> Design is also an engineering constraint. All of these constraints are interconnected. None are wholly independent.
Did I say they weren't interdependent? My response to you LITERALLY stated an interdependency.
Also when does "design" being an engineering constraint have to do with anything? Are you talking about aesthetic design choices made by an artist/product designer that an engineer has to take into account? You should be more specific because engineers "design" solutions around constraints as well, and the statement makes no sense when viewed from the engineering perspective.
>The “fashion” argument is particularly silly. Fashion and style are concepts that have existed as a part of human nature longer than manufacturing, corporations, or even money itself have even existed.
What fashion argument? You say the "fashion" argument is "silly" but I'm over here thinking, what "fashion" argument? I NEVER made such an argument. What's silly here is that you're talking about some weird imaginary tangent that I never even touched upon.
If you actually did watch that video or even read my posts I'm thinking you read it really quickly and you skimmed that video. I think you skipped some words and sentences and made a huge assumptions about what I'm talking about.
>
The part of my response that you didn't even address is that I'm saying FAILURE is engineered into the design DELIBERATELY. It's not a side effect of creating a cheaper product. It's a actual design choice making the consumer more likely to buy a new product.
You realize that the filament for those bulbs weren't picked because the filament was cheaper. A deliberate R&D effort was created to pick filaments that were roughly the same cost but failed quicker. That's counter to your entire argument. R&D costs money so costs are actually INCREASED to make the product fail quicker.
> Did I say they weren't interdependent? My response to you LITERALLY stated an interdependency.
I am referring to:
>> The iphone not having a replaceable battery is a design decision, it doesn't make the phone cheaper.
>> You are taking two independent phenomenons and trying to group them together as if they are the same phenomenon.
>What fashion argument?
14:25 in the video. :D
> The part of my response that you didn't even address is that I'm saying FAILURE is engineered into the design DELIBERATELY. It's not a side effect of creating a cheaper product.
Yes, there are examples of this deliberately happening. However, there are reasons why it happens as a side-effect of the engineering process, and this is an exponentially more common scenario (because it is common engineering process!).
I've learned through experience that people like kube-system are blinkered in this context [1], and best routed around. This is usually by conscious but not obtusely malicious choice. The shrugged-shoulders, learned-helplessness, "of course it's that way, what can anyone do about it" choice. This is the mass-market default, I wouldn't get too worked up over it; you won't convince them of a position until it benefits their personal scope of attention. You don't need kube-system's consent for change, they'll go along with pretty much any status quo, go ahead and find the levers of change you want to see created and yank them.
An aspect of planned obsolescence I don't see discussed much is the built-in incentives for factories (giant sinks of capex) and how we conceive manufacturing in general to lead the cart before the horse in our current dominant economic paradigm. They and their logistical tail including the staff are so expensive to re-tool and re-skill that it leads to many perverse incentives. There are vanishingly few US anvil and vise factories left because they made such a good product up to and into the 20th century that when industrialization's per capita saturation curve inevitably flattened, their market nosedived as their products were literally outliving their initial customer base. Entire manufacturing ecosystems are built around trying to avoid that outcome, and it is nearly impossible to a priori tell whether an industry in a nation is hidebound avoiding necessary technological change or undergoing another anvil and vise experience.
I have some hope in automation and cell-based flexible manufacturing though I strongly suspect the economic case for both is not nearly as straightforward as the narrative exposed to laypeople like us makes it out to be. I think we're missing quite a few pieces of the puzzle (design-to-floor-changes automation being one example) before we can tell the story that the flexible industry/factory narrative would like to tell.
[1] I'm carefully trying NOT to slight kube-system here. There is only so much attention any one individual can apply to any given context. The situation could easily be reversed between kube-system and you in a different context. We need cognitive density in all the wide-ranging human endeavors our species engages in, there is room enough for everyone.
>I'm carefully trying NOT to slight kube-system here. There is only so much attention any one individual can apply to any given context. The situation could easily be reversed between kube-system and you in a different context. We need cognitive density in all the wide-ranging human endeavors our species engages in, there is room enough for everyone.
In the arena of the internet I wouldn't worry too much about slighting people. It's all fair game, they can "slight" you too. This necessity to be overly polite over moderately polite so you can avoid hurting someones precious feelings is overblown on the internet. First of all the feeling will pass, second of all it's the internet, you're anonymous so the chances of permanent damage is basically zero.
Worrying about slighting someone hinders you from getting your point across, it also stops the other party from emotionally engaging with you. Conflict often fuels the fire of a debate giving the opponent incentive to try to expose every single logical flaw in your argument.
The internet is the perfect arena for this kind of heated discussion. It also goes both ways. If I have a wrong idea that I think is right, by god I will fight for that idea to be right until all possible logical alternatives are decimated and even then I'll only admit that I'm wrong 5 years later. Still my efforts allowed the other party to strengthen their arguments and expose flaws in my arguments and the discussion is open to public record. Even more important my attempts at vindicating myself could actually expose a real flaw in other parties argument, thereby maintaining a healthy dose of scientific doubt.
My philosophy is don't try to deny your own human bias. Be aware of it, and revel in it. You and others were naturally selected to have this bias because it helped you survive. Trying to deny it and be above this base emotion could hinder your competitiveness in the game of life.
Did I say they weren't interdependent? My response to you LITERALLY stated an interdependency.
Also when does "design" being an engineering constraint have to do with anything? Are you talking about aesthetic design choices made by an artist/product designer that an engineer has to take into account? You should be more specific because engineers "design" solutions around constraints as well, and the statement makes no sense when viewed from the engineering perspective.
>The “fashion” argument is particularly silly. Fashion and style are concepts that have existed as a part of human nature longer than manufacturing, corporations, or even money itself have even existed.
What fashion argument? You say the "fashion" argument is "silly" but I'm over here thinking, what "fashion" argument? I NEVER made such an argument. What's silly here is that you're talking about some weird imaginary tangent that I never even touched upon.
If you actually did watch that video or even read my posts I'm thinking you read it really quickly and you skimmed that video. I think you skipped some words and sentences and made a huge assumptions about what I'm talking about.
>
The part of my response that you didn't even address is that I'm saying FAILURE is engineered into the design DELIBERATELY. It's not a side effect of creating a cheaper product. It's a actual design choice making the consumer more likely to buy a new product.
You realize that the filament for those bulbs weren't picked because the filament was cheaper. A deliberate R&D effort was created to pick filaments that were roughly the same cost but failed quicker. That's counter to your entire argument. R&D costs money so costs are actually INCREASED to make the product fail quicker.