Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.xs3.de!ereborbbs.duckdns.org!eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Robert Carnegie <rja.carnegie@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: The insane progress nobody is talking about
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2024 16:11:11 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 69
Message-ID: <v5ugue$14hdg$2@dont-email.me>
References: <slrnv760nq.ve1.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
 <a8k87j55bf3og8f358eo572d8nuk14fj18@4ax.com>
 <SyZcO.93189$qgY9.20273@fx17.iad>
 <gr9b7j1fqsof44cp9olru8k1vbq57cbp69@4ax.com> <bcidO.6168$ZwRb.3623@fx38.iad>
 <o4td7jhvbegl0qppoc96t4kk7fc7jgqah3@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2024 17:11:11 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ebfcc837a0f8ab2a38455b1d8a9d94d5";
	logging-data="1197488"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX187kuazQIjlt0g/p71Cj0tS7ZDN4iNogXU="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kBN1mr5XGKXahtJPFgB+nl/r+70=
In-Reply-To: <o4td7jhvbegl0qppoc96t4kk7fc7jgqah3@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4019

On 22/06/2024 17:26, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jun 2024 16:51:19 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
> 
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>> On Thu, 20 Jun 2024 17:21:54 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 16:10:34 -0000 (UTC), Christian Weisgerber
>>>>> <naddy@mips.inka.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> People are bitching about a lack of flying cars or fusion power,
>>>>>> but hardly notice the actual, incredible, crazy progress that is
>>>>>> happening.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm talking of course about artificial illumination.  (Yes, again.)
>>>>>> Not sexy?  Too bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Recently a conventional light bulb that had escaped my purge revealed
>>>>>> itself by dying.  I replaced it with the latest generation of Philips
>>>>>> LED bulb that requires about 1/14 (!) as much energy for the same
>>>>>> light output and is specified with a lifetime of 50.000 hours, which
>>>>>> amounts to some 50 years of average use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rated, yes. And based on some sort of tests, no doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Based on calculations.  For example, the resistors in
>>>> the product have certain characteristics such as resistance,
>>>> tolerance, working temperature,  power rating, etc.   Included in that =
>>> is
>>>> a lifetime rating provided by the part manufacturer when the part
>>>> is used within specifications.
>>>>
>>>> One can calculate the overall expected lifetime of a
>>>> product statistically based on that per-component data
>>>> accounting for effects that degrade the data such
>>>> as operating outside specification, etc.
>>>
>>> The map is not the terrain.
>>
>> The goal is to create a statistical certainly.  Obviously
>> any one bulb might be defective, but the majority
>> of bulbs will survive for the specified period.
>>
>>
>>
>>> But thanks for confirming the basic bogosity of these claims.
>>
>> I did no such thing.
> 
> Actually, you did.
> 
> You confirmed that the length-of-life claims have no basis in how long
> they actually last but merely in projections based on assumptions and
> (have now added above ) are only true in the statistical sense -- as
> opposed to the real-world sense.
> 
> The truth is that, unless everyone keeps strict records, we do not
> have and never will have a true picture of how long they last under
> various conditions.

It's science.  Science is pretty good stuff.

It's probably also conservative - in the sense
of under-claiming what is delivered.  In the
political sense, not wasting energy is the
opposite of conservative.