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

181–190 of 196 posts

Re: The worst tool for the job

#181

Post by vmurthy »

The article hits the nail on the head .. somewhat. I've found that asking a slightly deeper level question more helpful personally. In the article's example : What are we trying to do ? Show a diagram. While it is tempting to ask "What tool should I use", perhaps it is worthwhile thinking "What is the deeper need here"? If it is communicating with stakeholders (duh), can I get away with a pencil sketch and digitise them? This way, I have shaved a bunch of time learning ASCII tools or Adobe Illustrator. Kind of fits in with my (borrowed) mindset of "Doing things that don't scale" [0]

Of course, if I find myself doing pencil sketches all the time , it is worthwhile investigating better ways.

[0] https://www.inc.com/business-insider/paul-grahams-counter-in....

Re: The worst tool for the job

#182

Post by Apotheos »

pryelluw wrote: post #176
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…

About two uears ago I got into mountain biking. Went into a bile shop with and spent $300 on a mountain-ish bike and a helmet. I thought about upgrading multiple times because "I had outgrown the bike". An upgrade was $1200. So, I decided to only upgrade if I could not beat my best time on a specific short trail. Well, I kept going faster and fastee. Untill the tires were the obvious thing holding me back. I upgraded…

Buy used! You get the upgrade without having to spend as much money.

I do think the upgrade from a new $300 bike to a used (originally) $1200 bike would be very worth it.

I owned a pretty cheat big box bike, an $800 Kona Stuff (probably don't even make that anymore, and a $2700 Santa Cruz Bullet. Every time the upgrsde made a big difference and you could really feel the quality in what you were getting. I will say the upgrade from hardtail $800 bike to dual suspension $2,700 bike was a MASSIVE increase in performance.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#183

Post by CarbyAu »

loxs wrote: post #105

I did this (unkowingly) with photography equipment. Didn't work out. 1. I started with a "nice" bridge camera - the Panasonic Lumix LX100. I liked shooting with it but I quickly hit its limitations and because I loved photography... 2. decided to go full-frame and I bought the Canon EOS RP. Now I'm completely overwhelmed with all the gear, the huge lenses, tripods etc. I definitely shoot less than with the Lumix, as…

I followed much the same path as you. And then I did buy the Micro Four Thirds camera for an overseas holiday.

It was better enough to satisfy my craving for manual settings and RAW output. But it was bulky enough for it to be a decision "to take it" anywhere and expensive enough not to leave in the glovebox/bag/convenient-nearby-place. Ok compromise for travelling for the DLSR types but maybe the fullframe sony rx1 would've been better.

But wife can pick up almost any camera and instantly make a much better picture than me. I suck at composition. Or I am biased towards my wife. Who knows.

Either way, I ditched it all and now just use the smartphone(Open Camera), but try to get better at composition...

Re: The worst tool for the job

#184

Post by Harlekuin »

klodolph wrote: post #180
Harlekuin wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> all the mid-range sunglasses are super boring and make you look boring. Great for going out and meeting other boring people. Found this comment rubbed me the wrong way - seems insane to me to judge the boringness of a person by the price of their sunglasses

> Found this comment rubbed me the wrong way - seems insane to me to judge the boringness of a person by the price of their sunglasses You must be responding to how you feel, because you sure as hell aren’t responding to what I wrote. Allow me to explain my position. Clothing is a form of communication. When you wear particular clothing, it communicates which group you identify with or want to associate with. Let’s s…

> You must be responding to how you feel, because you sure as hell aren’t responding to what I wrote.

I'm just responding to that quote from your last post.

> When you wear particular clothing, it communicates which group you identify with or want to associate with.

Agree to a point, but I don't think "Boring" is generally a group someone would try to identify/associate with (I'm assuming you're using boring as a derogatory term here). I also disagree that outgoingness is synonymous with how interesting a person is (in fact I'm sure you'd agree there are many instances of the contrary).

And outside of being "good" or "bad" at non-verbal communication you're forgetting another important direction: people who do not care.

Take you for example - I find you very interesting because you have strong opinions that differ to mine - It would have been a shame had I immediately categorised you as boring given the sunglasses you were able to afford or if you didn't care about sunglasses beyond their function.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#185

Post by snvzz »

vibrolax wrote: post #146
snvzz wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this done a lot with headphones. Sennheiser HD600 cost around $280, are comfortable, do sound really accurate and pleasant, effectively last forever, are full modular with all pieces sold individually in the odd event the user drops them from a building or steps on them, and are effectively the market peak in value/price. But people keep buying uncomfortable foul-sounding sub-$100 headphones that last a few mon…

Or they can buy Sony MDR 7506 for about $100, and they will sound ok and last 20+ years. At least mine have, and only the ear cushions have needed replacement. I get more joy finding and using durable, decently performing products that provide excellent value. The art is learning, for any category of equipment, how much you need to spend to obtain good long-term value.

>Or they can buy Sony MDR 7506 for about $100, and they will sound ok and last 20+ years.

I happen to also own a pair of 7506. Do note these are a closed set, and they are, by far, not comparable with HD600. Basically like night and day.

In the words of a coworker who also owns 7506, after trying my HD600: "Now the 7506 sound to me like an AM radio."

Still, I don't disagree they're decent as closed headphones at <$100, particularly if you only care about the mid range. But they're relatively colored, despite their popularity as "monitors", and much worse than the Japan-only mdr-cd900st classic.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#186

Post by klodolph »

Harlekuin wrote: post #184
klodolph wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Found this comment rubbed me the wrong way - seems insane to me to judge the boringness of a person by the price of their sunglasses You must be responding to how you feel, because you sure as hell aren’t responding to what I wrote. Allow me to explain my position. Clothing is a form of communication. When you wear particular clothing, it communicates which group you identify with or want to associate with. Let’s s…

> You must be responding to how you feel, because you sure as hell aren’t responding to what I wrote. I'm just responding to that quote from your last post. > When you wear particular clothing, it communicates which group you identify with or want to associate with. Agree to a point, but I don't think "Boring" is generally a group someone would try to identify/associate with (I'm assuming you're using boring as a der…

> I'm just responding to that quote from your last post.

You said, “seems insane to me to judge the boringness of a person by the price of their sunglasses”

This is some kind of straw argument—to be clear, it’s not what I wrote, it’s not what I meant, it’s not what I implied.

> And outside of being "good" or "bad" at non-verbal communication you're forgetting another important direction: people who do not care.

It is a mistake to think of “does not care” as some kind of meaningful third position. It is not.

Here’s an analogy. Let’s say I ask you, “Did you take the last slice of cake?” It’s a yes/no question with social stakes—maybe I’m upset that I didn’t get any cake. Is there a way that you can avoid communicating a response to my question? No, not really. You heard the question, I’m waiting for your response. You can say yes or no, you can change the topic, you can dodge the question, you can turn the question around, and you can even stay silent—but it is nearly impossible for you to avoid making a conscious decision to communicate a response.

Clothing is like that, but the question is implied and the response is nonverbal. Under ordinary circumstances, you must choose how to dress yourself. You can choose to grab whatever is on top of the pile, you can choose to pick out an outfit, you can choose to go outside in your pajamas or stark naked, but you cannot somehow choose not to make a choice.

Take a moment and visualize what “I don’t care how others see me” looks like. Do you pick average clothing to blend in? Do you wear whatever you like? Do you carefully observe gender norms when buying clothing from the store? Do you wear whatever has the most pockets? Do you wear the same clothing sitting around the house as you do when you visit a friend’s house? Do you wear T-shirts with characters from your favorite cartoon? Do you wear something from the pile of T-shirts I got for free from vendors at tech conventions?

The problem is—once you are aware that you are making a choice, you aren’t really in a position to abdicate that choice.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#187

Post by kakwa_ »

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…

Buying the cheapest tool can also easily discourage newcomers to a field.

As an example, I was nearly completely discourage from learning the guitar by the first guitar I bought. It was a really cheap stratocaster clone (The thing was so bad that playing it was uncomfortable, and it was not even able to stay tuned thanks to the crappy machine heads.

Looking back, I would have been better off buying a decent guitar from the get go, something in the range of 200$ would have ensure that (brands like Ibanez or Cort are able to produce quite decent guitars in this price range, even Squier (Fender low price brand) could be decent enough).

The point is to at least invest a little, usually avoiding the absolute lower price items, but targeting items one level above.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#188

Post by snarfy »

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…

Walmart has their own SKUs. A lawnmower at Walmart is an entirely different product than one sold at any other store with the exact same name and company. They will work with the manufacturers to cheapen their products as much as possible.

It's like the tool already was the minimum viable level, then Walmart stepped in.

I won't buy anything with a motor in it from harbor freight either.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#189

Post by dllthomas »

Nacraile wrote: post #155
tikhonj wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think this is kind of missing the "if it's inadequate" clause of the heuristic. In your example, the painful boots were clearly inadequate, and by the heuristic, it was time to upgrade to the best equipment you could afford ;) Skiing does make for some examples of a couple weaknesses in the heuristic, though: First the "best equipment you can afford" part is pretty poorly defined. Suitability of ski equipment is co…

> I think this is kind of missing the "if it's inadequate" clause of the heuristic.

I feel like you're running into an issue a lot of rules of thumb have, where there are words that provide plenty enough wiggle room that the heuristic is accurate... but if you know enough to know how they should be wiggled then you don't need the heuristic.

Re: The worst tool for the job

#190

Post by Infernal »

cainxinth wrote: post #12
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 use a similar heuristic that I’ve dubbed the 90% rule. In many cases, you can buy something that is 90% as good as the best product available for two thirds or even half the cost. If you want the very best, though, you have to pay through the nose. Ergo, you should always try the cheaper product first.

You may have independently formulated the Pareto principle. The idea that you can get 80% of the theoretical max value for about 20% of the cost, but the next 20% of value requires 400% additional (the "missing 80%") cost.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Post reply on HN