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

131–140 of 196 posts

Re: The worst tool for the job

#131

Post by Spivak »

nytf3 wrote: post #126
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…

skateboarding is a very bad example here - there is a noticeable difference in the quality/bearings of a "beginner" equipment that comes from Walmart/Target that costs ~60, and a proper setup from a skateboard shop that costs ~120. The beginner equipment is more likely to get you hurt by breaking, and the bearings will be very very slow. For other sports, running/biking/skiing/etc I think this difference is not as pr…

It’s odd that you would end by assuming that other sports don’t suffer from the same problem. If you buy crappy shoes and run in them for extended periods you will hurt your feet and knees. If you try to bike harder than commuting on a cheap bike you’ll hurt yourself when the brake pads come loose. No idea about skiing but someone in this thread said they felt a noticeable difference, I’m not sure if it translates into safety though.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#132

Post by tln »

jabroni_salad wrote: post #53
Kinrany wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 But are there cheaper drills that do the same?

corded drills, and if you are an infrequent user you dont have to worry about the battery going flat.

Most corded drills are pretty large though. I have 12v, 18v and corded drills and would never use the corded drill for small things because it's too clumsy.

12v for small things and 18v for small-medium, corded for large only. I often use both, 18v for drilling and 12v to put in the screws.

I'd say buy an 18v as your only tool first, but if you ever start on a project where it's struggling even a little, get a corded drill. They're good bang for the buck at ~$30.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#133

Post by Spivak »

paozac wrote: post #95
jmilloy wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the second-cheapest is usually the best starter product. The cheapest product requires every possible sacrifice to quality, but the second-cheapest only made the tradeoffs that make sense. You can buy the second-cheapest and still get most of the benefits mentioned in the article without having to become a mini-expert evaluating whether the cheapest option is at least safe and functional. And I think a second…

The second cheapest is often where the seller makes the most profit. There is a pricing strategy around this idea - people will rarely buy the cheapest or the most expensive item of the list. Their function is to shift up all prices and set the bar

That only usually holds within a given brand. Second or third cheapest on the market probably doesn’t suffer the same problem.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#134

Post by tikhonj »

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…

This is harder than it sounds because the bottom of the market is often well below a minimum viable level, to the point that you're actively making learning harder for yourself if you go there. You might not feel the difference between $100 and $1000 shoes, but Walmart has $15 shoes which are probably bad enough they make it harder to start running and learn proper technique.

I've experienced this pretty directly with skis. If you get the cheapest boots and skis you can, you'll find it harder to learn, to the point where your feet hurt at the end of the day. I pretty much associated skiing with pain until I got decent equipment. There is a level above which it isn't worth spending as a beginner, but it's a level that looks high to people on the outside.

These days, I don't look for the cheapest tool I can find, I look for the cheapest tool people seriously use—which is often 5–10 times more expensive than the cheapest option. I've had enough experiences in the past sabotaging my own progression with awful tools that I know it's not worth it.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#135

Post by Lammy »

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…

Everyone in this thread seems to assume buying a brand-new item. My preferred route is to buy the high-end of one generation prior, used, from somebody who is upgrading to the latest and greatest. They can pay the early-adopter tax for me.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#137

Post by celrod »

GuB-42 wrote: post #118
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 co…

Ping pong is also interesting. Expensive paddles have sticky rubber that can help experienced players control the spin on a ball. Cheap paddles don't have much grip. Very cheap paddles, the hard ones with short pips and no sponge, have virtually no grip.

Grip and imparting spin are important for letting you control the ball, but it's also a double edged sword. It's easy to get someone who doesn't know how to counteract spin to hit the ball into the net or miss the table entirely if their paddle has some grip. Inexperienced players are thus often better off with the cheap paddles -- they don't know how to use it to their advantage, so they're better off being immune to its effects.

That reminds me of the "expert beginner" posted and discussed on HackerNews not too long ago: https://daedtech.com/how-developers-stop-learning-rise-of-th... That is, cheap equipment can be a local optima that players can get stuck in.

Disclaimer: I'm a novice.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#138

Post by pc86 »

paozac wrote: post #95
jmilloy wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the second-cheapest is usually the best starter product. The cheapest product requires every possible sacrifice to quality, but the second-cheapest only made the tradeoffs that make sense. You can buy the second-cheapest and still get most of the benefits mentioned in the article without having to become a mini-expert evaluating whether the cheapest option is at least safe and functional. And I think a second…

The second cheapest is often where the seller makes the most profit. There is a pricing strategy around this idea - people will rarely buy the cheapest or the most expensive item of the list. Their function is to shift up all prices and set the bar

You're saying that as if someone else profiting off of providing you a product you want is a bad thing.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#139

Post by z3t4 »

tikhonj wrote: post #134
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…

This is harder than it sounds because the bottom of the market is often well below a minimum viable level, to the point that you're actively making learning harder for yourself if you go there. You might not feel the difference between $100 and $1000 shoes, but Walmart has $15 shoes which are probably bad enough they make it harder to start running and learn proper technique. I've experienced this pretty directly wit…

You literally felt the pain though. And could appreciate the more expensive gear. But I agree with your point. In cross country skieing its much more fun if you have better gear. Some sports and professions is just gear dependent. You won't win a rally with a slow car.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#140

Post by schwartzworld »

awakeasleep wrote: post #79
schwartzworld wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this is that we live in a world where there are versions of things so cheap is to be unusable. you don't need a top-of-the-line skateboard to learn how to skate, but it's much harder to learn on a Walmart board, if not impossible. Bearings that don't roll, wheels that get flat spots, decks that are made of particle board and have no pop and l plastic bushings are all a huge impediment to doing the mo…

You can extend this to guitars, too. On the cheapest models, the "action" (distance between strings and fretboard) is so long that only the most precise master of the craft can hope to play anything.

True, although action is not a hard fix as it requires a file. It's a same more cheap guitars don't use zero frets, as they eliminate this problem.
Post reply on HN