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

De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 455 posts

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#161

Post by commandar »

nwallin wrote: post #130
hutzlibu wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Organic food is worse than food wich was treated with various chemicals to kill living things? Thats news to me. But you probably mean "alternatives" for producing dirt cheap. Then yes, there are much worse substances around. Doesn't make it good, though.

Organic food IS food which is treated with various chemicals to kill living things. But the list of various chemicals are arbitrarily defined as "natural", putting them in the same list as other safe, natural chemicals like ricin, botulinum, strychnine, arsenic... "Organic" is a marketing term, not a descriptor of the production process.

>"Organic" is a marketing term, not a descriptor of the production process.

I generally agree with this, but with the caveat that tomatoes are an exception as I understand it.

It's nothing to do with being GMO or pesticides used, but rather the fact that conventionally grown tomatoes are generally harvested significantly pre-ripening, and then gassed with ethylene to promote them turning red.

My understanding -- and if I'm wrong about this someone please do chime in -- is that ethylene gassing isn't acceptable for tomatoes that are labeled organic (but is for some "organic" fruits like bananas). It's possible it's all placebo, but tomatoes are the one fruit/vegetable I tend toward actually using organic as result.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#162

Post by Jedd »

sametmax wrote: post #100
21 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, don't forget about people who are opposed to nuclear because of Fukushima. A good filter of people who don't understand science and how safe the nuclear industry is.

I'm pro nuclear, but given that the side effects on the oceans and hence the entire planet are still to be accounted for and that we won't know before decades, I find that comment quite arrogant. It's also discarding the real suffering of all the people that were affected by the 3 major nuclear accidents. I have a friend of mine who his medicated for life because of Chernobyl. Black and white are rarely the winning c…

I suspect parent's comment was actually sarcastic, rather than arrogant.

Nuclear is a term burdened with ambiguity - most people mean nuclear fission, some people mean nuclear fusion. As far as filters for scientific understanding, it's probably better than 'GMO is bad'.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#163

Post by BurningFrog »

goodpass wrote: post #141
BurningFrog wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how disbelieving works. People disbelieve facts that would cost them to believe. If I believe in climate change, I have to make expensive life changes (sell the SUV, buy a Tesla, etc). Therefore I will not believe in it. This belief is 100% honest, BTW. This is key to understand! For diamonds, the incentives are reversed. If I believe that artificial diamonds are as good as the natural kind, I can get a we…

Erm, I think it’s more like “I have a certain worldview that is only consistent if climate change isn’t real” or “this belief is part of my identity, which means the idea that it could be wrong is threatening to my identity”.

Yeah, those are also important. This is a big topic :)

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#164

Post by sampo »

hutzlibu wrote: post #132
daveFNbuck wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I mean that the chemicals used in organic farming to kill living things are more harmful to humans than glyphosate is.

The (small) organic farmers I know dont use pesticides at all. And as far as I know, here in europe they would not be allowed to use anything realy toxic, when they want to have the organic label. So things are different in the US then? Or also for europe? sources please.

Here's a list of 12 chemicals approved for use in organic farming:

https://risk-monger.com/2016/04/13/the-risk-mongers-dirty-do...

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#165

Post by dbasedweeb »

acchow wrote: post #103
degenerate wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the position is, it's not a shiny rock with natural scarcity and artificial inflated value because we hoard all the diamonds... but instead, a shiny rock with artificial scarcity and value because we hoard all the laboratories and control price. I fear the publishing and journal industries will stick around for another 100 years, just like De Beers has done to the diamond industry. We'll still be in the same crapp…

How can they hoard all the laboratories? This isn't a repeat of the early 20th century. It is way easier to make a lab than to find a new diamond mine.

It’s even easier for DeBeers to crush that lab, or buy it up and shut it down.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#166

Post by perfectstorm »

fgonzag wrote: post #10

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made dia…

the skeptic in me thinks these man made diamonds they make are made so that it won't last forever. I bet in 5yrs these diamonds would somehow fade or even break so they can keep selling natural long lasting diamonds.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#167

Post by userbinator »

madengr wrote: post #124
userbinator wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was he related to this? http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/life-sciences... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Single-crystal_CVD_diamon...

Don’t think so. It was a guy in the USA, about 10 years ago. Though looks like many are doing it now with CVD. Diamond semiconductors are the holy grail, though there is current work growing diamond heat spreaders directly under GaN active regions.

That was probably the Apollo Diamond guy: https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/

CVD is probably the better technology for producing bulk diamond, since it doesn't require the extreme temperatures and pressures of the HPHT process; and there's existing CVD processes and equipment from the semiconductor industry which provide a good body of knowledge to work with. CVD grows plates of diamond, whereas HPHT makes small cubes.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#168

Post by namibj »

p1necone wrote: post #58
seibelj wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Educated people who hate GMO are instant signal that they don’t understand science. A good filter

Lots of smart people have problems with Monsanto's business practices rather than GMO specifically.

In my case it's with the hard push to Hybrids, which is a major risk for the stability of the world's food supply (due to the strong mono culture, it's relatively easy for a willing player to first stock up on food, and then deliver pests for all major food hybrids that are only as effective because they are hybrids and not a healthy pool of genetic diversity. Also, if the hybrid seeds producing facilities were to be targeted, at the right time, it might not be possible to coordinate sufficient seeding of the available seeds, which the farmers might not even know how to plant/grow, as the non-hybrids are rather different from the hybrids, as far as optimum growing parameters go.

The primary issue with Monsanto specifically would then be that they actively try to prevent farmers from using non-hybrid seeds. Also, one would be surprised how well grains grow without pesticides, if the land is properly cared for. There was a time before pesticides were as widely available, and they did not have the time to weed the whole field by hand ;)

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#169

Post by paulie_a »

hrabago wrote: post #86
paulie_a wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are not actually that rare. It's simply a controlled supply by a cartel losing its grip.

Artificial scarcity successfully implemented is still scarcity. For example, trading cards printed in low numbers can drive the prices for those cards high.

But they are not even artificially scarce. The price plummets after purchase immediately. Go buy a used engagement ring for instance. It is tainted for some reason but heavily discounted. Diamonds are not rare and not even that pretty compared to other gems.

Re: De Beers admits defeat over man-made diamonds

#170

Post by simonebrunozzi »

fgonzag wrote: post #10

"Lightbox will transform the lab-grown diamond sector by offering consumers a lab-grown product they have told us they want but aren't getting: affordable fashion jewelry that may not be forever, but is perfect for right now" This is clearly a play to devalue the image of man made diamonds. "May not be forever" my ass, it's the exact same thing. Their goal is probably to try to quickly drive the price of man made dia…

Exactly. Just wait for their counter-blow.

They have enough money, resources and incentives to try to destroy man-made diamonds for at least a few more decades.

Post reply on HN