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.
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.
I have had to buy a half-dozen kettles in recent years (for more than one place), and they have all failed after about a year. These are $60-$90 kettles, old brands (e.g. Kitchenaid, warning!) with reputations they should want to maintain. Taking one apart, it is clear it was designed to fail after a short time in normal use. (Aside, KA mixers are now crap, too.)
There is a mainstream term: Planned Obsolescence. This is a real phenomenon, a fixed-point of runaway capitalism. We cannot tell by looking how long a thing will last. We have to depend on reviews, but the review systems get corrupted.
This has been well-known for many decades. Gaslighting the OP is nothing but abuse. It is often possible to buy a reliable product in a category, but its maker operates at a sharp commercial disadvantage vs. the shoddy work, by a process analogous to Gresham's Law. The bad products generate more profit, enabling more effective promotion, getting more sales and displacing the good ones. Makers of good products fall into line, or are driven out of business.
So, identifying a good product and spreading the word is the only defense we have.
Some people adopt a policy of never buying anything they have seen an ad for, on the principle that they would be paying for the ad instead of the product. This works, except that many products we need are not advertised. Also, some of us have been successful at largely eliminating our exposure to normal advertising, and even to "placements", advertising disguised as content, and we lose access to that signal.
But I don't think kettles are advertised much.
Buying a cheap kettle with fewer features often works, as there is less to go wrong, and the makers may be still trying to develop a reputation that could command a higher price--but not if you want the features.
So we have to rely on referrals from other buyers who got lucky and happened upon a good product.
The irony is that many of us would be ready, even eager, to pay a premium for quality, but apparently cannot find it at any price, or only at a price that would not enable a quality producer to stay in business while paying employees a living wage.
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.
I have a nearly 20 year old T-Fal kettle that I keep waiting to fail so I can replace w/ one that allows me to adjust the temperature but the thing just keeps working. Seriously, 20 years, used 2-5 times/day.
Amazon sells the T-fal BF6138 for $33 in the US. It has a window to see water levels, temp control, and a scale filter. Warning: the scale filters on mine only last 8-10 years. But I can't complain.
I’ve had blue lights that black sharpie could not dim.
The solution for those is black nail polish. Dirt cheap, easy to apply since it’s more of a goo than a liquid which you apply it by a brush that comes with the bottle, and it’s completely impervious to any sort of light shining through in one coat. If you’d like some light to see if the thing is on or off, apply a thinner coat.
It completely solved my aggressive LEDs on things problem.
That black kettle on the left of your photo is sold in US as "Fellowes". Notice how closely to the knob the venting steam flows? I've burnt myself a few times that way. An asymmetrical knob could remind the user of the safe grasp angle -- but then off course it wouldn't look so "minimal" in photos ...
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.
Maybe. A competitor, however, can’t make people pay more for a kettle that’s insufficiently marginally better.
Considering these are multinational companies doing at least tens of millions in business every year, I presume they have the expertise to do obvious market research and come to the correct conclusions about what and how much people are willing to pay for, and that is reflected in the choices you see in the marketplace.
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 (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?
Question: does socialism, communism, fascism, anarchism, or other ism produce a better kettle? Could we conceive an ism that makes better home appliances?
They don't, and no one is claiming that they do. The author is simply puzzled as to why capitalism (a system where maximizing profits is the goal) hasn't capitalized on the desire for a good kettle? And the speculated answer is that maybe there isn't enough desire for it to be profitable, because most people are happy enough with mediocre kettles.
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.
Actually, i would love to have a discussion with you - since there is a lot of thinking that went into quitting the smartphone. I have been mulling quitting smartphones for more than 2 years now. Only the pandemic let me to quit the smartphone. I do not have much anxiety over corona, it's beyond control. But smartphone is within our control. To quit or not seemed a simple decision for me. I was always willing to quit. My work demands made me put up with it for so long. Since WFH began due to pandemic, i see no need to use a smartphone anymore. I have diligently tracked my usage on smartphone and am pretty aware of how much time i wasted on it. Surprisingly, i am not addicted to any social media. But i started getting addicted to Youtube (if you consider that a social media, then yes). I didn't waste my time on pointless conspiracies etc on youtube. But nevertheless, i wasted enormous amounts of time on it. Hence, i was just waiting for the perfect time to quit it and to set expectations to people who would otherwise want to reach me.
reply