Discussing Linus's take on "Crush"

[Blasty Blosty]

2 minutes ago, Theorize5061 said:

That's fair and totally good. The issue is that people are belittling those that take issue with it and are outright ignorant of what is being presented as issue.

Yeah that's what's confusing me, how its created such a divide in the community

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, Blasty Blosty said:

Can someone explain to me what the issue is with the commercial?

There are multiple issues that vary depending on interpretation and cultural aspects.

 

A lot of the Japanese one is the cultural aspect where the items should be treated with respect and not crushed, along with the bit of waste where they have destroyed perfectly good items for the sake of an ad. [i.e. The items almost were considered work tools, and by destroying them like that you are disrespecting and insulting their worth].  Actually in some of the cultures items like that are considered to have souls; so them watching it would be equivalent to crushing souls.

 

Then you have the musician/artist aspect, which also can take offense to the destruction of their instruments where the idea is that the instruments can be completely replaced and destroyed by synthetic. [i.e. Not really following an artists perspective on the objects being crush].

 

You also have some of the artist backlash which are viewing the commercial as the ever advancing AI replacing the human elements to art.

 

Now the last one, about AI is I think a valid intent of the commercial as well; despite some people saying it's "obvious" of the intent and in effect implying that any other viewpoint is a facepalm worthy event.  The reason for alternative interpretations is that Apple was pushing AI music features nearby the release of this ad and the whole AI replacing artists concept that has been going on recently.

 

 

I would say, for gaming people.  Imagine if they had a whole bunch of real retro games getting crushed like that.  Those who are passionate about collecting and the retro games would not like the concept of real games being crushed [even if most were not the most popular games that can still be easily found].

 

On 5/13/2024 at 1:22 AM, Brian McKee said:

Now I don't believe anything was actually destroyed for this video obviously. I think based on watching it frame by frame that the video was either CG or using models and some special effects. Crushing a CRT is obviously a very very large hazard after all, and the lenses were nonsense.

I do think there are some CG elements to it...but generally as well it probably would be cheaper to just do practical effects/rigged props and use less of the CG elements [or rather lots of it would be like comp in post].

 

CRT's aren't overly hazardous, the biggest thing being lead

[Brian McKee]

14 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

CRT's aren't overly hazardous, the biggest thing being lead

The hazardous thing about CRTs is the tube is a vacuum, crushing it would be explosive and very dangerous. If it's a prop it's a CRT that's already been gutted. This is why most places don't let you just junk CRTs, you have to dispose of them properly.

[Blasty Blosty]

14 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

I would say, for gaming people.  Imagine if they had a whole bunch of real retro games getting crushed like that.  Those who are passionate about collecting and the retro games would not like the concept of real games being crushed [even if most were not the most popular games that can still be easily found].

Ahh yeah that makes it much more relatbale

[wanderingfool2]

On 5/15/2024 at 11:29 PM, Brian McKee said:

The hazardous thing about CRTs is the tube is a vacuum, crushing it would be explosive and very dangerous. If it's a prop it's a CRT that's already been gutted. This is why most places don't let you just junk CRTs, you have to dispose of them properly.

Nope, I would hardly call that hazardous.  The reason you can't junk CRT's is simply put because of the lead.

 

When the CRT's do get smashed in landfills any water can get slowly dissolved into the water and cause runoffs with trace amounts of lead.  It's the same reason many CFL's aren't allowed to disposed of in landfills [except in that case it's also mercury].  The other reason is that they have extremely high voltages [but that's easily rectified]

 

The vacuum itself is not very dangerous, especially given that they are filming it with no one in the room.  Yes, you can get glass that gets propelled, but unless you stand in front of it you aren't going to get injured.  Otherwise they wouldn't be used in rage rooms back in the day [when they were cheap to come by].  Even to this day some rage rooms have CRT's in them.

 

Also, should be noted it's an implosion, not an explosion.  An implosion has a very limited energy compared to an explosion, as well can only accelerate an object to the speed of sound towards the center...that's actually best case scenario as well.

 

I've some the napkin math, which would assume almost the best case scenario [that it accelerates from the back out the front without colliding with any other glass which also is flying towards it].  Assuming a 32 inch TV [the one they used looks smaller]

 

Acceleration distance (a) = 22 inches/2 = 0.28 meters

[based on dimensions of the TV I have]...since it only accelerates to half the distance since the air is coming in from all direction divided by half

Assume a 10mmx10mmx10mm sized chunk;

mass = 0.00255kg (assumes 2550kg/m3 for glass)

area (A) = 0.0001

P = 1 atm = 101325

F = P / A = 10.13

a = F/m = 4053

v = sqrt(2ax) = 47.2 m/s = ~169 km/h

 

If you assume a 17 inch screen [which it looks like in this commercial]

v = 29.7m/s = ~107 km/h.

 

So overall, the vacuum really isn't much to worry about when it comes to smashing a CRT...unless you are standing right in-front of it as it smashes.  Again the above paints pretty much an optimal scenario, in reality the numbers would be drastically lower for particle sizes that could injure.

 

*edit*

Here's a video

Notice the guy at 1:24 is operating the machine within a meter of the TV.  Overall it's not really hazardous because of the tube pressure

[Theorize5061]

Well umm, anyone else find it a bit weird that the iPad review starts with a callout to the hydraulic press issue and again, seemingly making fun (I don't know what else that would mean) of this whole argument against Apple? I hope that they simply don't pay attention to this thread. Maybe some other thoughts on how others understand it? xD