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

The worst tool for the job

johndcook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 196 posts

Re: The worst tool for the job

#111

Post by mikestew »

itsoktocry wrote: post #37
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…

> Sunglasses: Very expensive. This one is confusing. Sunglasses are 90% fashion. What exactly are you getting with an expensive pair? I take the opposite route. Cheap sunglasses that I'm unconcerned about dropping, sitting on, or leaving behind.

Sunglasses are 90% fashion.

Not the ones I buy. I mean, yeah, there's a lot of fashion in those Oakleys but there's a lot of function, too. They don't slip down my nose, the lenses are coated and don't collect as much crap, and the frames don't snap after a year. After fifteen years my oldest Oakleys are still going after less expensive sunglasses have broken or proven unsatisfactory. But those sunglasses also have to stand up to a life of trail running and hiking.

OTOH, if one is just looking to keep the sun out of the eyes while driving, $250 sunglasses might be overkill.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#112

Post by throwaway98797 »

gk1 wrote: post #46
throwaway98797 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s the most extreme example. I also stopped roller blading because the mid tier blades hurt. Or 20 year old cross country sky’s are bad. I think you should buy the best equipment you can afford. Sell if at loss if you don’t stick to it.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#113

Post by benrbray »

cmehdy wrote: post #22
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…

Sometimes you don't know what the minimum viable is because you are a beginner and don't know yourself well in that field. For example, I started running with shoes that were somewhat fine for beginners when I would double-check online, but happened to have limitations that affected people who practice a lot, or people who don't practice properly, or in my case undiagnosed issues (hypermobility of the knee). In my ca…

I had a similar experience learning the piano when I was a kid. Understandably, my parents started me out with a cheap $100 electric keyboard, which was good enough for the first year or so of practice. As I improved, though, it became a big hindrance to my progress, as 1) the keys were unweighted, 2) the speakers couldn't accurately produce high/low notes, and 3) the keys were slightly smaller than the standard size. Practicing at home was too different from the real piano I used a lessons, so I started to feel really discouraged.

I was too young to understand quite what the problem was, or to save up enough money on my own to upgrade, so I ended up quitting lessons altogether.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#114

Post by mikestew »

gruez wrote: post #42
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?

Because you have a lot more flexibility with a house payment that you can easily make each month, versus one you can barely make if you pinch some pennies and your spouse doesn't lose his job. Had we purchased a house we looked at about ten years ago, my wife would probably still be working a job she wasn't fond of at the time, 'cuz gotta a mortgage payment to make.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#115

Post by Eric_WVGG »

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…

I used to have a friend who did a bit of contractor work, and he swore up and down by Sears “Craftsman” tools; not because they were the best (they were far from it), but because they had the best warranties. Every tool, he claimed, would wear out sooner or later, and Sears would always replace with a brand new one, no questions asked.

I think there's some kind of point to be made here about broken economies and waste, but anyway it's a story that stuck with me.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#116

Post by augusto-moura »

commandlinefan wrote: post #99

When coding in Java, I usually start with a shell script that compiles the code rather than, say, a POM or a Gradle build - I don't upgrade to a dedicated build system until a) the shell script becomes more trouble than it's worth or b) I have to share with somebody else. There's something to be said for having complete control over every aspect of the build.

I find Gradle pretty straightforward when it comes to compiling Java projects, you can customize and add options even dynamically like a shell script

Re: The worst tool for the job

#117

Post by meritganset »

cmehdy wrote: post #22
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…

Sometimes you don't know what the minimum viable is because you are a beginner and don't know yourself well in that field. For example, I started running with shoes that were somewhat fine for beginners when I would double-check online, but happened to have limitations that affected people who practice a lot, or people who don't practice properly, or in my case undiagnosed issues (hypermobility of the knee). In my ca…

It sounds like you're the type of person to blame external factors for your own issues. Nothing you're saying counters the original advice.

Additionally, in the guitar example, you learned how to play and learned what it meant to own a decent guitar. Then, when presented with the opportunity to buy a new guitar: bought a crappy one, ignoring everything you had already learned about the instrument.

Given that you were so easily discouraged from learning the guitar, it's also equally likely that it wasn't something you were truly passionate about and gave yourself an excuse at every turn as to why you weren't progressing.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#118

Post by GuB-42 »

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…

> Beginner runners/bikers/skateboarders/whatever will not really feel the difference between equipment that cost $100 and $1,000

As a general rule I disagree. If beginners don't feel the difference, that's because they only used the $100 equipment, they would be better off with the $1000 one.

I first noticed that with skis. I am not a great skier by any mean, but just for kicks I tried renting the best equipment I could find and wow, what a difference it made. Everything was so much more precise. Obviously, I made many mistakes, but the outcome became clearer and more repeatable. I knew how I was wrong and it helped me improve. Poor quality equipment muddy things up, so it might feel like it is more forgiving (more on that later) but in reality, its just blends its own shortcoming with yours so you never know what went wrong, especially if you are a beginner and can't trust your own skills.

There are good reasons for not buying expensive equipment right away. The biggest one is simply that if you don't know if it is the right thing for you, you may spend a lot of money for nothing, that's why some people recommend renting first. The other is that high-end stuff tend to be less forgiving, because they are marketed to experts. It is not that beginners won't enjoy that level of quality, but for the previous reason, there isn't a market for it.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#119

Post by javier10e6 »

darkerside wrote: post #48
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.

I learned to ride on the crappiest banana seat schwimm with a dynamo powering a heavy head-light. I love it. I graduated to a Rampar BMX and then a Rebel top top components including KKT pedals and and Oakley 0.5 grips. Man years later I got a Fuji Aluminum Road entry level bike for my teenager son and he rode it for a few months and tossed it. Not interested. It was a great entry level bike. I believe on the evolution of the rider, from a Huffy Wal-Mart to a Bianchi or Giant.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#120

Post by throwaway0a5e »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #107
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…

Rent the jackhammer, don't buy it. (Unless you actually need a jackhammer somewhat regularly.) You can rent tools at Home Depot for considerably less than the cost of buying them. If you're only going to need them once, rent. (I did this with a hammer drill. It was absolutely worth it, just to punch four holes in concrete. But I've only needed to do that once, and I don't seem likely to need to do it again. So why bu…

There's few tools where buying a cheap but good enough to do the job one is more expensive than renting twice.

Also if you own your own jack hammer and whatnot you'll take on projects you would have otherwise not.

Post reply on HN