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

441–450 of 618 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#441

Post by hueving »

Grishnakh wrote: post #390
tomjakubowski wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't reply to stouset for some stupid reason On deeply nested comments, if it hasn't been long since the post was made you have to click the "permalink" ("XX minutes ago" or "XX hours ago") link to reply. I think the extra step is to help slow down flamewars ("do I really need to reply to this comment, right now?".

Thanks for the info, that's very useful. If this is the intention, it seems like it'd make more sense to throw up roadblocks to only someone else who's in the comment chain, rather than to someone who hasn't been involved at all and is just chiming in. Usually, those flamewars are long chains of comments between two people.

It's also useful to slowdown people dog-piling the 'obvious' response to new comments.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#442

Post by MustardTiger »

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…

>Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east

The subject is entirely irrelevant. You just bring it up to virtue signal, despite the fact that even in your best case scenario, 30% of the people you are assuming would want an apology are people who voted for Trump.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#443

Post by MustardTiger »

qwertyuiop924 wrote: post #259
MustardTiger wrote: post #152

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

...Because if you're in USNE, you probably felt genuinely ill after hearing the nomination. Missouri, as well as the rest of the US Midwest, is famously comically red. So if you're in a discussion about cultural differences between USNE and USMW, that's an entirely valid point. Also, if you're in a red state, you might feel the need to tell people you didn't vote for Trump, because you want to make sure that you'll g…

>Because if you're in USNE, you probably felt genuinely ill after hearing the nomination

Which is both a foolish assumption and completely off-topic and irrelevant. Even in the NE, millions of people voted for Trump. And millions more didn't vote for him, but are not so blinded by their little bubble of hate that they "felt genuinely ill" over their preferred candidate losing an election.

>So if you're in a discussion about cultural differences between USNE and USMW, that's an entirely valid point.

We're in a discussion about diamonds.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#444

Post by _nedR »

Zombieball wrote: post #376
matthewaveryusa wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I gave my wife a moissanite and seeded are to-be joint saving account with the 10k we saved. You just have to remember that the burden of wearing the moissanite is on the woman. The choice is obvious but the social pressure is huge. Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you :)

> Women love to look at other women's rings and chat about it. If she is open to the idea, just remember that she's the one being brave and breaking out of the mold more so than you. This is a great description that captures the social pressure aspect quite well. Guys aren't the ones wearing the ring everywhere!

Also most guys wouldn't care in the least about rings (unless you know it has bluetooth or zigbee or something).

Agree grandparent comment truly made me understand the woman's side of thing. It's easy for men to dismiss them as being irrational.

I am glad that diamond engagements aren't a thing in India. (Although in place of it we have a ton of other retarded customs). Gold is pretty much the standard here - which is actually quite practical. It makes a good liquid asset, holds its value, stays as an insurance and safety during hard times.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#445

Post by MustardTiger »

Grishnakh wrote: post #324
jakewins wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it

He said that over 6 months ago, that's not backtracking.

>unless you campaigned a lot to get more people to the polls in the Dem primary to vote for Bernie.

That would not have changed anything. There was no primary election, it was rigged. Perhaps try reading those leaked emails the media was telling you not to read.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#446

Post by rhizome »

Grishnakh wrote: post #310
lacampbell wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have to agree that it's not a great sign if she insists on this. What other trendy stuff is she going to demand just because "everyone else does it"? I'm somewhat recently divorced now, but one good thing about my ex is that she was never superficial like this. She was perfectly happy to get a $70 Titanium wedding band, and loved how lightweight it was, and never wanted a silly gemstone on her hand. We did get her…

Just to be clear, your benchmark for 'trendy' includes diamonds? That's like calling printed books a fad.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#447

Post by tirant »

ftrflyr wrote: post #107
bing_dai wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a woman in a happy, long term relationship. I have issues with your assumption about "girls". I told my boyfriend not to give me a diamond because every aspect of what diamond actually embodies goes against my value. There are certainly women who adore diamonds, but not every woman does.

Will you please speak to my GF! I am afraid we have different values and any time the ring conversation comes up, it ends in an argument. The last argument ended in her telling me that we shouldn't talk about it anymore.

Then you have an issue on the values you have, and willing to spend the rest of your life together with someone that doesn't share those same values.

You should really have an open conversation about that and weight the implications of it. It can slowly build up to an unavoidable obstacle for the relationship.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#448

Post by oakwhiz »

I purchased a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet from a surplus auction that included electro-optical equipment (big lasers and such.) The garnet is a nice pink color with a high refractive index. It's slightly bigger than 1 cubic centimeter and being lab grown it has zero defects other than the neodymium atoms which turn it pink.

I plan on having it cut and set into a ring. However one obstacle is that yttrium is considered toxic to humans as a dust. Proper safety, ventilation and cleanup must be observed which makes it difficult to find jewellers that are willing to accommodate this.

Re: Diamonds Suck (2006)

#449

Post by sherman-human »

I commissioned a bespoke moissanite ring for my wife. One of her family members seemed gobsmacked by the shiny thing. A couple months later this person was wearing a new ring with a larger stone. If you are concerned about conflict diamonds, there are some weird edge cases you need to consider.
Post reply on HN