Well, old light bulbs sure worked better than modern ones. Show me an LED that has a perfect 100 CRI instead of just in the 90s for even good ones. Show me an LED that doesn’t burn out prematurely in enclosed fixtures. Show me an LED that can dim to a level as low as an incandescent, even with and LED rated dimmer.
Electric or hydrogen cars might be better for the environment, but that doesn’t make them better cars overall.
Unless you consider “better for the environment” to be an intrinsic quality of the product.
I think LEDs vs incandescents is a poor benchmark because of the environment impact of LED manufacturing and the fact that incandescent lighting wasn’t really high up on the list of global warming culprits. But to ape an example from this thread, cars that ran on unleaded gasoline were, by some metrics, undeniably worse than their leaded counterparts, right? The catalytic converters and lower specific outputs made them slower and more expensive.
But… christ, is there anyone alive who doesn’t consider government mandated unleaded gas to be a huge public health victory? Can anyone honestly ignore the environment impacts of an industry with a straight face?
Please remember that the conservative definition of “better” is always “better for my individual needs, right now, in this transitory moment.” Nothing else matters (unless there’s an opportunity to make someone else miserable with no consequences).
Try four years:
As steronz notes, that depends on whether you consider energy efficiency part of how a lightbulb “works”. If I have to replace incandescent bulbs ten or fifty times as often as other types of bulbs, I consider that in that respect the other bulbs are working better than the incandescents.
CRI is just a number that measures how closely a light source resembles a blackbody radiator. Incandescents rate 100 because they are essentially blackbody radiators.
But that doesn’t mean that all incandescents do a perfect job of mimicking the color rendering of natural daylight, for example. Because actual color rendering depends not only on the light source’s CRI number but on its color temperature (as well as other aspects of its construction).
Now, if you happen to have applications for which you specifically want the characteristics of a particular type of incandescent bulb, and are willing to tolerate the lower efficiency and lifespan of incandescents to get those advantages, then obviously the incandescent bulbs are a better choice for you in that particular situation. But that doesn’t mean that incandescents are objectively “better bulbs” or “work better” by all criteria in all situations.
Again, what makes one car “better” than another depends on the specific criteria you’re using to judge it.
One data point: a conservative friend from Texas was visiting California and rented a car. The rental car company gave him an electric car with a very good range. When I saw him he was pissed and said something like “I don’t want an electric car. I’m from Texas and we burn gas. It doesn’t matter if this electric car is better than a gas car, I want a gas car”
So, there is at least one conservative who wants gas for gas’ sake “because he’s from Texas”
That’s exactly what I’m getting at - some people are pro-gasoline for no reason other than that that’s what they’re accustomed to. It has nothing to do with its real pros or cons.
So, because LEDs can’t reach perfection, we should still use the old ones that were much worse? The only way you’re going to get a 100 CRI is from something that’s at 6000 degrees Celsius, and you’re not going to be able to find anything like that on Earth.
Maybe not quite “nothing to do with” pros and cons. I think a lot of folks prefer the devil they know, and this is probably especially true of conservatives. Gasoline has pros and cons; alternative sources have pros and cons. Those pros and cons don’t have to be equal for the familiar pros to be more appealing, or the familiar cons to be less fearsome/upsetting.
CRI doesn’t require any specific color temperature. Which is part of why it’s not a great index by itself–a candle has a CRI of 100 even though the light quality is terrible.
LEDs have an advantage in that it’s easy to fine-tune the color temperature. I prefer my light a tad cooler than what incandescents typically provided. The CRI may be slightly less but the light quality is better.
Here’s what makes EVs better cars overall:
Better acceleration
Better handling
Quieter
Roomier
More storage
More reliable
Lower maintenance
Lower running cost
Refueled at home
What year was that experience?
Because they got massively better, a few years ago. Mine works better than any gas mower I’ve had ever did. And I mow a lot of overgrown stuff.
Where do you hear (or see) them?
I remember saying many years ago to somebody that I’d be a lot more likely to agree with conservatives if they wanted to conserve things, but all too many of them seem to want to use everything up as fast as we can. But I’m pretty sure the framework of mind isn’t actually, in at least most cases, ‘let’s use it all up fast’, but rather ‘we’ve been doing this and it’s been working fine for me and a lot of other people, so we don’t see why we should stop now.’ That’s a useful frame of mind for some things (I wish the people who randomly change computer things on every update would get a bit more of it), but doesn’t work well when there are actual reasons to stop; including that something that appears to a lot of people to be working fine is actually doing a lot of damage.
Assuming that people who think differently from oneself are therefore thinking less than oneself is, IMO, almost always a mistake.
– I don’t think all conservatives are in love with fossil fuels; though some do seem to be.
Is that meant straight? I believe there were a lot of people doing so at the time.
To be honest, I can’t think of any change whatsoever that would qualify.
At absolute minimum, if there’s change, somebody’s going to have to do something differently. Which is, for those people who don’t want to, a drawback.
You’re setting an entirely impossible standard.
And tidal, which partly comes from the moon.
What do you mean by ‘change by default’? Are you suggesting that people commonly invest enormous effort in change without any particular goal in mind?
I think he’s saying he’s “(against change) by default”, or in other words, his basic initial position is like that of Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff, “whatever it is, I’m against it.”
I have seen an article that claims that the perception of the utility of any change to something familiar changes with the direction of the change. Any negative change is perceived as being three times as negative as it “actually” is, and any positive change is perceived as one third of its actual positivity. (I’m not sure how they did the experiments to come up with those numbers, or how they objectively measured positive/negative utility, so take my recollection for what it’s worth.) This, along with a hefty serving of Oppositional Defiant Disorder, probably has something to do with the OP’s question.
Conservatives as a group are far more likely than liberals to disbelieve in the dangers or even the reality of climate change, and uniquely predisposed to put ideology before science in any other area where there is a conflict, such as the reality of evolution. This is the target audience of outlets like Fox News to which they are slavishly devoted, and which as the unofficial propaganda arm of the Republican Party is infamous for its brazen lies and deceptive selective reporting, all in an effort to shape and solidify their audience’s right-wing views.
Assuming that such people aren’t doing a great deal of independent critical thinking is almost always correct.
Moderating:
This is dangerously close to a personal attack. Please dial it back. Thanks.
Not a warning.
As a longtime skeptic of electrical gardening equipment, I am here to tell you that for normal use cases, they are now better than gasoline equipment. I held out for a long time, and I switched last year. I will never again pull a crank or spray starter fluid or degrease a carb, ever. Sticking with gas is no longer the smart play in this arena.
Man. This thread has engendered in this liberal more sympathy for conservatives than anything else in recent memory. Just sayin’.
There have been a number of articles in recent years about non-political differences between people that align with their political beliefs. Conservatives like classical, realistic art and harmonious music; liberals favor modern, abstract art and music with some dissonance. Conservatives have a stronger startle reflex when they see a spider, and a stronger disgust reaction to rotting food or feces. Conservatives do better on tests that rely on repetition or pattern recognition, while liberals do better at adapting to changing rules. Conservatives prefer to carry out traditions with minimal necessary alterations over time; liberals enjoy innovating for the sake of it. I devour these stories, with an appropriate quantity of salt, partly because human psychology and sociology interest me generally. But part of the reason they fascinate me in particular is that, although I’m so far to the left I can’t even see the center except on a clear day, by these metrics I ought to be a conservative.
I considered a hybrid when I needed to replace my car a few years ago (a Tesla wasn’t an option for me then.) I wanted to do the environmentally responsible thing, but I had some concerns. I drive my cars into the ground, which is generally a more eco-friendly choice than constantly buying the latest, greenest technology; I had concerns about the longevity and disposal of the battery in a hybrid. I also had safety concerns about the battery integrity in the event of a crash. And I worried that there might be other concerns I hadn’t even thought of. I did some research, which didn’t really allay my concerns. I ended up going with an efficient traditional gasoline-powered engine (my 22-year-old car really needed to be replaced ASAP), with the intention of continuing to assess the options for next time.
My mom got a Tesla some months ago. Overall, it’s very cool. But there have been some unexpected things about it that have somewhat validated my “what about the things I didn’t think about?” concerns. For example, taking your foot off the gas slows the car in a way that’s more like putting your foot on the brake, but it doesn’t turn on the brake lights unless it’s really abrupt. Tailgaters didn’t bother me that much before, but they freak me the fuck out when I’m driving that car. Also, you’re not supposed to charge the battery all the way unless you’re going to use it all in one trip, which means you have to plan ahead with your overnight charging at home. Most of the time, that’s a minor inconvenience at worst, but there may be scenarios where it could actually be bad. Also, despite the cost savings, I don’t consider it an improvement across the board when it comes to road trips. We all live in southern California, and visit family in northern California every Thanksgiving. In any of our gas-powered cars, you can easily make the trip with only one stop for gas along the way. When we made the trip in her Tesla, we had to stop three times to recharge. And each stop took about half an hour, compared to the 5 minutes it takes to get gas–and that’s after we got into a charging space, which we didn’t right away. (I was born too late for the gas crisis in the 70s; I can’t remember ever waiting more than 5 minutes for a pump to open up.) Those stops turned a normally 7-hour drive into a 9-hour trip, which left me a lot more tired on the last leg–as in, struggling to stay alert. Not ideal. The last charging station we stopped at was under construction, so we were parked in a dark, dirt lot next to some porta-potties. I was glad I wasn’t traveling alone, honestly. Every freeway off-ramp along that route has at least 3 gas stations to choose from, but we couldn’t be quite so choosy about our charging stations. At that same stop, there was some kind of glitch where the car wouldn’t charge at first. We resolved it without fully figuring it out, much like 99% of the technical difficulties I experience (reboot and it goes away! For now!) But it left me a bit uneasy. If I had to evacuate for a hurricane or tsunami warning, or flee an abusive partner in the middle of the night, or cross state lines for a medical procedure and get back before my next shift so I don’t get fired and and end up homeless, I think I’d rather do it in my dinosaur-burning Mazda. And yes, I realize those things are less likely to happen to me than the existential catastrophe that awaits us if we don’t do more to combat climate change. But that understanding doesn’t just vaporize my fears of making myself vulnerable to risks I don’t fully understand.
It seems to me that so much of the conservative mindset is really about fear. And zooming way out, it’s not such a bad thing to have some people in a society who are a little afraid of change, a little reluctant to throw out the old, even when the old comes with significant problems. We can’t dig in our heels forever and refuse all change. But we also shouldn’t charge blindly ahead without planning for the consequences of those changes. I’m glad there are people braver than me, who will up and buy an electric car without agonizing over every possible what-if. I look to them to assuage my fears, so I can jump on the electric bandwagon later. If nothing else, I’m living proof that scaredy-cats can be persuaded to embrace a radically different world than the one we’re used to. But like my fellow spider-haters, I’ll probably get there faster if people engage with my concerns seriously, instead of dismissing me as a reactionary moron.