Comment by jen20
3 days ago
> I want the choice to buy something that makes a dent in my electricity bill if I so choose to.
Have you considered that the market for such a thing is effectively zero? Why would anyone make this?
Dysons are fine, even if the founder is a total tool.
I was being hyperbolic throughout the entire post.
Every-time you have a conversation around older stuff being better than newer stuff (some of this is due to regulation), you will have someone say their boutique item that costs hundreds of pounds (or maybe 1000s) works perfectly well. Ignoring the fact that most people don't wish to buy these boutique items (the dude literally talked about some Norwegian toilet design). I buy whatever is typically on offer than is from a brand that I recognise. I don't care about the power consumption of my vacuum cleaner. I am not using it for the entire day. It is maybe 30 minutes to an hour twice a week. I just want to do this task (which I find tedious) as quickly as possible.
BTW Dysons count in this regard as boutique, they are expensive and kinda rubbish. They are rendered useless by cat fur (my mother had three cats and it constantly got clogged with it). Bagless vacuum cleaners are generally garbage anyway (this is a separate complaint) because when you try to empty them, you have to empty it into a bag typically.
> [Dysons] are rendered useless by cat fur
Patently untrue. Mine works fine.
Argh yes the "Works for me" argument. I suppose my mother was lying when she was complaining about it then? I will take her word for it rather than random internet user. So not it isn't patently untrue. I really dislike it when people try to gaslight me, on things that I have first hand experience with, so please don't do it.
BTW The old Henry Hoover (not bagless) never had any problems.
4 replies →