Don’t know this one, but seen similar shit before - Nah, not on all the time. You gotta open a flap or hit a switch or something to turn it on. They’re just showing off the suction. You’d spend a million bucks heating or cooling the joint otherwise.
Maybe I should have been more clear why I think this is stupid:
- Laundry chutes already exist and are a thing. However, usually they are installed for hotels because for most single family dwellings, they really don’t need them.
- The video shows a bunch of people walking randomly through the house with dirty clothes on their hand. The way I change clothes is usually in the bathroom, right next to the washing machine. Even if you have a separate laundry room in the basement, you can just put a hamper in the bathroom. There is really no need to instantly transfer dirty clothes to the laundry room.
- This is basically a waste of energy, sucking in items of clothing when the chute should mostly used by the most renewable energy source we have: gravity.
- A lot of clothing won’t fit in there or you really don’t want to transport this way anyhow.
- The way it is presented is as an “always on” option. As Churba points out, it will hopefully be turned on or off, which negates everything this video shows as you have to walk up to it anyhow. Otherwise it will be just ludicrous on heating and airflow.
- Just the sheer danger this poses to pets and small children, or stupid idiots that want to stick their dicks into things.
Just look at the website, people, it’s right there in the tweet. The video shows the port already activated, so is unrealistic (OBVIOUSLY) compared to everyday use. The system isn’t always powered or always sucking (OBVIOUSLY).
" The Laundry Jet iSense Port is our latest automatic port design. It is a fully automatic port using sensing technology for easy hands free use. It provides the simplest, easy to use, auto open, auto close functionality. Constructed of durable gloss plastic the iSense Port is simply mounted by screws to the wall, with the pipe connecting to a simple collar at the rear.
It is opened by just quickly waving your hand three times past the motion sensor (eye), thus activating the Laundry Jet System. The sensor is set to close proximity so it won’t be started accidentally."
Seems like a good system actually for large wealthy homes.
The house my mother grew up in had a normal laundry chute. It was in the upstairs bathroom, the place that people were most likely to change clothes. It had a straight shot right into the basement next to the laundry machines. You would position a laundry basket in the basement so that it would catch the clothes and they wouldn’t go on the floor. It was a large chute, like trash chute sized. You could put all kinds of clothes in there with no fear of them getting stuck. Gravity did all the work.
Apartments are not large enough for laundry transportation and collecting to be a chore. A sytem like this is not needed.
Suburban homes these days are large and wide with 2 or more floors. Clothes could be all over. Laundry machines may or may not be in the basement. There are multiple upstairs bathrooms. There’s no straight down vertical chute possible. A system like this is useful as it will keep the house cleaner as dirty laundry will always be collected and not strewn about.
The problems I see with it are that it obviously can’t suck all clothing. The vacuum and the size of the hole in the video do not appear to be able to accommodate a strong pair of jeans or thick sweats. Would love to see it try. If something gets stuck in there it’s going to be a bad time.
Two, homes that are big enough to need this system are a problem in and of themselves. If a house is so big that it needs this, the solution isn’t this system. The solution is the house shouldn’t exist.
I wonder if the system will be a danger to children messing around with it or throwing other objects in there. What if someone has some loose change in their jean pocket? It’s one thing for some spare change to fall down a vertical shaft. It’s another thing for them to be propelled by vacuum force. Don’t be on the other end, pew pew!
Really, it’s very similar to the houses that had vacuums built in for actual vacuuming. My other grandparents had one of those at some point. As a kid I thought it was pretty cool. No having to carry a vacuum around or empty it. Just carry around a hose and an attachment and you can vacuum any floor anywhere any time.
Why? I’ve installed similar systems before, and the specific mechanism it uses to turn on and off is pretty much irrelevant to what I said, even if you don’t want to count it under “Or something.”
Elon Musk’s daughter wants nothing to do with him anymore.
I recently was directed to a podcast episode addressing an issue tangential to this, short attention spans and how social media companies (and other phone apps) have their full purpose and efforts to pull our attention back to them.
The part that stuck out to me from the episode and connected in my mind with this video was that while there are things we may do to try and pull our focus to where we want it to be, it is a bit like suggesting that someone concerned about air pollution wear a gas mask. Yes, that would help them but we really need to be addressing the bigger issue at a higher level. When it became widely understood that leaded gas and lead in paint were problematic for everyone we didn’t outlaw gas and paint, we forced companies to remove lead from their products. It should be illegal for companies to make money by surveilling our every move on the internet and psychologically manipulate our attention and behavior in surgically precise ways to make their product.
A guy took photos of his kid’s junk to send it to the doctor. He took the photos with his phone. The photos probably got sent as email attachments. The photos probably got automatically uploaded to Google Photos. Of course this led to the automatic child porn detection systems flagging his photos and account.
The police actually didn’t fuck up for once. They investigated, saw the truth, and acted appropriately. Google did their usual and permanently deleted the account with no human discussion and no recourse.
There are unimportant online accounts, like this forum. If those are deleted unfairly, who cares?
Then there are accounts that people depend upon for their very livelihood such as YouTube, Twitch Airbnb, eBay, and etsy. There are online accounts that people depend upon for their digital identity, such as GMail, iCloud, etc. People’s entire lives are in these accounts. We can’t just continue to allow the companies running these important accounts to delete them when it is unjust to do so.
If someone had the child porn, go ahead and ban them forever and throw them into the sun. But in a false positive case like in the article above, we must use the force of law to mandate the account be reinstated and the wronged party made whole if the company will not do it voluntarily.
It will take a team of lawyers, and maybe more, to determine what all the details of what such a policy should and could look like, but there are a few core components that I think are necessary.
First, when an important account is closed the company that closes the account must state exactly which rules in their terms of service have been violated and also present the corresponding account activities that were found to be in violation.
e.g: The account broke rule number 4, and here is the photo the account holder uploaded which violated rule 4.
Secondly, there must be some sort of option for the account holder to access a human powered judicial process which has the authority to reinstate accounts. Ideally this would be some sort of independent body, perhaps arbitration? But even just the right to have a simple phone call with a human employee of the company that will actually listen to someone make their case and examine the evidence in good faith before rendering a decision would be a vast improvement over the automated emails we have today.
Even in my situation. I have backups of everything. I have technical know how to host my own services. I control my DNS entries. I don’t do anything remotely close to violating ToS on any online service. I keep everything so secure, and share nothing, so no unauthorized parties can access my accounts and commit ToS violations in my name. But even so, if my Google, Apple, Amazon accounts were closed, it would be devastating not just to me, but to many other people under my digital umbrella. The fear that something like this will happen is frequently looming in the back of my mind.
If you ever have to take photos or videos that could be misinterpreted by machine learning as problematic, use a stand-alone digital camera with no internet access. Do not transfer them to any cloud or remote storage if you don’t have to. If you do, first encrypt them offline/locally. Maybe even use an analog camera.
Should a private business not be able to refuse service for any/no reason?
But there is a type of company that isn’t allowed to just say we won’t serve you: utilities.
So what would digital utilities look like? Email, hosting, id? Do we want the government running those?
Yes. They should be regulated like utilities. They don’t have to actually be run by the government directly, but they could be.
Why isn’t that story in the gun control thread? It has nothing to do with a security camera and everything to do with paranoid irresponsible people with access to guns. In any other country it would have ended with “and they knocked on the car door and worked out they spotted the wrong person” and nobody would ever have heard about the entire thing.
If anything a Ring or other smart doorbell with a camera system should have allowed a prudent individual the ability to see what was out there, what the neighbor did with a package at their door, and whether there was some kind of problem. A paranoid person with guns and with no access to some kind of fancy smart alarm doorbell is still capable of overreacting to any sort of home security system, including motion detectors or security cameras or even just a dog.