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

Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

richardmille.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 278 posts

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#181

Post by kqr »

nextaccountic wrote: post #177
mulmen wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s easy to spend other people’s money. The base argument of democracy is that because none of us knows the downstream effects we all share decision making. In other words: “that’s just like, your opinion, man.”

Democracy works with one person = one vote. When you have one dollar = one vote you get a plutocracy instead. So when consumers vote with their wallets, this vote isn't democratic at all. People that don't have money in their wallets don't get to vote.

Put differently: we want market economies to be about satisfying the greatest need. In practise, they're about satisfying the greatest ability to pay. And ability to pay does not come with need -- it comes with privilege, luck, and political skill.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#182

Post by Animats »

polio wrote: post #81
staplung wrote: post #55

William Gibson wrote a piece for Wired back in the day about his obsession with mechanical watches.[1] He puts it thus: ``` Mechanical watches are so brilliantly unnecessary. Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time, and high-end contemporary Swiss watches are priced like small cars. But mechanical watches partake of what my friend John Clute calls the Tamagotchi Gesture. They're pointless in a peculiarly needful way; t…

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…

Mechanical watch pricing has become silly. The Rolex Submariner, a useful tool in the 1950s for mariners and pilots, sold for $150 in 1953, or about $1500 now. It now costs about $8950. Same item. “Rolex is not in the watch business, we are in the luxury business” - attributed to a Rolex chairman.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#183

Post by kqr »

Justin_K wrote: post #171
polio wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're beautiful and impressive, but I find the amount of money that flows into "high horology" to be an sum with an egregious opportunity cost to society, made even worse by the fact that all that complexity goes towards a movement that is worse at keeping time than a rudimentary quartz. If people want Tamagotchis, they can get a Tamagotchi. I wish people would flex their donations to effective charities instead an…

Should we also drive shitty cars and live in small houses?

Quartz watches are not shitty or small. They are more accurate and reliable than mechanical watches.

(I say this as an owner of several mechanical watches. I love them, but they are strictly worse than anything decently priced in any watch store.)

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#184

Post by dghlsakjg »

kennywinker wrote: post #103
iancmceachern wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same with "ultra" and "hyper" cars

Those cars are way worse. It’s not just flashing money around, it’s actively making your wealth other people’s problem. From the noise they make, the extra gas they burn, to having to drive careful around them because you’re going to get sued into oblivion if you fuck them up

I've always thought that there should be a property damage liability limit on public roads. If you want to drive a $250k lambo why do I have to buy extra insurance because you brought an expensive toy out to play on vital public infrastructure?

Pass the extra liability beyond, say, $100k to the owner of the toy car. If some shitty driver plows into my crappy old car, they are out maybe $3k in property damage. If they happen to hit a supercar, then somehow the same action nets them a liability that could buy them a starter home?

Mind you, I live in BC, where there is only one liability insurance company, and they have a government mandate to insure everyone with a license, no matter how bad their driving record is. Which means that every idiot's risk gets spread onto my bill.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#186

Post by kqr »

dotancohen wrote: post #158
Sporktacular wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The rich don’t owe society, exactly the opposite" This is precisely wrong. The rich do indeed owe society. They owe their wealth to the workers working for them. To the education system that educated their workers and made them productive, the roads that brought them to work and the health system that keeps them at work. This is obvious from the number of millionaires produced by healthy, educated, stable societies…

> They owe their wealth to the workers working for > them. To the education system that educated their > workers and made them productive, the roads that > brought them to work and the health system that > keeps them at work. Assuming that they've paid their taxes, they've paid their debt.

Assuming further that the taxes accurately measure the benefit that comes from the interaction of luck, privilege and society.

Assuming even further that taxes effectively redistribute wealth to workers, educators, and nurturers.

These are together three assumptions, none of which I think are true.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#187

Post by adamdusty »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #77
samatman wrote: post #51

I'm disappointed to see this merger of art and engineering received so poorly here. This pushes the envelope of the possible, something I consider beautiful. It's roughly as impractical, expensive, and awkward looking, as a human-propelled airplane. I don't think any of the many commenters here who panned this watch would have anything bad to say about a human-propelled airplane. It's a pity that they can't appreciat…

It's a flat watch - no doubt mechanically clever, but it also happens to be jarringly ugly. There's an entire economy dedicated to pandering to the pretensions of the vulgar rich, and it certainly fits in there. But as a design classic - no.

I think it looks pretty cool, and I agree with gp that it's sad people are so caught up in some weird hatred for watch enthusiasts that they can't appreciate the engineering.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#188

Post by dghlsakjg »

HWR_14 wrote: post #153
pstuart wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fact cannot be emphasized enough. The pity of it is that the jobs are not oriented towards public works.

> The pity of it is that the jobs are not oriented towards public works Except for the National Guard and the Coast Guard (which, as I understand it, gets some military money).

The USCG is a full on branch of the armed forces with an additional law enforcement mandate. During wartime it was under the command of the Department of the Navy. Currently it is under the DHS.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#189

Post by kqr »

comradesmith wrote: post #115
jodrellblank wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Practical watches are ones where it's clear at a glance which way up it goes and what the time is; they have numbers on them, preferably in a digital readout like 00:40. Watches without numbers are fashion watches. Watches with analogue faces are relics from when technology only let you decypher the time from rotating pointers. Rotating pointers where the numbers they point at have been removed are form over function…

Technology Connections did a really interesting video showing how a traditional clock face can give a different perspective on the flow of time through the day, as the face and hand let you easily judge the remaining fraction in an hour. I don’t think this format is antiquated at all

I find it much easier to make mental time maths on an analogue face. I mean, it's basically what a time calculator device would look like, if it existed.

24-hour ones are even better, but sadly rare.

Re: Ultra-flat timepiece, the RM UP-01 Ferrari, is 1.75 millimetres thick watch

#190

Post by dghlsakjg »

jodrellblank wrote: post #105
huhtenberg wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any Swatch or Casio keeps better time ... and that's my cue to pimp one of the most practical watch of all time - Casio Oceanus, the 100 series. * Analog watch face. * Quartz, radio auto-sync, solar-powered. * Sapphire glass, titanium body and bracelet. Waterproof. * Clean design. Under $500. https://www.google.com/search?q=OCW-S100-1AJF&tbm=isch

Practical watches are ones where it's clear at a glance which way up it goes and what the time is; they have numbers on them, preferably in a digital readout like 00:40. Watches without numbers are fashion watches. Watches with analogue faces are relics from when technology only let you decypher the time from rotating pointers. Rotating pointers where the numbers they point at have been removed are form over function…

Watches are worn on the wrist, so up is always the pinky side of the wrist.

The beauty of an analog watch is that it is a graphical display of time that doesn't even need numbers.

The hands indicate both a numeric time as well as a representative of how far through a day, hour, or minute you are.

This is the same reason that cars still have dial style gauges. The brain can parse the relative location of a rotary dial faster than it can parse 4376RPM.

Once you teach your brain how an analog clock works it reads as fast or faster than a digital clock.

Post reply on HN