Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Diamonds Suck (2006)

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#321

Post by alexhawdon »

dimino wrote: post #213
ftrflyr wrote: post #96

I told my girlfriend (5 years) how I feel about diamonds and that I reject the very notion of buying a diamond engagement / wedding ring early on in our relationship. Several months ago, we landed on the marriage conversation, again. I reiterated that I am against diamond engagement bands. She then said: "What about a wedding ring then?" I told her it applies to wedding rings as well. We got into a heated argument an…

This isn't really a place for relationship advice, but to frame it in the context of a startup, if a founder just won't talk about a decision you both need to make together, that's a huge red flag that maybe going into business with this person isn't the best idea. I haven't gone through this myself, but I've read that part of picking a great founder is finding someone you can talk through issues with, even if they'r…

> This isn't really a place for relationship advice

Yes. If we could let people relate their experience as customers without giving unwanted relationship advice that'd be great.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#322

Post by dllthomas »

rahkiin wrote: post #299
dllthomas wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends on the method of fabrication - there are several. From my recollection of a Wired article from a decade ago, there was a then-new technique that produced diamonds that were indistinguishable from natural diamonds but for being maybe a little too perfect. Article seems to be here, method in question was "Chemical Vapor Deposition": https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/

You do realise that the OP article was from 2006 while the article you cite is from 2009?

The article I cited was from 2003, but I'm not sure what the relevance is of the relative dates. My comment wasn't directed at the OP, but at the parent's question about fabricated ("cultured" ;) ) diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#323

Post by asmala »

bluejekyll wrote: post #186
beevai142 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the diamond ring fad apparently originated from a marketing campaign, it would be interesting to see how well the belief that wedding rings should have a diamond correlates with where the ads were run. At least in the nordics, I don't think there's a specific type of wedding (EDIT: or engagement) ring that you're expected to have, and I think many people have no stone of any kind embedded in theirs.

It's the engagement ring that traditionally has a stone, not the wedding band, which is often just a pure metal (in the US), though many have small stones around the ring.

In Nordic countries, the order is reversed. We wear simple bands after the engagement, and give the fancier ring during the wedding.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#324

Post by Grishnakh »

jakewins wrote: post #174
MustardTiger wrote: post #152

>Sorry about Trump, BTW. Why on earth do you think that sort of random political non-sequitur is appropriate?

Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east. I think it's appropriate to segway into another topic that way. If it's the sarcasm you find inappropriate, I respectfully disagree. If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves i…

>If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain.

Are you sure about that? He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it, and the latest news about deportations is that he wants to deport people who have criminal records. Personally, I'm wondering why people who aren't legal immigrants or residents, and who have committed crimes (beyond speeding tickets...) are still here and haven't been deported yet. Who's going to moan about that? He's also making noises about figuring out who the "terrific people" are and keeping them here. Obviously, a lot of stuff he's said was said to appeal to angry voters, and isn't necessarily what he's going to do in office; I expect he's going to go back on a lot of his promises, but in a way that he can claim he didn't (by simply not going as far as implied; then he'll claim he didn't "mean that literally" or "didn't fully articulate the policy" or something like that). Call me crazy or overly-optimistic, but I'm thinking now that he's going to water a lot of stuff down, in an attempt to keep his popularity numbers very high, while still getting some things done that he thought needed to be done.

>As a progressive in the midwest, I did not do enough to campaign to the large group of Trump-voters in my immediate family, friend group and neighborhood.

There was absolutely nothing you could have done to change the course of the election, unless you campaigned a lot to get more people to the polls in the Dem primary to vote for Bernie. Once Hillary was anointed, it was all over: too many voters simply were not going to vote for her, no matter what. Just look at the turnout numbers: about 4-5 million fewer people voted this year than in 2008 when Obama was elected, even though there's more eligible voters 8 years later (greater population). A lot of people simply hated Hillary and voted for Trump out of spite, many voted 3rd party (though many of those votes were angry Republicans), but tons of people simply didn't vote. The DNC has only itself to blame for this, so if you're mad about that, I suggest you dedicate your campaigning efforts to reforming the DNC.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#325

Post by gravypod »

ridgeguy wrote: post #317
gravypod wrote: post #128

So this is Silicon Carbide? I'd love to see someone grow one of these crystals. The raw materials and the processes needed are, from what people have told me, simple but no one has ever gone past "don't worry about it".

The raw materials are cheap, but growing crystals of SiC isn't easy, and it took quite a long time to work out the growth processes. It helps that it's more or less conventional crystal growth and doesn't require super high pressure, as does one of the two main ways of growing diamond. Here's a presentation on some aspects of growing silicon carbide (which in its low-defect state is clear & colorless, i.e., Moissonit…

I know this is a big ask for some machineists/industrial engineers out there but I think it would be really cool to see someone produce a one off sample of Moissonite for their spouse. Would be really lovely and from looking at this very very doable.

This would be great but reading through this but it doesn't look like a 15 minute process. You're right, the robust-ativity of this is the real concern here.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#326

Post by beachstartup »

lacampbell wrote: post #196
ejcx wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sent this to my SO and she now wants one instead of a diamond. Until now, it's been non-negotiable. Thanks for writing. I did not want to buy a diamond :)

> Until now, it's been non-negotiable. I really hate to be a random person on the internet giving personal advice but... diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign. Don't be surprised to find out a bunch of other things are non-negotiable if you divorce.

> diamonds being "non-negotiable" seems like a huge, glowing, neon warning sign

uh... well, apparently it was negotiable, since all he had to do was find a suitable alternative and send her a link to a convincing article on the internet.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#327

Post by chr1 »

bluedevil2k wrote: post #257
thecatspaw wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you can get married without a diamond ring or a expensive marriage. its only a netloss if you make it one

Ok, fine then...a kid is a net loss, a particularly large one at that. Should you not have kids then?

Kid is a pretty solid long time investment(¹), which makes wife a cofounder. Good cofounder won't ask to burn some money to celebrate foundation of the company:).

(¹) of course some children are still a net loss, but other investments fail too so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#328

Post by Arkaad »

tdkl wrote: post #286

Here's a nice show "Adam ruins everything" where the host explains why weddings (and the ring "tradition") is just about marketing started in 20th century: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVLGsc0M9h0

Had to scroll way too far to this see someone mention that video.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#329

Post by coin »

2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #235
coin wrote: post #206

> superior to diamonds in every essential way: cut, color, clarity, durability, fire, brilliance Yet the author still uses the "desirable" properties taught by the diamond industry

What is the point of this comment? If I design a new type of helmut that was totally awesome, it would rightly be judged against other helmuts. If I buy a stone specifically as an alternative to diamond for jewellery, why would I come up with different criteria?

The point is that these "desirable" attributes were chosen by the diamond industry to promote their own gems. Why is "fire" or "brilliance" the reference by which gemstones are judged by? This mindset is exactly what the diamond industry has created, and the irony is that the author has taken the same sheepish following that diamond customers have.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#330

Post by graycat »

selimthegrim wrote: post #316
graycat wrote: post #197

Gee, ever since she was three years old and playing with Disney dolls, e.g., Cinderella, she was dreaming of HER dream man, on a white horse, in shining armor, picking her up and carrying her off to their love nest castle on the top of the mountain. Alas, with current economic conditions -- those suits of shining armor and white horses can really set a guy back -- she gets a guy, he did just take a shower, in blue de…

Phil Greenspun is leaking onto this forum, clearly.

I haven't read Greenspun in years! What's he up to these days?
Post reply on HN