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

Sizing chaos

pudding.cool

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 458 posts

Re: Sizing chaos

#121

Post by shimman »

kccqzy wrote: post #116
shimman wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really can't discern between a healthy portion of sugar and an unhealthy portion of sugar? I can assure you it should be way less than what they are serving. Especially since society will bare these costs in a variety of unexpected ways, Starbucks needs to be compelled into doing so. They broke the societal compact, they have to be punished.

I can discern it very well. And indeed I think for the people like me who can discern it, stores should be able to sell these sugary beverages. The same amount of sugar is unhealthy when I’m sedentary, but absolutely necessary in other cases.

That's fine but people like you are an extreme minority and I'd rather the government regulate the greed from these addiction companies rather than forcing tax payers to foot the bill.

Corporate welfare has to end.

Re: Sizing chaos

#122

Post by [deleted] »

deejaaymac wrote: post #105

As a male who has been on both ends of the spectrum (morbidly obese) and 'fit' / bodybuilder I find the whole discussion about size, clothing, weight, vanity, etc incredibly boring. Buy whatever clothes you're comfortable in and take steps to not be obese, and uninstall social media while you're at it. It really is that simple.

[deleted]

Re: Sizing chaos

#123

Post by panic »

diath wrote: post #89

The issue is not the sizes, the issue is the obesity epidemic. According to CDC [1] the average woman in the US is 5'3" weighing 172lbs. That's not just overweight but rather first degree of obesity. I guess you could argue that sizes should catch up to the demands when half of your population is straight up fat but I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for break…

The article points out that the problem is deeper than this:

> Once I compared my personalized sloper to commercial patterns and retail garments, I had a revelation: clothes were never made to fit bodies like mine. It didn’t matter how much weight I gained or lost, whether I contorted my body or tried to buy my way into styles that “flatter” my silhouette, there was no chance that clothes would ever fit perfectly on their own.

Re: Sizing chaos

#124

Post by whackernews »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #119
burgerzzz wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

GLP-1s disprove this to an extent. Personal responsibility is based on a fallacy, it’s just brain chemistry. So give everyone GLP-1s to cast the shadow of personality responsibility (reduction in adverse reward center operations, broadly speaking) through better brain chemistry. Existence is hard, we can twiddle the wetware to make it less hard.

Eh? I mean, this sounds potentially interesting but I don’t understand it!

Re: Sizing chaos

#125

Post by zamadatix »

goodmythical wrote: post #91
apt-apt-apt-apt wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Translating the confusing science speak, basically: Appearance self-esteem takes a hit when they don't fit in a size. They take it out on the clothes: "I hate their stuff, they suck." They buy more of other stuff to compensate for the hit, whether non-sized accessories (I am pretty) or book/tech (I am smart even if I don't fit). People confident in their appearance are immune to the effect, and simply think it's size…

I am genuinely curious as to which words in the cited are 'confusing science speak' in your view. Having read the article, I can't venture a guess without feeling condescending...non-conforming? Compensatory? Legitimately confused.

I think they read the full paper rather than the snippets and agree most couldn't tell you what Cronbach's alpha is, how ANOVA works, or otherwise accurately interpret the meaning of the results sections in a casual read through. One can grab the full paper on resources such as Anna's Archive if they don't have access via a university or such.

Of course, the trick (once you know) is you don't need a comment summarizing it for you. The abstract is alright in a pinch, but the "General Discussion" in psychology papers is the equivalent of "Conclusion" and aims to discuss the results directly. It's still a bit verbose... but the language should at least be very familiar in comparison.

Re: Sizing chaos

#126

Post by mbeavitt »

burgerzzz wrote: post #114
munificent wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel like a better angle would be educating people that 1500 kcal worth of Starbucks sugar for breakfast is not healthy. An even better angle is educating Starbucks to stop selling unhealthy garbage. The idea that all blame rests on individuals and corporations are blame-free is crazy. They have way more agency over what we consume than individuals do.

[flagged]

Having briefly experienced weight loss drugs - and the bliss of that constant “EAT!” voice in your head just going quiet - I’m pretty convinced most humans have a genuine genetic predisposition to overeating.

And when you zoom out to the population level, the “we’re all autonomous individuals” argument gets a lot shakier. Like yeah, at the individual level you have agency, you make choices, fine. But at scale? We are absolutely at the mercy of whoever has figured out how to tickle our monkey brains in just the right way to get us buying their fattening food.

Re: Sizing chaos

#127

Post by altairprime »

flumpcakes wrote: post #64
altairprime wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

0. All commercial premade adult women’s clothing is made exclusively for a small minority of women with hourglass body shapes. The number one thesis takeaway for me, that I didn’t realize as a woman even after years of dealing with sizing drama, is that clothing manufacturers exclusively market to hourglass body shape alone — which some might recognize better as “pinup model” proportions. As a non-hourglass along wit…

I think that must be fashion dependent though? I can think of plenty of women's clothes that are definitely not marketed for hourglass physiques.

I can think of three major markets right now:

Rectangle (athletics-branch brands), Hourglass (most entire fashion brands), and what I believe is Spoon but could be another shape (e.g. Kardashian).

If I want to buy something I see in Vanity Fair magazine, and it fits me, then I will be buying:

- Rectangle: athleticwear or athletics-adjacent, OR ‘petite’ sizes only

- Spoon: bodycon stretch, primarily

- Hourglass: 95% of the page surface area of the magazine

Other magazines vary this formula, but VF is representing the same three body type divisions that are endemic in U.S. clothing. I think the article fails somewhat in this regard, but I honestly don’t consider it a flaw; they make a solid point and the limited niche exceptions are explicitly ‘niche only’ in the industry in favor of hourglass. I’m pretty certain I can find one niche retailer for any given triplet of { measurements, body shape, aesthetic style } — and it’s the introduction of that third component that reveals the problem. For any given style, say plaid or paisley or bodycon or flowy or “any color that isn’t red, gray, black, or white”, given a set of measurements and a body shape, there may only be one retailer known nationwide to serve that market. Torrid and Long Tall Sally both thrive in their respective triplets’ niches, but if you want clothes that fit you and are styled differently than the one retailer offers, it’s tailoring or nothing. (Incidentally, there’s a severe labor shortage of tailors in the tailoring industry as all the skilled workers are aging out of the workforce, same as CPAs in the accounting industry, so good luck finding one at a reasonable price!)

Re: Sizing chaos

#128

Post by munificent »

ChadNauseam wrote: post #79
malfist wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few fabrics can be fused together to make seams disappear, mostly your synthetics. Though technically wools could be felted together, but that would probably be extremely labor intensive.

why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape? I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?

> why is it that fabrics can be made in a square shape but not e.g. a capless cylinder shape?

Woven fabrics are naturally rectangular because they're made of a 2D grid of fibers at 90° angles to each other. The easiest (cheapest) way to make an irregular shape out of a woven fabric is to make a rectangle and cut it down.

> I can knit clothes seamlessly, right?

Knit garments usually have some amount of seaming, but yes, you have a lot of options to make irregular shapes when knitting.

However, knitting machines tend be most efficient and making rectangular fabric. They can do some amount of shaping, but the labor and cost goes up.

If you want to hand knit a garment, you can make quite complex irregular shapes with very little or no need for seaming. However, you're talking about two orders of magnitude more labor to make a garment. Few people want to pay $1,000 for a hand-knit sweater, so you're mostly limited to knitting it yourself or having a friend or loved one who likes you.

Re: Sizing chaos

#129

Post by munificent »

Legend2440 wrote: post #93
mgaunard wrote: post #83

Sizing only sucks because diet and exercise habits changed since the sizes were introduced.

But then why haven't the sizes been updated? We've been gaining weight slowly over decades, they've had time.

We're all still collectively telling ourselves we'll get back in shape any day now.

Re: Sizing chaos

#130

Post by nahikoa »

As a short adult male (5'5" - 165cm), it's always been difficult to find pants or jeans with a 28" inseam. Surprisingly, AmazonBasics line of clothes is one of the few mass produced consumer brands that has this size. Niche alternatives like Peter Manning are expensive, so it's great Amazon does this.
Post reply on HN