World's oldest lightbulb: 123 years and still glowing

[Bonivus_elderheart]

:: cracks knuckles ::

TL;dr: They are more simple, both in terms of features, and how it’s controlled. the more complicated, the higher the chance of it breaking down, especially if it has things like an ice maker mounted in the fridge portion of the unit (which is what you get if you have a ‘bottom freezer’ unit with ice on the door), multi–zone temperature control, and other things.

I bought a bottom freezer, french door with additional drawer unit in 2019, and the electronically controlled pass-through diverter vent that can trap the cold air brought up from the freezer to cool the fridge (and makes the ice maker work) failed badly. so while the freezer was making rock-hard ice cream, I had milk and other foods spoiling in the fridge because it was 55+ degrees in there, at least until I yanked out the ice maker (which was a pathetic unit that took two full days to fill the bin), which allowed the ~20 degree air to escape out into the fridge.

My next fridge when that one eventually blows it’s mainboard is going to be the cheapest freezer top apartment rental unit grade thing I can find; bonus points if it’s a mechanical control system. If we want chilled water, I can get one of those large dispenser containers, fill it from the filtered tap, and park it in the fridge.

[doctord]

No. Mass-producing a product for consumers is just more complicated than that. There are tradeoffs to be made with every single part, every single design decision. And the truth is, the vast majority of people will choose low price over quality. So building things “to last” is not economically viable. As in - companies that make things “to last” don’t survive, or at least they don’t reach the masses anyway. I agree with you that it’s bad for the planet, and affects the underprivileged disproportionately, but the alternative is that things just don’t get made, period. Maybe someday when the whole human race wakes up and collectively decides to stop constantly competing with each other and learns to share, we can have this. But the appliance industry is not going to fix that problem.

[doctord]

How wonderful for you that you can afford that. The vast majority can’t.

[Otherbrother]

@doctord

As in - companies that make things “to last” don’t survive, or at least they don’t reach the masses anyway. I agree with you that it’s bad for the planet

I would argue that long-lasting old incandescent lightbulbs (which after all, are the subject of this post) are worse for the planet because of the extreme energy inefficiency that was discussed upthread. And to be honest I’m not even sure about refrigerators. If you have a well-built one that was made in the 1980s that still happens to be running it’s using much more power than a newer one, which probably offsets any environmental benefit from staying out of the landfill.

Not that I like wasteful consumption, mind you. I try to make things last as long as I can. I put 330,000 miles on my last car before it got to the point where it didn’t make any sense to try fixing it anymore.

[NukeML]

@doctord

And the truth is, the vast majority of people will choose low price over quality

Many people are really choosing between quality goods and an empty belly, or cheap goods but putting food on the table.

See boots analogy ^^^

Planned obsolescence, in the sense of designing goods to fail reliably, isn’t helping those who don’t want to keep buying a new widget every few years.

[Mindysan33]

@doctord

Mass-producing a product for consumers is just more complicated than that.

We’re VERY aware it’s more “complicated.” But it’s not complicated that planned obsolescence isn’t value neutral. It was a choice made by someone (in fact lots of someones, especially since the 1970s), and that was to increase profits, not to improve quality of life or the goods they sell. Saying it’s “just economics” is what is flattening that into a “natural” process when it very much isn’t. It was a shift in how capitalism functioned since the 1970s, that prioritized short term growth and stocks over long-term R&D and good quality production and earning customer loyalty. That is why a company previously associated with quality (Boeing) has sunk into such ignominy.

I’m sorry, but “that’s just the way it is” is not going to cut it here. It wasn’t like this for a long time and there is no need for it to be that way. It can and SHOULD be changed, because the impacts are worse than a company going under - it’s literally human emiseration and the continued destruction of our planet, just so a few chucklefucks can buy yet another fucking mansion. Fuck that noise.

@doctord

And the truth is, the vast majority of people will choose low price over quality.

It’s (kind of, sort of) a shame that this needs to continually trotted out… but it continues to be relevant…

We well know that the working poor can’t afford stuff. That’s because wages have stagnated since the 70s, too. If you’d read the link about the boot theory I posted above (also pointed out by @NukeML) then you’d see how cheap shit adds up over time and costs people MORE in the long run. It’s a fucking scam, designed to fuck over the people with the least, so it’s a bit rich to both be defending it, and saying that it’s better for all, because cheaper… Fuck that, PAY PEOPLE MORE!!!

@doctord

companies that make things “to last” don’t survive

Sears was around for well over a century. they were known for their high quality products. What killed Sears was shifting to selling cheaper products from China. People shopped there for most of their lives, because they trusted the products they sold, many of which had a lifetime guarantee. they did well - UNTIL they stopped doing that.

@doctord

I agree with you that it’s bad for the planet, and affects the underprivileged disproportionately, but the alternative is that things just don’t get made

You are aware that shit somehow got made well before the rise of consumer capitalism, yeah? Like, we humans… we’re smart, creative, and we enjoy making things and thinking through problems. It’s absolutely our superpower. We often make stuff, not because it is making some fat cat rich, but because we enjoy it. We’d figure out how to make goods without the destructive elements of capitalism, because we’ve done that for all of our existence.

@doctord

Maybe someday when the whole human race wakes up and collectively decides to stop constantly competing with each other and learns to share

Sort of like we did for MOST of our history? We don’t need to learn that, we do it already, even today under capitalism. Letting a few dipshits who want to buy a second yacht dictate what is human nature doesn’t seem like a great idea to me.

@NukeML

Planned obsolescence, in the sense of designing goods to fail reliably, isn’t helping those who don’t want to keep buying a new widget every few years.

[nodolra]

@KathyPartdeux

They last too damn long.

I wish!

In theory, they should last a very long time! But I keep needing to replace mine because the power supply circuits die after a year or two of use. I suspect it’s partly because they’re trying to squeeze a power supply circuit into a bulb that needs to fit in a socket designed for incandescents, which doesn’t really leave space for proper cooling. But it’s not hard to imagine the LED bulb makers choosing to under-spec some components, both to reduce costs and to keep people coming back for replacements…

[KathyPartdeux]

I’ve had some running for 6 years and going.

[Entity447B]

Just 117 more for the record!

(Pretty sure I’ve got lights here I replaced with LED bulbs when I moved in, which… must be >7years at least that are still going, too.)

[KathyPartdeux]

Don’t skip breakfast!

[hecep]

Stop with the incandescent light bulb ageism!

[BakerB]

At this point it has to be just about seeing how long the bulb will keep illuminating. Whether it’s energy efficient is immaterial.

[Phil_FR]

Here’s one of my only “buy it for a life” items. Over 20 years old and going strong. Has certainly saved money (and environmental impact) compared to replacing a grinder every few years.