1y ago

Well, I still feel the age of the platform, its use case, means that the B-52 is a good thing to point to. But, OK, fair enough... the rigors of military maintenance are indeed there, and of use. And as you've demonstrated, more rigorous than I thought. I'll take another tact here. https://forcedistancetimes.com/asymmetric-why-china-still-cant-make-ballpoint-pens/ https://forcedistancetimes.com/asymmetric-why-china-still-ca... You may be aware, but it wasn't until 2017? that China could make a ball point pen from domestic parts. The tolerances of the ball, the machinery to make it, the quality of steel... just wasn't there. Yet we've had that in the West for most of a century? Regardless, it's not about specific timelines, but instead about the fact that most of our modern world could not be crafted by hand. Modern molding, quality of steel and components, machine tolerances, all of this means we're able to make products to tolerances and specifications that were simply impossible before. The reason I stressed the Volvo, the B-52, is because they are platforms known for fixing stress points, early wear, resolving manufacturing defects, and becoming far more reliable as a result. Unlike modern manufacturers, who mostly derive profit from full replacement of dead products, the profit motive for the Volvo and the B-52 aren't there in the same capacity. I have nothing against profit, but in this case I do believe it has resulted in far less research into reliability. And the constant churn for 'new new', results in change with little benefit but a constant change to manufacturing methods, and so on. It's so demonstrably bad, that Quebec (where I live) has passed laws stating that appliances such as fridges, are good not for a year, or two years, but instead a 'reasonable timeframe'. It's purposely vague, for example a single person buying a $1500 fridge, vs someone buying a $800 with a family of 4 might expect more wear and tear, and the warranty not quite as long. But the reason behind this law, is fridges used to last a least a decade, meanwhile LG fridges often fail in just a few years these days. Back to the main point, we have the ability to product parts with incredible consistence and to very finite tolerances. Modern failures are no more down to type of material (you cite rubber, and yes that can be an issue), or to unexpected wear. What I've been trying to convey is, we have part manufacturing down quite well now. Longer term platforms without change, and constant improvement on unexpected wear points, would result in far better outcomes on that front. This is a far cry from the original post I replied to, which felt robots would have little use from the overwhelming maintenance costs.

rimunroe 1y ago
I was never arguing that we couldn’t make things more reliable, just that a fridge which lasts 40 years without any failures isn’t realistic
- b112 1y ago
  But it can be, that's my point. It can be! In another post, I spoke of a leasing model. Now to be clear, I am 100% against a leasing model of ownership foisted upon us all, for everything we own. However fridges are a good example, as when they break food spoils. Potentially some expensive food, such a frozen meat. If they were leased, and if it was mandated that under leasing models the company was responsible for replacement food costs? Then I firmly believe, under that failure cost, that in under a decade fridges would last 100+ years without maintenance. Products used to last longer, they really and truly did. That's why that law was passed in Quebec, and it's not the only place. We had products which lasted longer in the 60s in some cases, "over-engineered", yet our manufacturing capabilities and tolerances and quality control were not on par, not even close with our capabilities now. I am literally more than doubling down on my statement, my 100+ years compared to 40 years. The motive isn't there, it isn't a lack of capability. Anyhow, I suspect you still don't agree. But I do believe you'd agree that there isn't a profit motive in many aspects of our market for tireless improvements? And that, even if you think my statements are fantastical, you still may agree that we could do better?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - rimunroe 1y ago
    > But it can be, that's my point. It can be! You have not explained how. You've just described ways you think we could incentivize longer-lasting products. Having incentives doesn't make materials science or engineering magically be able to do things it couldn't before, especially when such incentives aren't new. I'm interested in hearing your actual technical points as to how we can address any of the problems I've mentioned, not just your assertions that it's clearly doable somehow. > We had products which lasted longer in the 60s in some cases, "over-engineered", yet our manufacturing capabilities and tolerances and quality control were not on par, not even close with our capabilities now. I never argued things didn't last longer in the past, and I'm not sure why you're acting like I did. I do think appliances are more prone to failure today, though I also think the reputation for things in the past lasting so long is heavily biased by the fact that repairing devices (i.e. maintenance) was more common back then, and because we didn't worry about safety or efficiency nearly as much, and because of good old survivorship bias. > I am literally more than doubling down on my statement, my 100+ years compared to 40 years. The motive isn't there, it isn't a lack of capability. As an example, humans have been trying to prevent corrosion of metal objects for literally thousands of years. The global annual economic impact of corrosion today is estimated at $2.5 trillion. We've made major advances in materials science and have alloys, coatings, and other technologies which have allowed a lot of applications which just wouldn't have been possible in the past, but most of those have still happened over the course of centuries. There are enormous, unfathomable incentives to come up with better materials and components outside of the home appliance industry, but they have to deal with the same problems and struggle just as much or more. > Then I firmly believe, under that failure cost, that in under a decade fridges would last 100+ years without maintenance. Again, you'll need to explain what materials we'll use for this, or how tighter manufacturing tolerances would allow such an enormous increase in longevity, much less without increasing costs astronomically. Overall I think you're being far too optimistic about how long components which need to run nearly constantly for decades can last even under ideal circumstances. I think you're being unbelievably optimistic in thinking that even if such products were possible they could be done for anywhere even near the price the average fridge costs these days. > But I do believe you'd agree that there isn't a profit motive in many aspects of our market for tireless improvements? To a degree, yes, but I also think people who argue that we don't make devices like we used to miss that as a society we don't want the devices we used to. > And that, even if you think my statements are fantastical, you still may agree that we could do better? I'd never argue that we can't do better. I will argue that your idea of a fridge (especially a modern one) which lasts 40-50 years (much less over a century) is ludicrous. It's certainly possible you'd have an individual fridge which lasts an incredibly long time without maintenance, but such survivals will always be the rare exception rather than the norm.

by b112 1y ago

rimunroe 1y ago

I was never arguing that we couldn’t make things more reliable, just that a fridge which lasts 40 years without any failures isn’t realistic

b112 1y ago
But it can be, that's my point. It can be! In another post, I spoke of a leasing model. Now to be clear, I am 100% against a leasing model of ownership foisted upon us all, for everything we own. However fridges are a good example, as when they break food spoils. Potentially some expensive food, such a frozen meat. If they were leased, and if it was mandated that under leasing models the company was responsible for replacement food costs? Then I firmly believe, under that failure cost, that in under a decade fridges would last 100+ years without maintenance. Products used to last longer, they really and truly did. That's why that law was passed in Quebec, and it's not the only place. We had products which lasted longer in the 60s in some cases, "over-engineered", yet our manufacturing capabilities and tolerances and quality control were not on par, not even close with our capabilities now. I am literally more than doubling down on my statement, my 100+ years compared to 40 years. The motive isn't there, it isn't a lack of capability. Anyhow, I suspect you still don't agree. But I do believe you'd agree that there isn't a profit motive in many aspects of our market for tireless improvements? And that, even if you think my statements are fantastical, you still may agree that we could do better?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- rimunroe 1y ago
  > But it can be, that's my point. It can be! You have not explained how. You've just described ways you think we could incentivize longer-lasting products. Having incentives doesn't make materials science or engineering magically be able to do things it couldn't before, especially when such incentives aren't new. I'm interested in hearing your actual technical points as to how we can address any of the problems I've mentioned, not just your assertions that it's clearly doable somehow. > We had products which lasted longer in the 60s in some cases, "over-engineered", yet our manufacturing capabilities and tolerances and quality control were not on par, not even close with our capabilities now. I never argued things didn't last longer in the past, and I'm not sure why you're acting like I did. I do think appliances are more prone to failure today, though I also think the reputation for things in the past lasting so long is heavily biased by the fact that repairing devices (i.e. maintenance) was more common back then, and because we didn't worry about safety or efficiency nearly as much, and because of good old survivorship bias. > I am literally more than doubling down on my statement, my 100+ years compared to 40 years. The motive isn't there, it isn't a lack of capability. As an example, humans have been trying to prevent corrosion of metal objects for literally thousands of years. The global annual economic impact of corrosion today is estimated at $2.5 trillion. We've made major advances in materials science and have alloys, coatings, and other technologies which have allowed a lot of applications which just wouldn't have been possible in the past, but most of those have still happened over the course of centuries. There are enormous, unfathomable incentives to come up with better materials and components outside of the home appliance industry, but they have to deal with the same problems and struggle just as much or more. > Then I firmly believe, under that failure cost, that in under a decade fridges would last 100+ years without maintenance. Again, you'll need to explain what materials we'll use for this, or how tighter manufacturing tolerances would allow such an enormous increase in longevity, much less without increasing costs astronomically. Overall I think you're being far too optimistic about how long components which need to run nearly constantly for decades can last even under ideal circumstances. I think you're being unbelievably optimistic in thinking that even if such products were possible they could be done for anywhere even near the price the average fridge costs these days. > But I do believe you'd agree that there isn't a profit motive in many aspects of our market for tireless improvements? To a degree, yes, but I also think people who argue that we don't make devices like we used to miss that as a society we don't want the devices we used to. > And that, even if you think my statements are fantastical, you still may agree that we could do better? I'd never argue that we can't do better. I will argue that your idea of a fridge (especially a modern one) which lasts 40-50 years (much less over a century) is ludicrous. It's certainly possible you'd have an individual fridge which lasts an incredibly long time without maintenance, but such survivals will always be the rare exception rather than the norm.