Their research is based on a model like this, the million litre they say is being spilled would be ‘saved’ by comparing a model like this to their own extra splash resistant design. They say this model has to much backsplash.

It is literally in the article: https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/4/4/pgaf087/8098745

The people who did the research do think it is a big deal, and it might be exactly the reason why you don’t use a urinal (although that could also have to do with your body parts, I don’t know you).

[…] the researchers wrote in the study. “The use of urinals often results in significant splatter (splashback) as urine splashes upon impact with the urinal generating droplets which travel back onto the floor and user.”

This splashback is a breeding ground for bacteria, resulting in bad smells in public restrooms and the potential for the spread of diseases.

“The surfaces of urinals have significantly higher concentrations of bacteria than traditional toilets, with surrounding floors having the highest level,” the researchers added.

This high level of spillage of urine requires frequent cleaning, which uses a large volume of water, is unpleasant work for custodial staff and is very expensive.

Just turn on the rain, that’s all there’s to it

Well good news, that is exactly what these researchers looked into.

I wonder wether they took these kinds of things in account in the research, if it’s about collecting to highest percentage of pee possible than I’d argue this matters too. They also say their design is better for children and people in wheelchairs so who knows.

The researchers suggest that if Nautilus was to replace the 56 million urinals across the U.S., around 1 million liters of urine would be prevented from being splashed onto the floor every day. Assuming that the volume of water needed to clean up spilled urine is about 10 times that of the volume of urine, about 10 million liters (2,199,692 gallons) of fresh water could be saved every day, the scientists said.

The widespread adoption of these urinal designs “would result in considerable conservation of human resources, cost, cleaning chemicals, and water usage, rendering large-scale impacts on modern society by improving sustainability, hygiene, and accessibility,” the researchers wrote.

They should drop everything and do this first thing.

The waste (╯°□°）╯

No offense but I don’t think you’ve read the article.

1-5€ per cosmetic you mean

Cue the taxicat: https://lemm.ee/post/60843451

Artist is the second the robot killed

Replace sailor with user and you’re spot on. Instead of selling intimacy we sell our attention in exchange for content.

100% better

If a product wouldn’t sell if it isn’t heavily marketed I’d agree it doesn’t need to exist. But if a product is paid for by advertising other products, that is a different story. Newspapers have had advertising for ages because of the high cost of running a newspaper, many tv-channels wouldn’t be able to exist on a subscription basis. Same goes for a lot of websites online. Also no more free porn (not legally at least). Advertising pays for a lot of things in our society. I’m not saying this is a good thing, but this system cannot be changed overnight.

Another part of the problem I haven’t read in the comments is all the companies that rely on advertising to exist, especially media companies. Many newspapers, magazines, websites, TV channels etc would go bankrupt if they couldn’t earn money with advertising. There is a simple solution because we can ‘just pay them’ but I’m afraid we won’t. People hate advertising (someone commented “advertising is violence”, that really says it all), but still many of us choose to not get the subscription but use the ‘free’ option instead.

I’m not against banning all advertising, but I think working towards more peaceful advertising might be fruitful. Banning advertising of tabacco products and having disclaimers when financial and medical products show this can be done.

“advertising is violence” says so much about how we (the world) allow companies to behave.

I agree, as in many more cases it is better to regulate than it is to forbid. Companies and consumers will find a way.

You can and should make the distinction between being paid to advertise something and sharing information based on your believes. There is such a thing as free marketing and I agree you cannot ban that, but you can ban paid advertising in a similar way as paid sex is banned in many places across the world.

The article is about paid advertising. Paying someone to spread your opinion is in my eyes very different than telling someone about your opinion and trying to persuade that person to agree with you.