this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
117 points (100.0% liked)
Asklemmy
43936 readers
517 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If I remember correctly, one such example is the lightbulb. Some of the earliest designs were centered around using longer-lasting filaments than their contemporary counterparts, which meant considerably increased lifespan.
They still made them too. 130V bulbs / garage bulbs / heavy duty bulbs all lasted far longer on 120V because the filament was thicker. They basically never went out.
There's a famous example of one of these bulbs that's been in operation since 1901
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light
Until some bastard up on Denali shot a football through it, just so humanity would feel loss for the first time in 15,000 years.
They grieved over a bulb cause they hadnβt lost anything else.
There is a trade-off between efficiency and durability on incandescent light bulbs. They did sell bulbs that lasted longer, but those had lower lumen/watt.
For generic bulbs, the cost of electricity was significantly greater than the cost of the bulb. It was cheaper to replace bulbs more frequently than to waste electricity.
Sure, but those kinds of lights are very dim. You can just use a dimmer bulb set to very low if you want that kind of longevity.
Technology connections did a video on it. Basically the lights which lasted forever either; sucked at giving light and/or sucked at sucking power.
Light manufacturers got together and made a standard which was a sweet spot of power efficiency, longevity and light output. Unfortunately, being decent at all three meant no longer sucking at two to boost longevity.
Every time I think I understand a household appliance, Technology Connections has a 20-60 minute explaining why itβs more complicated than I thought.
Heh.
I don't get it.
Longevity wasn't a metric the Phoebus Cartel was actively maximising
Once upon a time, stuff was made to last...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Light
That's only because that light has been running non-stop, and at very low power. It's the on/off cycles that kills the filament.
Plus, the whole "they used to make stuff to last" thing is just survivorship bias. They absolutely made garbage products in the past, but those didn't survive.
Plus, most things like appliances were major purchases. People today don't want to/can't drop the equivalent of $400 on a toaster or $3k on a washing machine.
Ah, but that's just it, lightbulbs were the beginning of enshittification. Once lightbulb manufacturers realized people weren't coming back to buy more bulbs very often, they started deliberately making them to burn out a bit faster, to make them more of a consumable product.
Do note, there's a difference between a conspiracy theory and an actual conspiracy. This actually happened yo, and we're still suffering with this sort of deliberately short lived shit today..
https://youtu.be/ulUI7JsFjZU
With light bulbs, there is a trade off between longevity and efficiency.
Efficient shorter lasting bulbs are the superior product, they save the consumer money (at the expense of the inconvenience of having to replace them a little more often)
Meanwhile, after they mastered the process of making LEDs, they were quoted to have a half life of around 400 years, meaning that after 400 years continuous use, they'd be expected to emit about half as much light as they did new.
Now what did they go and do? They ramped up the power and made them blindingly bright, yet only last like 5 years or so, if you're lucky.
And the cycle of enshittification continues...
Producing quality LEDs is a hella process. Producing shit LEDs is cheap.
There are several layers (7?) and a crack of a micron or three will suck the life out of it. Add to that shitty controllers and we get shitty LEDs. But they're cheap!
I've got a couple of red LEDs that were made for the original IBM PC. They still work flawlessly.
It's usually not the LED that fails, but the driver
I agree that there is survivorship bias, but I disagree that its "just" that.
Things are made cheaper today, regardless. There are $400 toasters, but I guarantee that one wouldn't last as long as a 1950s toaster.
Plumbing fixtures are a better example, as essentially you can't find one that is equivalent of a 50 year old faucet, no matter the price. They just don't make them like that.
Electronic components are another factor. First off, we stopped using lead in solder which results in weaker, more brittle connections. They just don't last as long. True, we have advancements that make components run hotter in certain scenarios (so those connections get more stress) but even disregarding that the fact still stands it's not as good.
Then we added those electronics into everything to make them "better". Old washing machines were essentially all mechanical so they would run forever, and be easy to maintain or fix. Now they have computers running them that are designed to not be fixed.
Its hard to find a company today that wants to make a good product. They just want to make one that is good enough. Our culture has shifted to that mindset. Things don't last as long, so we switched to a disposable mindset.