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

Diamonds Suck

diamondssuck.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 171 posts

Re: Diamonds Suck

#81

Post by shiroiuma »

mrec wrote: post #51
GTP wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Number 3 seems a good idea for a 007 movie :D

I think GP was referring to that exact thing happening in The Abyss .

I forgot to add the reason why there's a moral imperative to wearing a titanium ring instead of a diamond one: after saving yourself from drowning with the titanium ring, you can then descend to the ocean floor in an experimental diving suit, disarm a nuclear bomb dropped there by some nutcase that threatens a bunch of ocean-dwelling aliens, and impress them with your intended sacrifice (since your suit only has enough oxygen for a one-way trip) that they decide not to wipe out much of humanity with simultaneous tsunamis.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#82

Post by thih9 »

AndyJames wrote: post #74
throwaway287391 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After all, [engagement rings] only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding. I think this is the cultural distinction you're missing -- married American women typically wear both their engagement and wedding ring their entire lives, and the engagement ring is usually the more ornate/expensive one (which might be due to the De Beers marketing throughout the 20th century this article discusses…

The thing is it's not the culture or tradition of the US. It's just a brilliant ad campaign that lasted way longer than it should.

Perhaps people genuinely enjoy having a lasting memory of an important happy moment.

And obviously this works without diamonds too.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#83

Post by wtfmcgrill »

kuschku wrote: post #76
causi wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the profit margin on a 0.6 gram chunk of fancy carbon being sold for three grand?

Not much, production cost is closer to that of RAM or a CPU than to a graphite pencil, as it's usually produced in the same way as semiconductors are.

The margin is in cutting and faceting. The Swiss make a CNC diamond cutting machine that can cut and facet a diamond in about an hour vs days for manual cutting.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#85

Post by makach »

Diamonds suck indeed. They are easily reproduced and are artificially kept at a high price by big business

Gold on the other side, is impossible to reproduce and is a very rare metal that will have many fine uses. You can do anything to it and it won't lose its value. I will never understand why some women require worthless diamonds. It's a crystal, it reflects and will lose its value if broken.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#86

Post by smikhanov »

dbrgn wrote: post #40

I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring! The engagement rings we got ourselves cost 18$ and were made from wood. After all, they only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding. Regarding the wedding ring, I can understand slightly better how someone would put a bit more money into that, considering that you wear it for life. But…

But surely doing whatever works for you is OK? Some people love "creating memories", some people love to have more "social status", some love $4 wooden rings, some love $40K diamond rings; everyone is different, let all the flowers bloom.

(De Beers are still the big baddies though)

Re: Diamonds Suck

#87

Post by dbrgn »

smikhanov wrote: post #86
dbrgn wrote: post #40

I, as a European, cannot fathom how anyone would spend a significant amount of money on an engagement ring! The engagement rings we got ourselves cost 18$ and were made from wood. After all, they only need to last a few months, or maybe 1-2 years, until the wedding. Regarding the wedding ring, I can understand slightly better how someone would put a bit more money into that, considering that you wear it for life. But…

But surely doing whatever works for you is OK? Some people love "creating memories", some people love to have more "social status", some love $4 wooden rings, some love $40K diamond rings; everyone is different, let all the flowers bloom. (De Beers are still the big baddies though)

If you have lots of money and like fancy rings, sure, go for it!

If you just finished your college, sit on a big pile of student loans, work in your first job and then spend several months of income on a shiny rock, then that is a bad financial decision, no matter whether you love diamond rings or not. (And from what I hear, this situation happens a lot, due to social pressure and "desired social status".)

Re: Diamonds Suck

#88

Post by sambalbadjak »

lol, I forwarded this article to my girlfriend, and she immediately responded: absolutely not!

I guess some things are not meant to be optimised. She mentioned that you can buy a lab-grown diamond for much cheaper, and keep the same shine as a "real" diamond.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#89

Post by tuetuopay »

RandomLensman wrote: post #4

Before diamonds were the go-to for engagement rings, color stones like ruby, sapphire, and emerald were the thing. So why should it be mossianite and not going back to other gem stones?

It still is in other parts of the world!

Here in France a single diamond ring is quite rare. Sapphire, emerald, ruby, etc rings are very very common. They are usually lined with tiny diamonds around to add a bit of sparkle around a large gem. However due to Americanization of the cultures, people start to do it the american way (we call it a "solitaire", solitary diamond).

Three couples in my friend group got engaged recently, all three had colored gems on their rings. Diamonds were in support of the main gem to enhance it, not the star of the show. That's a sample of N=3, but very much part of the French culture.

Re: Diamonds Suck

#90

Post by smikhanov »

dbrgn wrote: post #87
smikhanov wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But surely doing whatever works for you is OK? Some people love "creating memories", some people love to have more "social status", some love $4 wooden rings, some love $40K diamond rings; everyone is different, let all the flowers bloom. (De Beers are still the big baddies though)

If you have lots of money and like fancy rings, sure, go for it! If you just finished your college, sit on a big pile of student loans, work in your first job and then spend several months of income on a shiny rock, then that is a bad financial decision, no matter whether you love diamond rings or not. (And from what I hear, this situation happens a lot, due to social pressure and "desired social status".)

I personally would never even think of denying a poor graduate from trying, however clumsily, to impress the girl he fancies with some unaffordable ring. Bad financial decision? Maybe. Story of beautiful romance? Absolutely.
Post reply on HN