[dumbo-octopus]

A government paying for a thing does not in any way imply that the thing is a good use of money. How many decades of fabric replacements could you get from the savings of bolting on a simple metal frame as compared to an elaborate electromechanically actuated arm mechanism?

[Etheryte]

This is such a silly argument. A movable awning isn't some complex apparatus, it's literally a hinge and two sticks. You're trying to frame this as some kind of an expensive problem when it really isn't.

[dumbo-octopus]

You forgot the actuator.

[skrebbel]

It's a stick with a handle that you turn

[dumbo-octopus]

Connected to a gear that needs oil, a chain that needs oil and can rust, or a rope that withers. Being overly dismissive of failure modes isn’t a good look. I don’t claim that fixed awnings are God’s gift to humanity, just that they don’t have some of the drawbacks associated with moving parts. The amount of emotional reaction I’ve received to that completely factual statement is frankly ridiculous.

[Etheryte]

You're overlooking the fact that these are incredibly common in the Netherlands, yet the massive problems you describe are nowhere to be found. Most people get away with giving them some love maybe every few years when they get creaky, if even that. Your argument is about as reasonable as saying we shouldn't have door hinges or door locks because moving parts have drawbacks. It's silly, these systems are so simple that they require next to no upkeep for years at a time.

[dumbo-octopus]

Indeed we shouldn’t have hinges or locks because moving parts have drawbacks, in contexts where that matters. For instance portals that don’t need a door at all, or walls that don’t need to open. Would you argue that every open passageway should have a door blocking it, and every wall should have hinges installed? No, that’s ridiculous. It’s equally ridiculous to get this angry about the simple fact that fixed awnings have upsides, and depending on the context they might be a better choice than retractable ones.

[jve]

Reading your comments, including down the thread I'd want to remind some guidelines:

> Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

Your comments currently stand close to trolling and it is annoying.

You may find other useful ones, too: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[dfxm12]

Interestingly, trolling does not appear to be against the guidelines, but posts like yours suggesting someone might be (close to) a troll are. After all, the guidelines tell us to assume good faith, but do they say anywhere that you must post in good faith? It seems like our only recourse under the guidelines is to flag a post and hope for the best.

[gacklecackle]

* "should" vs. "must", you might find this useful. And also: "guidelines", not "rules".

[malermeister]

In the Netherlands? If its bolted on, it won't even last a year. The North Sea has a lot of storms ;)

[fhars]

And who would even want a fixed structure that keeps out the little bit of winter sun there is?

[pistoleer]

> A government paying for a thing does not in any way imply that the thing is a good use of money.

Agreed, nor is the inverse implied of course. But what is your point?

> How many decades of fabric replacements could you get from the savings of bolting on a simple metal frame as compared to an elaborate electromechanically actuated arm mechanism?

That's what I'm saying, fabric doesn't really need to get replaced in 15 years and going from personal experience. The mechanism is simple enough to be reliable as well.

Ultimately, it's impossible to analyze the cost benefits of this. It's a matter of personal taste and what the harshness of the local climate allows. I don't doubt that fixed awnings are cheaper - but actuating awnings fix their drawbacks, and the maintenance they introduce is minimal in my experience. And frankly, for the price of giving up a single vacation in 15+ years, it's not that expensive. Again, cheap enough that those in social housing can make the choice to get them installed.

ETA: my point of mentioning social housing is to say that people with lower income can still get them. The government doesn't pay for it. I just wanted to paint a picture of the relative cost.

[dumbo-octopus]

What is your point in stating that public housing uses them? (aka the government buys them).

No clue why this turned into a huge debate. I don’t have a dog in this fight, all I’m saying is that america has retractable awnings, they have some downsides, and a government (or a “low class” individual) buying something doesn’t convince me it’s a good investment.

[kuschku]

> What is your point in stating that public housing uses them? (aka the government buys them).

Who said anything about the government buying them? The renters in public housing usually buy and install them by themselves. That's why usually every balcony has a different type of awning, in a different state of disrepair.

While I'm nowadays in IT, when I was a child our family lived in this type of public housing, and we had a retractable awning of exactly that kind that my parents had installed themselves.

[pxndxx]

What? Who mentioned the government paying for them? Who said that the fabric needs replacing often?

[dumbo-octopus]

The parent…? Who pays for public housing? And what relevance would the weather otherwise have..?

[kuschku]

You might be misunderstanding something.

Even a working family, if they're earning very little, may be living in subsidized public housing.

Renters have lots of rights over here, allowing them to customize a lot about the apartment. Awnings are usually owned and installed by the renters themselves.

So a family that has so little income that they need to live in subsidized public housing may still have enough income to buy a retractable awning.