Pointless inventions

66Mustang

In your opinion, what are the most pointless things that have been invented?

I want to nominate the honey drizzler (picture attached in case anyone doesn't know what that is)

Now maybe I am using it wrong and there is some technique I am unaware of, but this admittedly cute utensil does not seem to do any job that cannot be fulfilled with a teaspoon. Actually it's worse than a teaspoon because once you remove it from the honey, it just drizzles honey everywhere, and there is no way of stopping the drizzle stream once started and you have to wait for it to run out. Which takes ages because it gradually slows down until the honey is all gone

It just seems like way to convince middle class people to part with their money for a quaint but ultimately redundant item

What are your nominations???

Albus_Scope

The best one I've seen recently was "Left handed cutlery" It was the same usual cutlery, but they just placed the knife and fork in the packaging the other way around.   

66Mustang

Ha ha @Albus_Scope that's funny

I saw another thing at a garden centre recently. It was a "bumble bee first aid kit" to carry around in case you find a bumblebee in need, it was essentially a necklace with a small capsule on it with sugar solution in it

I decided it was too adorable that it was impossible to criticise the idea of it though

Albus_Scope

Oh that's very cute.  I'd buy one of those for sure.  

vikingqueen

 My son eats with left handed cutlery but he's right handed 🤔.. and I'm left handed and eat with right handed cutlery, so it's not as daft as it seems 🙃😂

Jimm_Scope

Oh there are many inventions that aren't even usable for what they're intended! My partner watches a lot of youtube videos about them I'll need to ask what her favourites are.

For me though, NFT art must surely be the most pointless.


I will say, the honey dipper, you're supposed to dip it in the honey and then when you lift it out the honey keep it horizontal and keep spinning it. The honey should be syrupy enough that it doesn't drip until you stop spinning it. I don't think I even own one but I've been to an apiary before :P

66Mustang

@Jimm_Scope what's NFT art? I thought NFTs were some kind of unique code you can attach to an item to digitally prove the identity/ownership of that item?? How does that go with art??

66Mustang

I have something I've thought pointless for a while, but you have to be a bit of a car enthusiast to understand so I might be trying to explain something in vain

Lots of models of car have a diesel equivalent, let's say the Mini Cooper, they bring out a Mini Cooper D. It's more economical so cheaper to run, but it's slower, totally understandable and justifiable if that's what you want

However the petrol version has a sport model (Mini Cooper S) for people who want to go a bit faster but are happy to spend more on running costs ... again understandable

What I don't get is that they then invent a sport version of the diesel model - Mini Cooper SD

So ... they've taken a car aimed at people who are conscious of running costs, and made it faster and more expensive to run

If someone wanted that wouldn't they just buy the petrol version in the first place??

It's a bit like saying ... I've invented this laptop that's much more powerful but it's bigger and heavier so you can't move it around and it's fixed in one place ... I think that's kind of been done  

OverlyAnxious

I've owned a lot of diesels...some of which have been sports models.  

It's not a new invention.  The first Golf GTD was released in 1982.  Just 7 years after the petrol GTI.

Ultimately they're still much cheaper to fuel & *tax than petrol equivalents.  (*Well, they were before tax became a flat rate in 2017).  They generally have more torque for an easier daily drive, no throttle needed for slow manoeuvres or hill-starts for example.

Still get the looks and the interior feel of the flagship petrol model, just with a slightly different drive and...unfortunately they all sound like a Transit van while idling at traffic lights.   They're not 'slower' in many cases.  0-60, yes.  But who ever does that?  The extra torque means that 30-70, joining motorway slip roads or overtaking on B-roads, things most rural drivers do regularly, is often equal or better than the petrol equivalent. 

66Mustang

I was kind of hoping you'd be along @OverlyAnxious, thanks for explaining!!!

Hmm maybe I was wrong and should give one a go one day?? I actually quite like usable torque and not having to rev the engine a lot for a slip road or overtake!!

You are quite right I think ... I do make frequent use of the acceleration but very rarely at 0-20 speeds or in first gear because I don't like the feeling of losing a little bit of grip/control

Jimm_Scope

66Mustang said:

@Jimm_Scope what's NFT art? I thought NFTs were some kind of unique code you can attach to an item to digitally prove the identity/ownership of that item?? How does that go with art??

It is yes, and some people sold artwork with an NFT, it didn't exist as a physical object but was just a computer file. Which could be copied very, very easily. Some people sold these non-physical artworks with NFTs to make them "unique". Some people paid hundreds of thousands, even millions for them in some rare cases.

Nearly all worthless now of course. Artwork is sort of meant to be displayed, no? What is a virtual artwork even worth if you cannot display it?

And when I saw "artwork", most of it was actually procedurally generated, very little work went into making them.

Jimm_Scope

Also, I'm surprised they're still trying to get people to buy new diesel cars. They're a bit more economical, but a lot of places are bringing in things like the London ULEZ which is much more restrictive on diesel cars because they spew out more particulates and NO2 which is worse for air quality and thus the health of the people in the area.

66Mustang

@Jimm_Scope

In fairness diesels are aimed at people who do more miles or longer journeys, like motorway trips, where there are no pedestrians to breathe in the nasty fumes 

Most people who will spend more than like 2% of their time in a town are better off with petrol (or electric even)

Of course you are right and sadly there is no law requiring the use of common sense so it’s still legal to buy a diesel car and solely drive round a city in it every day

OverlyAnxious

Jimm_Scope said:

Also, I'm surprised they're still trying to get people to buy new diesel cars. They're a bit more economical, but a lot of places are bringing in things like the London ULEZ which is much more restrictive on diesel cars because they spew out more particulates and NO2 which is worse for air quality and thus the health of the people in the area.

That's not quite true.  Now that most petrol's are direct injection, they produce similar levels of NOx & particulates to diesels.  They also produce more CO & CO2 than diesels.

The allowed particulate limit has been identical for both petrol and diesel cars for more than 10 years.  Just 5mg per kilometre.  Particulate filters are fitted to both to comply with that limit.

The diesel NOx limit was more than halved in 2015.  Down to 80mg per km.  With petrols allowed 25% less at 60mg per km.  But those really are tiny amounts and I don't believe that 20mg/km difference is enough to justify petrol over diesel when looking at Euro 6 vehicles.

However, sadly the media hype has ruined diesels, so they are now just a very small percentage of new cars being sold.  The next big emissions regulation change is meant to be introduced next year, Euro 7, which will make it virtually impossible for petrols or diesels to comply without being hybrid, though it's not set in stone yet.

66Mustang

@OverlyAnxious

Aren't diesels actually better for the environment on a global level, while being a smidge dirtier locally??

OverlyAnxious

66Mustang said:

@OverlyAnxious

Aren't diesels actually better for the environment on a global level, while being a smidge dirtier locally??

There will be varying opinions on that.  The main reason they can be considered better globally is because they produce less CO2 - which is the main greenhouse gas we've been trying to tackle for the past 25 years, in an effort to limit the rate of global warming.

However, NOx contributes to things like acid rain which damages crops and forests.  So that's not just a local issue and, if you're looking at pre-2010 diesels, that's also undesirable on a global scale.

Ultimately, extracting & burning fossil fuels for everyone to use a personal vehicle is an environmental disaster.  But the post-war generations have normalised that and there's no way back now.  Modern society has been built around the car and, when asked now, the vast majority of people will justify why they need to own a car, while also complaining about traffic jams and air pollution.

66Mustang

Yes that makes sense @OverlyAnxious

She may well have changed car now, because this was a few years ago, but when the leader of Extinction Rebellion herself attempts to justify why she requires a Range Rover Diesel I think that says something about how dependant the human race is on car ownership

I can't claim to be above that myself, as I couldn't do without a car!!! Although that said I will say I do not have any self-imposed requirement that my car must run on fossil fuels! However rightly or wrongly I think a fuel that doesn't ostracise people who don't live in a property with private land to park on will ultimately be more successful