sahbasanai

It is impossible to accurately interpret with a max 5 second delay. The structure of some languages requires the interpreter to occasionally wait for the end of a statement being the start of interpretation is possible.

Yes, those chances are the same. But they’re also the same as the chances of the result being 56.108175% or 56.1081756%. So, using your number of decimal places (choosing this number of decimal places is a slight simplification but it doesn’t affect the point), there are 10 million numbers for which the probability was the same. It’s like saying “draw a random number from 0 to 10 million” and drawing exactly 1 million. He says that this unlikely event happened with multiple results in the election, and this would likely mean there is anomaly.

As far as I can understand, the primary (but not only) reason behind the 500ml minimum requirement is that early kettle designs included a heating element that was above the base of the kettle (something like this: https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/h1300610/800wm/H1300610...) and for safe and effective operation of the kettle, the heating element had to be covered by water.

I do think there is another reason for the minimum quantity requirement (increasing the likelihood that the generated steam will trigger the temperature sensor) but this other reason is far less important.

In other words, almost all modern kettles don't actually need a minimum of 500ml of water - maybe just 100ml or so to ensure water does turn into steam and triggers the temperature sensor.

Kettle producers have just never really updated the "minimum amount" line. Though I have occasionally started to see kettles without this line.

That's a good point. Thanks. So I guess it boils down to (heh) "most consumers are happy with the existing kettles" (which could actually negate the very premise of my article.

Hi, author here. I do think that the UK probably has one of the more develop kettle markets (I was extra surprised when my extra expensive kettle bought in the UK didn't have a limescale mesh, considering high calcium levels in London and elsewhere in the UK).

And, not trying to be snarky, but with the kettle you list one has to open the lid (or lift it up) to get a sense of how much water is in there. One of the requirements listed in the article is for the water level to be shown to the user.

Hi, author here.

Can you please send me a link? (not being snarky).

Thanks

Hi, author here. I've owned kettles with lights (and I like them). I've owned kettles that beep (and I don't mind it at all). Believe me when I tell you, that section of my article was not over-the-top. On the first day, I sat on the couch (about 7 meters away from the kettle) and the light of the kettle shone so brightly in my eye that my first thought was that someone was flashing a laser into my eyes through the window.

Hi, author here. Thanks for your comment.

Follow up question: can't a competitor make a kettle that's 20% better (and more profitable)? You do say that the incentive goes to "making sure that no other good products appear", but I'm not sure how a Bosch can stop a Cuisinart from making a slightly superior (and more profitable) kettle.

Hi, author here (and I really am looking for answers).

Thanks for your comment.

As someone below you hinted at, wouldn't one expect that "high profit" would result from "high consumer satisfaction"? I think that's the step that puzzles me.

I have to say, reading through this thread I'm beginning to think that the existing offering of kettles in the market does deliver sufficient satisfaction to consumers, removing the incentive to create a better product.

Multiple commenters have said they don't mind beeps, or flashy lights, or the lack of a calcium mesh. It may be worth pointing out that the kettles I bought had VERY loud beeps (I don't mind a "normal" beep), VERY strong lights (I don't mind "normal" lights, I actually enjoy seeing light in my kettle). Also, I actually do pre-filter my water with a Brita jug, and I also descale my kettle regularly, but the calcium content in my area is so high that I'd have to descale between every 2 cups of tea not to get calc bits in my drink.

This all leads me to conclude that probably my opening premise is wrong: maybe I am unreasonably picky about kettles and, since capitalism makes kettles for the masses and not for the 3% of people who are as picky as I seem to be, then I can't find a (cheap) kettle that meets my requirements.

But... why did the first 19.99€ kettle exist then? How come that product was possible (and later disappeared)?

Another part of me feels that if someone produces a reasonably durable kettle that meets all the requirements in my post (as well as some secondary requirements that I didn't write about but that my 19.99€ kettle did meet), then that will quickly become the new gold standard for kettles and in 10 years we'll look back and say "oh my goodness, can you believe we used to not have temperature control in most kettles?"

You may ask "then why did the 19.99€ kettle disappear?" and that is a good question. The best answer I've been able to find is that it was a generic supermarket-brand kettle and it cannibalised profits from other more expensive brandname kettles. I also don't understand why the super advanced toaster (that someone else in this thread posted a video of) disappeared. And I guess that is the crux of my question, really: in 1948 we had a design of a toaster that was superior in every way to modern day toasters. How come it's disappeared for good?

This is a good question. The short answer is that having a browser would've gone against my objective of reducing phone usage in general. Plus, I wanted to recycle a dumbphone from a relative, instead of looking for/buying a "less dumb phone".

Hi, author here. This is a good point. I also have an authenticator that I was not able to replace. However, I need it very infrequently (a few times a year) and never in a time-sensitive manner. So I can just afford to turn on my smartphone for a couple minutes whenever I need the authenticator, and then turn it back off.

Hi, author of the article here. You make a good point. This being said, it took me years to do this "not particularly difficult" thing. Why was that? The purpose of the article was to show to others "this is not a big deal, and here's a practical way you can do it". I think many (like myself not too long ago) feel overwhelmed by the possibility of living without a smartphone. It took a solemn decision on my part to sit down, reflect, and realise it was not too big a deal. This being said, it did require planning and preparation.

Did you feel that your anxiety levels (re. corona in particular) changed once you dropped your smartphone?

Hi, author of the article here. I actually felt my stomach drop when I read your comment. It is a scary thought to have to have a smartphone to be minimally connected. I don't have anything against smartphones - and will possibly return to having one at some point - but it's good to have the option. I hope/expect that the market will soon respond by meeting consumer demand for simpler communication devices.

Hi, author of the article here. I have a token for 2FA - in addition to SMS as a third factor.

Hi, I'm the author of the article and would be happy to discuss further in case there are any comments or questions.