The worst tool for the job • Hacker News Board

Re: The worst tool for the job

#41

Post by anthony_romeo » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

gk1 wrote: post #2

What a great principle. One of those things I've felt for a long time but never express so well as John did. This idea extends to many other things, like... sports equipment. Beginner runners/bikers/skateboarders/whatever will not really feel the difference between equipment that cost $100 and $1,000, so get the cheap one and use it to (its) death. If you're still into the sport by then, go ahead and get the nicer on…

> You'll actually appreciate the difference then and be happier, and also know that you'll actually make good use of it.

This also reflected my journey into watercolor painting. One day I bought a bunch of cheap watercolor paper and paints. I was able to just blow through those materials by lots of experimentation as I didn't have any fear of "wasting" the good paper and good paints. Only afterwards did I get a better understanding of why the more expensive paper and paints are worth the cost (e.g. better absorption of water by the paper, more vibrant pigments that mix together better).

There's value in learning about the range of tool quality through the journey, as it will help create your own criterion for judging the quality of tools rather than assuming, say, that the cost of a tool is proportional to its quality.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#42

Post by gruez » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:29 PM UTC

3pt14159 wrote: post #20

I do this a different way. I think about how much I'm going to use something and try my best to over-invest in what is typically cheap and could last years and under-invest (or avoid all together) in what is expensive or could last less than a year. Pen: Very expensive. Sunglasses: Very expensive. Phone: Very expensive. Laptop: Very expensive. Shoes / most clothing: Midrange, since they don't last long, but they're n…

>I think about how much I'm going to use something and try my best to over-invest in what is typically cheap and could last years and under-invest (or avoid all together) in what is expensive or could last less than a year. [...]

>Housing: Far cheaper than I could afford.

Why? Isn't a house something that can last decades and is something you use every day?

Re: The worst tool for the job

#43

Post by throwaway98797 » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:30 PM UTC

gk1 wrote: post #2

What a great principle. One of those things I've felt for a long time but never express so well as John did. This idea extends to many other things, like... sports equipment. Beginner runners/bikers/skateboarders/whatever will not really feel the difference between equipment that cost $100 and $1,000, so get the cheap one and use it to (its) death. If you're still into the sport by then, go ahead and get the nicer on…

Disagree. I gave up on so many sports cause of faulty uncomfortable equipment.

As child we had such shitty swim goggles that they would leak badly. For 10 years I swam without them and kept my eyes hurting eventually couldn’t take it and quit cause of eye pain. As adult with money bought a nice pair for $20 and realized not all goggles leak.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#44

Post by klodolph » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

kerkeslager wrote: post #13

klodolph wrote: post #4

Eh, something to be said for mid-range too. I have a 12v cordless drill. Ended up saving me tons of work over the years but by no means either the best or the worst. Musical instruments. The low-end ones tend to be true disasters. Mid-range CPUs and GPUs are wonderful. Kitchen mixers, knives, screwdrivers, soldering irons, drill presses, etc. Plenty of times the worst tool is so obviously terrible that you probably s…

Well one caveat: at some point, you reach a level of expertise such that you can evaluate tools for yourself, and don't need rules of thumb like this. At that point a mid-grade tool might make sense. I do have some expertise in some of the areas you mentioned, and disagree with you: Musical instruments: if you're starting off on guitar, get a used Yamaha for $80 and spend as much money as you can on lessons. It's bet…

$80 guitar and spending money on lessons—this goes against every piece of advice I’ve ever heard from a guitar teacher about buying your first guitar.

That is, buy something good enough that it doesn’t make you miserable when you’re just starting out. A lot of $80 guitars are absolutely miserable, or will be miserable shortly after you take them home.

> It's better to be a virtuoso with a Yamaha than to have a high-end Martin you can't play collecting dust in your attic.

Yamaha guitars start around $160, and they’re fantastic beginner instruments. They’re also not the cheapest guitars you can get. The cheapest guitars you can get are around $80, have high action, don’t stay in tune, and my experience is that you have good odds of getting cut by the fret wire or seeing the neck warp at some point after you take the guitar home.

That’s all I’m talking about—between “made as cheaply as possible” and “no expenses spared” there is this vast middle ground of “decent price/quality tradeoff”.

I’m by no means an expert on guitars—but I do have a small guitar maintenance kit, and I help out friends or colleagues set up their guitars to make them a bit more comfortable and playable. I’ve seen too many “cheap as possible” guitars where my conclusion is that the guitar is unplayable and it’s just beyond my ability to make it playable.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#45

Post by tristor » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:32 PM UTC

I follow a completely opposite model. I research and learn as much as I can about something before committing to it and get the best equipment I can afford. Consequently, I’ve enjoyed all my hobbies over the years and find myself going back to things often.

I have never regretted investing in quality tools. It’s not necessary to buy the most expensive option, but prioritizing quality and ergonomics over price is the right play (at least for me).

Re: The worst tool for the job

#46

Post by gk1 » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:33 PM UTC

throwaway98797 wrote: post #43

gk1 wrote: post #2

What a great principle. One of those things I've felt for a long time but never express so well as John did. This idea extends to many other things, like... sports equipment. Beginner runners/bikers/skateboarders/whatever will not really feel the difference between equipment that cost $100 and $1,000, so get the cheap one and use it to (its) death. If you're still into the sport by then, go ahead and get the nicer on…

Disagree. I gave up on so many sports cause of faulty uncomfortable equipment. As child we had such shitty swim goggles that they would leak badly. For 10 years I swam without them and kept my eyes hurting eventually couldn’t take it and quit cause of eye pain. As adult with money bought a nice pair for $20 and realized not all goggles leak.

I don't think anybody is advocating for using crappy tools for 10 years, especially when a better option is available for just $20.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#47

Post by pydry » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:33 PM UTC

agustif wrote: post #24

pydry wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a definite link between aggressive sales and how terrible a product is.

The shittier the product the more agressive sales people are required to sell it?

I'm not sure which necessarily comes first but yes.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#48

Post by darkerside » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

gk1 wrote: post #2

What a great principle. One of those things I've felt for a long time but never express so well as John did. This idea extends to many other things, like... sports equipment. Beginner runners/bikers/skateboarders/whatever will not really feel the difference between equipment that cost $100 and $1,000, so get the cheap one and use it to (its) death. If you're still into the sport by then, go ahead and get the nicer on…

An example where this really doesn't apply is bicycles. When you're trying to get a child to learn to ride a bike, if you get a cheap steel bike from a big box store, it will be twice as heavy as it needs to be and can make the activity itself so difficult and unpleasant that the child decides they don't enjoy the activity.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#49

Post by drol3 » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

I like the idea. Not sure it works on its own, but something like "Investment in tools should be proportionate to your knowledge about the domain" seems reasonable.

Beginner? Pick an cheap tool. Expert? pick the best tool :)

Re: The worst tool for the job

#50

Post by franciscop » Tue, Jul 28, 2020, 2:34 PM UTC

diarmuidc wrote: post #9

PaulHoule wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found a pretty big difference between a $20 tennis racket and a $60 racket. For one thing, any tennis racket is going to get loose if you play with it long enough. It cost more than $20 to redo the strings on a $20 tennis racket and $20 racket is going to send balls in totally the wrong direction in the next season.

Sure but you have to use it long enough for the stings to get loose. What percentage of tennis racket purchases are used more than once?

A high one? All of the tennis rackets I've seen are used until they are torn, broken, and been repaired multiple times (at least the cords). True I'm from Spain, but it's rare that rackets are used only once.