this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2025
98 points (88.9% liked)
Technology
69346 readers
3692 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I'm fine with putting more insulation on refrigerators, but low-flow showerheads are a serious disappointment in showering experience. I want to be hammered by that water, not misted.
I always get downvoted for saying it, but I don't care because the real water savings never came from stupid showers: It comes from not growing crops in the damned desert; it comes from not growing grass on lawns in arid environments; it comes from not raising so many cattle.
Most low flow shower heads have a plastic insert in them called a restrictor that can be removed to make it work like the high flow ones.
It's nothing more than a small cylinder that can be pushed or pulled out from the shower line and manufacturers use these restrictors because it allows them to sell the same unit in multiple markets.
EDIT: Forgot to add water savings reasons.
No idea at what point you talk about where the real savings actually come from, but not anywhere after that colon.
It comes from not using huge amounts of water to grow water-intensive crops in the California desert.
And reducing grass in desert areas.
What?
are you saying we shouldnt be allowing the Saudi's to use billions of gallons of water, to grow tons of alfalfa (one of the most water intensive crops there is) in the middle of the desert, in a drought, just so they can ship it all back home to saudi arabia to use as animal feed?
The other end of that is just as bad. The Saudis raise cattle in the desert because their government wants to encourage its citizens to consume more cow's milk (you can also buy camel's milk in supermarkets but it's very much an acquired taste). There are vast structures to provide shade, and misting systems to keep the cattle cool, all of this in one of the hottest desert environments on earth. The farms are manned by low-paid TCNs who live in abysmal conditions. And the water? Saudi Arabia is mining subterranean aquifers at a mad rate, and it's not in any way sustainable. So both ends of the supply chain are wasteful abominations.
Why do they even want to encourage cow milk consumption?
Shutting down the irrigation of all golf courses would be a big win too.
This.