Though I should note that this would be the "SSSR" since I was clearly using the latin alphabet, even if I had chosen to use the Russian name of the USSR.
I'm sure they would choose real factory building instead if it was just as easy (at least, I would)
- no bureaucracy/planning conflicts, you are the sole dictator
- full vertical integration, no supply costs or land costs
- building is near-instant and perfectly reversible
- machines don't have 6 month lead times or go out of stock
- maintenance is done by magic, machines never break down
- infinite research and information to build every machine from scratch
When I play Factorio with my friends, I don't have to sit through 1 hour planning meetings where half the people don't know what game we're playing and the other half want to make all decisions by committee in a future, unscheduled meeting.
I like the idealism, but an important factor making this viable is that people (i.e. employers) must realise that this fundamental reasoning is scarce and pay enough for it to support life, and this must happen before AI takes over.
Intriguing. That circuit board definitely looks like a little company's product from decades ago or a one-off - no silkscreen, single layer, "yellow" board material. Also, in the bottom right, it looks like there are some pads that have been left undrilled. As long as those three mains coloured cables in the bottom left aren't mains, it looks reasonable to keep running (there's not a lot of clearance between that area and the microcontroller...)
Also looks like it was hand assembled, by the component mounting. Wires soldered straight to board isn't great, but not a huge issue if stationary and undisturbed.
It surprises me how the US loves their top-loading washers. Here in the UK, there isn't the complex (though interesting) "transmission": the drum has fins to act as both agitator and spin-dryer. This means it's just a boring belt drive between motor and drum (or direct drive, for newer machines.)
One advantage of top loaders is that they don't have handedness. So wall and door and air vent and water tap location don't fight against appliance door swing...also the distance between door jambs can be a meaningful number of inches narrower.
This will be more of a factor to any degree that US appliances tend to be larger than their European counter-parts (and my WAG is that's the case). In part because in the US, front loaders are a more premium product.
[edit: side note -- issues with fitment are a substantial problem for retailers, returns are expensive].
Mainly it's just everybody grew up using top-loaders, though it's also easier to get clothes in and out of a top-loader than a front (unless you have a huge machine). [edit]Oh, and also the up-front cost of a top-loader was about $100 less when I last bought a machine.
I've used a front-loader now for years and the only thing I really miss from my top-loader is that I could just leave the lid open for it to dry out. The door of the front-loader is perennially in the way if you leave it wide open, so we have to prop it open to prevent mildew.
I once had top-loader in the bathroom of an apartment that I lived in by myself.
Leaving the lid wide open was a pretty great way of living life. I'd shed my clothes to take a shower and just toss them directly into the washing machine. When it came time to start a load it was a simple matter to put some soap in and push start.
I dunno why anyone would want a front loader. If the seal fails, you have water on your floor. If the machine fails during the wash cycle, again, no way to easily get your clothes out without getting water on the floor. If a top loader fails, neither of these things can happen.
Got a new LG washer, but some clothing item with a metal button got stuck between the seal and tore a bit of it off, causing leaks. A new seal from LG isn't too expensive, about ~$70, however, it requires the entire front and top of the machine to be removed, so it's not a cheap operation (When hiring someone to fix it).
I don't think I'd ever pick a top loader still, but front loading machines do seem to fail in more annoying ways.
Given the choice between a front loader or top loader without an agitator, the front loader wins easily. They use less water and do a much better job cleaning.
I will note that the locking mechanism on my LG is quite strong. I tried to get past the safety lock (for high-temp washes) but couldn't get in. And in the case of catastrophic failure, you'll have much less water (and weight) to deal with vs the top load.
I think the idea is that most people have more space vertically than horizontally and like to stack appliances, e.g. washer on the bottom, dryer on top
In other words, they're so gentle they barely clean lightly-soiled clothes, and that's why they also use much less water; forget about heavy soiling or thicker textiles. For true cleaning, you need a top-loader that submerges them in detergent water and actually forces it through the materials with an agitator.
Seals rarely fail, this is not a realistic problem. The water level during wash is mostly lower than the seal, only during rinse cycles does it reach above the seal. If the machine fails for some reason during a cycle it can be drained through a drain hose which uses nothing more than gravity.
Front loaders use less water and with that less energy (which mostly goes into heating water), are less likely to tear clothes, have higher spin cycle speeds (1400 to 1600 rpm vs. 600-800 for top loaders) and can be (and often are) stacked.
Why would anyone want a top loader? What is the advantage other than the supposedly greater ease of loading which is negated by putting the front loader on a pedestal? I see no advantages, only disadvantages. It is not as if we never had the choice between these types as I remember them from the laundromat some 55 years ago. They were phased out, most likely for the reasons stated above.
One thing I love about top-loaders is that if you’ve found a piece of laundry you forgot, you can just throw it in mid-cycle. Not necessarily ideal but hey.
The older ones usually make you wait for a minute or two before the door is unlocked. I have one in my current apartment that doesn’t do that, but I’ve tried it a couple times and it does spill some water when you open it.
With top-loaders, you don’t even have to pause, the lid is always open; and the water stays inside, obviously.
With both my 2006 Whirlpool front loader (trash) and 2022 LG front loader (excellent), the duration from when you press the "pause" button to when the agitator stops and the door unlocks is approximately one second. No water is spilled.
How do you do that without the water spilling out? Or do you mean waiting for it to drain, opening it, and then refilling (along with more detergent, having wasted the previous dose)?
The water level in a front loading washing machine is lower than the door seal. The seal only contains splashing water from the agitation. You hit the "pause" button, it stops agitating and unlocks the door, you throw your skidmarks in the washer, you close the door and press "start".
Since gravity continues to act in a downward direction, yes, the water stays pooled at the bottom of the drum and does not teleport upwards and outwards.
It works well but takes up more space because you can't stack washer/dryer, in Europe apartments and houses are a bit smaller so if you can save a square meter then that's good.
An apartment I’ve rented in Vietnam had a top-loader with a drying program. I think it put a stream of (cold) air through the clothes while spinning somehow, and IIRC the clothes were not completely dry at the end, but definitely closer than just after a spin. (I think if they’ve added a dehumidifier to the process it would work just as well as a standalone dryer!)
A big issue with side-load machines is the buildup of mould over time unless you are meticulous with maintenance.
I’ve adapted over the last decade l-and-a-half and learned to keep the door open, but the unease is everpresent that a cat might decide to nap in the washing machine on a particular day…
I wish these machines would just stay slightly open when off. I leave mine open when it's not in use and haven't had an issue. If it makes you feel any better, our cats have never gone inside the washer. They're much more interested in sneaking behind the machine.
I will note that when I forget and leave clothes after a wash for more than a day, they do get a slight mildew smell. The same thing happens with the top loader at my in-laws. Another wash gets rid of it in both cases.
> I will note that when I forget and leave clothes after a wash for more than a day, they do get a slight mildew smell. The same thing happens with the top loader at my in-laws. Another wash gets rid of it in both cases.
"More than a day?" It's about 3 hours for me. If I leave it more than a day, I need to run a load with bleach to get rid of the smell. Maybe I just have a terrible front-loader.
I suspect it's due to the amount of water they use (or lack thereof) which leaves a lot more residue along the drain path, along with the horizontal drum that tends to trap rising water vapour attempting to escape. Leaving the lid on a top-loader open after use is natural; the water evaporates upwards, and they use enough water to wash themselves clean too (at least the older models do.)
Front loaders also get moldy and stink because they have to be sealed up so tightly. If you're not there to immediately pull out the clothes after the cycle, you're screwed. And in a small laundry room there isn't always room to let the door stay open to dry out the inside.
In my experience with front-loaders, all of these are non-problems.
But my understanding is that top-loaders are always inefficient: they have to use a lot more water, because the clothes have to be submerged, and thus they also have to use a lot more energy to heat it.
They use more water because they do a much better job at cleaning than side-loaders, especially the new "high efficiency" ones that seem to barely work. Just look at all the complaints online.
and thus they also have to use a lot more energy to heat it.
They're cheap, effective, reliable, very easy to service[1], and parts are also readily available. I'd only choose a side-loader if I was extremely squeezed for space and water.
[1] There are multiple YouTube videos of these machines being completely disassembled very quickly, as well as repairs.
I can agree: my parents bought a top loader and dryer in 1975 ('Made in Newton Iowa") which was used a few times a week for 30 years and now once a week for the last 21, as far as I know without repair. Now held by a family member they still look like the day they were delivered due to the porcelain enamel used instead of the painted metal that disintegrated on my second front loader. I've managed to repair my 3 front loaders through an average of about 8yrs each, so far.
I've joked with my wife that if I see that washer by the side of the road I'll carry it home on my back.
The primary failure I've observed in washing machines that get a lot of use is the drain pumps which are probably similarly (un)reliable across designs (we only have front loaders so not sure).
The premise is interesting but a little unintuitive. As I understand it, an L-seam is defined by having to attach a square by two edges at a time (i.e. two of its sides already have adjacent pieces in the finished part). Consequently, it's order dependent: any sized quilt can have L-seams if you construct a L-shaped piece that needs a corner filled in, even if there is an optimal way. It follows that not every "seam that ends in the middle of the piece" is an L-seam: both ends could have been edges at the time of construction.
As an engineer with no sewing experience, I don't understand why you wouldn't sew one straight edge from the outside in, then sew the other and meet at the corner, avoiding L-turning issues. Please enlighten me.
I think I had the same issue. An L-seam looks to be any (horizontal line segment, vertical line segment) pair having a line segment endpoint in common, at least one of which could not be cut by any sequence of guillotine (end-to-end) cuts. So the (minimum possible) number of L-seams is well defined for a given problem instance, but not (necessarily) their specific locations.
Yes, I think the idea is that you start with the individual squares, and you can sew two pieces together at a time. If you come to the point where you need to join two pieces along more than one edge, you have an L-seam.
The penalties are interesting. It shows that the design goal is not to maximise interactions otherwise "controversial" posts should stay up. Still though, I wonder what's the point of deranking said posts. Minimise the potential for a flame war to hit critical mass? Stop people from perceiving HN as an argument-filled forum?
> It shows that the design goal is not to maximise interactions otherwise "controversial" posts should stay up.
What I believe to be a less human-moderated version of the front page still exists on HN. It is interesting to compare it to the default. Both have their benefits.
The design (not sure about its goal) maximizes incentive for medium-complexity ideas being expressed in comments with at most a handful of replies.
The “comments on a submission with ranking based on votes” model is fundamentally unsuited for in-depth, thoughtful discussions. Everything we write in this comment section will be mostly forgotten by tomorrow because there is no notification system for when someone replies to your comments.
Zero people are going back through old submissions more than a day or two old and looking for insightful comments to reply to.
HN is already perceived as an argumentative forum. Now imagine if the ratio rule wasn't there. FWIW I find it just as effective on Bluesky and Twitter for myself. Ratioed threads are usually more heat than light.
Yes I second this, HN is one of the least argumentative places I’ve encountered on the internet. Now people disagree with each other a lot, but it’s usually quite respectful compared to most of the internet.
Actually HN is a great place if you have different opinions than the majority.
As long as you make a good argument that's not flippant or rude, people will engage with it.
I hold very controversial points of views and never really experienced personal attacks (perhaps sometimes downvotes but that's not a deal breaker for me) when I express them here.
More to it, I tend to upvote comments I disagree with it.
Yup, with just enough of an unmistakable ideological slant to force posts with differing views to take a Kharma nose dive. It seems that the addition of Kharma is proportional to posts that align with the overall narrative of the board post sentiment. In my case, I've noticed that some of my posts don't appear as originally created. Can't really confirm if this is inherent to the algorithm or just internal interference. The latter would be my guess. :(
As other comments already stated and have stated, money should never be the goal, it's the middle. Having money allows you to not worry about some of those topics, or having more time for them. If you don't have more it means you must worry about that. Having money means you don't: you don't have to worry about rent, health insurance, paying for experiences, food, etc. It's true, you don't need that much money, but still.
I don't know, self-reported happiness seems like an awfully unreliable metric. For one, I've noticed that projecting unhappiness is much more of a faux pas in rich circles. On its own this could account for much of this relationship.
Past being a millionaire or so, making money is a clicker game. It's something you do just for the fun of seeing number go up. And just like a clicker game, past a certain point you're no longer making the money through your own efforts, but by acquiring assets that can make the money for you (like buying the grandmas that bake cookies for you, etc.), so the game becomes determining the right mix of assets that let you acquire more, that you can then plow into more assets for even bigger growth.
The super rich aren't making more money because they think more money will buy them correspondingly more happiness. It's a game to them played at massive real-world scales.
Elon Musk, the richest person in the world, is on the record saying he is 'not often happy.' Somehow I doubt he'd give up half his wealth to double his happiness, though that's just a guess based on his other obvious character flaws ;)
Well, considering the SpaceX IPO, I think that him giving up the majority of his wealth early on to make SpaceX employees hilariously rich worked out well for them
My favorite book about this is "The Happiness Trap," because it makes the simple point that we didn't evolve to be happy all of the time. It makes a really good case for learning to live with the range of emotions and suggests ways of creating a contented/good/whatever life with what you've got.
I used to start the same place the author did with total blocks but kept overriding for real purposes then getting sidetracked. Identified the real problem as feeds which choose what to watch for me instead of me choosing. So I use custom apps and extensions to remove all the feeds but keep the search and messaging functionality (Feurstagram). Sometimes I catch myself opening the page out of habit but then realising I have literally nothing I actively want to watch/search for ...
The feeds and recommendation algorithms are the real time-eaters for me. The things I tried:
- chrome extensions: unhook, stayfocusd, news feed eradicator
- deleted youtube watch history and forbid to collect data for recommendations, which effectively disabled yt shorts
- grayscale display for my phone
- switching from news aggregators and social apps with recommendations to basic RSS feeds
But even I consume information now only from my carefully curated subscriptions I realized I still need to filter out most of the articles. E.g https://news.ycombinator.com/best has ~20 articles per day and this is only one RSS source. So, I just LLM-filter them.
(CCCP = Union of Soviet Socialist Republics...)
reply