Hacker News Reader

> airline seats, sedans and furniture haven't been trending towards one end of the spectrum over a number of years.

I beg to differ! Airlines have slowly crammed in more and more seats for years.

"Less legroom is now the industry norm. In the early-2000s, rows in economy used to be 34 inches (86 centimeters) to 35 inches apart; now 30 to 31 inches is typical, though 28 inches can be found on short flights, according to Washington D.C.-based advocacy group Flyers Rights. Seats have narrowed, too, from about 18.5 inches to 17 inches on average."

https://time.com/5636154/airplane-legroom-shrinking-asia/

I stand corrected! I still believe I'm correct on cars and furniture though. :)

Car size have steadily increased up to the early 2010s [1] and I haven't noticed a stop to this trend, especially when including the market movements towards car-like small SUVs.

Availability of smaller cars keeps going down (Honda Fit dropped in Canada, Toyota Prius C gone, etc.)

[1]: https://www.teoalida.com/cardatabase/images/Car-Classes.png

That's probably true but I thought we were talking about car seats. Car size doesn't really matter much within this topic, whereas I can imagine standard size car seats being quite uncomfortable if you're way smaller or larger compared to the average human being.

Agreed I'm slightly off-topic. I was more thinking of the general thread of some things getting bigger and not always an improvement (for various reasons).

Yeah although if we were to continue on the off-topic then I'd argue that I'm similarly baffled by cars growing in size, whereas you'd think that the increased urbanization would drive people to use smaller vehicles. Oh well, I guess there might be some logic behind it but I fail to see what.

Its not just seats. Pushing the seat lower doesn't put the pedals any lower or change the distance between the steering column and the top of the windshield.

Every ergonomic setting on my car is at the extreme and it's still not right. I need the ceiling to be taller and the windshield to be taller and the steering column to be further from the floor.

The best car I ever drove was the silly VW New Beetle

Sorry but (after spending some time in this thread) I fail to see the point of bringing up extremes... I'm merely arguing for a couple of smaller smartphones on the market. Not because I have small hands, just because I don't really care for a huge screen. With the wide variety of mobile phones (in all sizes between 5-6") on the market they could squeeze in a sub-5 incher somewhere. Especially since just a couple of years ago this was considered huge. Hand size hasn't changed over the years.

It would definitely not make any sense to create a car with a seat where most people wouldn't reach the pedals or be able to look out the window. What you're looking for is customization. And yes, I think that car manufacturers should offer custom versions of their models tailored to people smaller or larger than average, I think that would be cool.

The physical footprint, weight, etc have gone up but ergonomically they're made for the same size person. I can either sit on the floor or push my head into the ceiling and it's hard to find anything where my eyes aren't level with the top of the windshield. Sitting normally in my car with the seat all the way down I can barely see above the horizon.

The thing that annoys me no end when I talk about the size of airline seats is that the usual remark is: “but they offer extra legroom!” Yes, generally that’s true but being 6’10 (2.08m) tall I am forced to spend more money just to fit in the seat. Especially now that emergency exit row seats are also sold as extra legroom seats.

Airlines I've flown with Over the last few years haven’t been very accommodating...

Somewhat off-topic but yeah, I can understand your frustration... And it would naturally be great if airlines would be able to accommodate for people not fitting into average parameters. But it's also a tricky proposition, as you surely understand. Should obese people get huge, two person sized seats? Should people with stiff joints automatically get extra legroom? Should people with a cold have no passengers in a 2 meter radius around them? How do the airlines check/verify these things (yes, height is obv easy)?

Besides, even having the option to pay for extra legroom is what I'm missing altogether from the mobile phone market. Do you see my point? At least you have the option when it comes to legroom. I don't have any sub 5" options when it comes to Android phones, even though I would be prepared to pay extra for it.

There's a law requiring FAA to regulate seats. I have a petition to support it. Wouldn't it be nice to fly in comfort again? :) http://chng.it/HLxMmhnF

Ok, but then look at airline prices. Prices have dropped fairly consistently over the last 30 years. Even though you have to pay more, you are still paying less than people over the years. Seems fair to me.

Manufacturers have been trying to increase the size of phone as much as they can get away with. Larger size usually means larger battery & life (even after accounting for the larger screen) and more people doing more things on the phone (viewing more videos, longer reading etc). All are good for the mobile manufacturers. The size of the pocket is an unfortunate restriction in their ever expanding world. They are hoping and likely winning the bet that pants will start having larger pockets.

I wonder if this is a bit like bodybuilders and fake tan. Nobody, least of all bodybuilders, thinks bodybuilders should be the colour of French polished walnut (the ones with naturally white skin, that is!). But if being a fraction of a shade darker than your competitor gives you an edge in showing off, that's where you end up.

I also think it's responsible for the unisex fannypack comeback success.

Rubbish, they have been doing it for one reason only. They can charge more. They get more profits for bigger phones.

It's obviously a profit motive. They can charge more and have to spend less on R&D since they don't have to try to squeeze all the hardware into a small form factor. Not to mention there is no competition that could eat into their marketshare since nobody is making small phones.

I have no problem using my 6 inch phone generally, but I can't use it one handedly (especially over head), which is insanely annoying.

Agreed. I recently bought a Nokia 3310, just to hold my two extra SIMs (because I move around) and I was enamored by the T9 keyboard and remembered typing SMS's while driving without looking, back in the good old days 20 years ago. You can't do that shit anymore. Slightly off-topic but felt I should share..

There is a clothing manufacturer called Kuhl that makes pant and shorts [other stuff too] and all their pants have a cell phone pocket on the right leg. The quality is very high but they are kind of expensive. My 6" iPhone fits perfectly. I don't think anything larger would though.

Haha are you seriously suggesting that I should change my wardrobe instead of my mobile phone?

From what I've read, when Sony came out with the first portable transistor radio, they outfitted their salesmen with shirts that had oversized pockets to fit the radio. Just an amusing bit of history.

Clothes are definitely cheaper to change, more disposable, and in fact changed much more often than mobile phones. Are you seriously suggesting that one should change their phone to acommodate their clothes?

This is starting to feel like trolling... Yes, I am seriously suggesting that. To continue on the trolling, I suggest that everyone now using 6" phones immediately upgrade to 7-8" and upgrade their wardrobe to clown clothing. Then they can have that huge screen estate to watch their videos on and pockets that match their devices.

Fun fact: pockets are generally made of thin internal fabric and making them bigger does not require making the clothing baggy.

The depends on the size of your wardrobe and which phone you have.

Having vendor lock-in on my pants is a step too far.

And the cheapest pair of pants there is $75, Which is more than I pay for simple clothes like plain pants, and by the time you're getting a whole wardrobe, you're at least halfway to that phone. More if you value diversity in pant-styles.

I have a Kuhl zip-up fleece hoodie - a large phone fits in every pocket. There are zippers on the pockets to keep the phone from falling out. It's by far the most comfortable hoodie I own, even though it isn't very attractive.

>Airlines already offer seats with extra legroom, as well as business class depending on your needs.

I don't like having to pay more money because I was born a different size. Not to mention you are usually paying more than other customers for the added responsibility of accepting to help in case of an emergency.

> I don't like having to pay more money because I was born a different size.

But you're fine with paying extra for more screen estate on your phone?

I'd gladly pay less - or more (I don't care either way, I just want the option!) - for a smaller footprint phone.

Personally I'd be fine with it if it was comparable. By that I mean 10% more leg room equates to a ~10% increase in airline ticket price. But currently business class tickets are significantly more expensive - sometimes 200%+

If I had a disability that required a larger screen, I wouldn't want to pay extra for it...if that's what you're getting at.

It's really not. I would simply like the option of having smaller size mobile phones available on the market. I don't really give a shit if they are differently priced. If they only existed that would be a huge improvement from the current situation.

> I don't like having to pay more money because I was born a different size.

If you eat more than the average person do you also expect grocery stores to give you extra food at no extra cost?

In an ideal world, no one would have to take on extra responsibilities for being born outside the average. I'm 6'5". I eat more than someone who's 6'0". It sucks that I'm taxed because of the way I was born.

If you happen to be male (and I'd wager 95% of people who are tall enough to complain about airline seats are), then you have a distinct and inherent advantage when it comes to sexual attraction.

This applies whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, or both.

Oh, and statistically you make more money as well. But you're less comfortable on airplanes, and Asian minibuses, so it's impossible to know if it's a net benefit or not...

>Oh, and statistically you make more money as well. But you're less comfortable on airplanes, and Asian minibuses, so it's impossible to know if it's a net benefit or not...

Don't forget shorter lifespans, back issues, discomfort in most vehicles, difficulty finding clothes furniture and bedding (unless you're well off) and instant contempt from any male shorter than 5'9".

And washing the dishes is also uncomfortable and always get wet unless you squat all the time. :)

I'm above the 95th percentile in male height, and have never experienced contempt from short men. Must be friendly.

I'm also below the 99th percentile, which is where most of what you describe starts to kick in.

Lucky me, I guess. I do have to put up with my knees pressing into the back of airplane seats...

I'm 99th percentile, 6'6". If I had to pick a height it would be 6'4".

There are certainly benefits, but most people ignore the drawbacks when discussing height. I like to put it in perspective for shorter men who feel unlucky as well.

The argument about attraction makes no sense to me either. People reporting they like tall people also care about other traits. If you find a partner who fetishises you just for your height you really haven't gained anything, it's still just as hard to find actual love.

Let's not even get into the advanced math required to find positions that work with an average sized partner.

Yeah, 6'4" is probably the sweet spot. I'm a bit short of glory there, but I'm not complaining.

Fetishizing height might be more of an issue at your lofty stature, along with the thin air and whatnot. It's not what I'm talking about. Height is like facial symmetry, there aren't any downsides (talking about 90-98% here) and it just means more occasions when your crush crushes back. At the margins, this is a plus.

Everyone makes up for their deficits by playing to their strengths. It's important to acknowledge which is which.

Worth noting that sexual attraction isn't the only place this comes up, there's robust evidence that everyone, male, female, and otherwise, considers taller men to be more trustworthy(!), better leaders, and the list goes on. It's deeply unfair of course, but it is what it is.

> If you find a partner who fetishises you just for your height you really haven't gained anything, it's still just as hard to find actual love.

Truly... it's similar to how a dashingly handsome hollywood heartthrob has no real advantages over somebody who looks like Quasimodo with smallpox.

The former has to wonder if their beautiful successful wife decided to have the family he always wanted with him because she loves them or if they only did it because he's a sexual object.

Whereas the latter may face personal and professional consequences for making the exact same advances the former would be rewarded for and thus is prone to self-isolation for fear of societal reprimand. He gets to live in a wonderful world of woke cynicism.

There are all things out of our control. I can't control other people's attraction. I can't control someone hiring me or paying me more because I'm tall, hell you can't really even measure that on an individual level. These are basically genie rules, right? No love/attraction.

Want to know what is in our control? not charging extra money in order for someone to not hurt themselves on an airplane because they fall outside the bounds of average.

The problem is that everyone wants that extra leg room, not just the exceptionally tall.

Reserving the good seats for the height-advantaged is discrimination against short people, who are already discriminated against for personal characteristics beyond their control.

Suck it up and pay extra.

This is a disingenuous take. There's a big difference between a shorter person wanting extra leg room because it's nice to have, and someone being in actual physical pain because they couldn't afford / weren't quick enough to get one of the few seats they can actually fit in.

It's not.

There's no such thing as fair allocation of a scarce resource. Offering it at a surcharge is, in my not-disingenuous opinion, the least unfair option for this particular one.

Outright reserving it for tall people is discrimination against the short. There are other reasons someone might want the emergency row which are just as legitimate, knee surgery leaps to mind. Should we make a comprehensive list? How do we determine if someone is just lying to get the premium leg room?

I'm open to the argument that the federal government should mandate a larger minimum seat distance. But then, I'm not poor.

As I said, there's no fair way to allocate a scare resource, only degrees of unfairness.

>the least unfair option for this particular one.

Nah dude, the least unfair option is to make sure everyone isn't in pain. After that, charge money, do whatever...but your option to literally hurt people for the way they were born sucks and breeds contempt.

A surcharge would be appropriate if it was proportional to the space used.

But you're completely wrong on the "discrimination against the short" front. Imagine if everyone that can easily walk demanded a wheelchair and cried discrimination if they didn't get one.

This actually happens. Ask your flight attendant friends about “miracle cures” walking off their flights after using wheelchairs to board.

They don't openly admit to not needing one at all, while still demanding one, do they? And if they did, they'd be obviously wrong to cry discrimination, right?

If you take up more space, you cost more. And even with an extra leg room cost, prices for flights are cheaper than ever.