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

The Worst

thoughtcrime.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 217 posts

Re: The Worst

#21

Post by [deleted] »

1337p337 wrote: post #13
cjensen wrote: post #2

The author of this linked article has made an error: he assumes dcurtis' flatware is inordinately expensive. It is not; traditional flatware really is absurdly expensive. Much of the author's article is based on this assumption. I'd suggest he familiarize himself with "wedding gift"-style flatware. Then do a rewrite because I think there is a good argument still to be had.

I don't know where you shop, but the "traditional flatware" of my people is whatever was cheap enough at the department store. Our rich native customs dictate that we spend $15 on a set, and then use it until there are not enough non-bent spoons, and then to spend another $15.

[deleted]

Re: The Worst

#23

Post by drivingmenuts »

kryptiskt wrote: post #8
cjensen wrote: post #2

The author of this linked article has made an error: he assumes dcurtis' flatware is inordinately expensive. It is not; traditional flatware really is absurdly expensive. Much of the author's article is based on this assumption. I'd suggest he familiarize himself with "wedding gift"-style flatware. Then do a rewrite because I think there is a good argument still to be had.

If you include the time he spent researching flatware in the bill it would be probably hard to find anything more expensive south of diamond-encrusted things for oligarchs without taste.

Where in the heck do you research flatware in a reliable manner? Cost is easy, but finding out that $75 fork gets scratches like a carpet in a cat factory? Who publishes that?

I'm pretty sure I bought my cutlery at Target in one of those handy service-for-4 bachelor packs and maybe my plates at Ikea because I happened to remember I needed plates and I don't hate trees enough to buy paper all the time. But damned if I did any research on it.

Is this some niche of blogging as yet undiscovered?

Re: The Worst

#24

Post by diminish »

awakeasleep wrote: post #20

The dichotomy between Moxie and Dustin's posts illustrates an interesting split in the 'hacker' world. Wheras Hacker and Startup seemed to represent the use of unconventional tools to achieve a unexpected results (often) in unpleasant or tedious circumstances, those connotations have become mixed with the sense glamor usually reserved for celebrities. Now, the ostensibly boring (or at least detail-ridden, interesting…

In those 2 articles, I see more a contradiction between design and function. In recent years, design for web sites, and mobile apps has been a major focus for startups and consumers. Simple functional products are seen with more skepticism from investors; that is the journey from Google to Pinterest or from Dell to Apple.

Re: The Worst

#26

Post by debacle »

I, like many others, see a lot of self-serving "founder" spam on HN and at this point it's not worth commenting on. Except for a few grossly abhorrent pock marks, it's easier to let the posts have their time on HN - if not, something else will fill the void.

Re: The Worst

#27

Post by rthomas6 »

Could it be possible that there is a spectrum of choices which represent a trade-off between cost and quality? What if both authors took an already understood and practiced idea in our culture and took it to an absurd extreme? Every person will desire different quality for different items. Even Dustin Curtis doesn't get "the best" of all of his items. He says that he does, but if you keep reading, what he really means is getting "the best for him." That's what everyone does.

People just pay for as high of a quality as is justified to them by the price. Assuming perfect knowledge, that's theoretically what all consumers do. Different people desire different quality for different items, and have different amounts of money.

I love listening to music at work, so I did a lot of research and got a nice pair of $150 headphones with a $30 headphone amp. They're wonderful. Well, well worth the purchase price to me. Could I have paid $1500 dollars and gotten a higher quality set of headphones? Sure. But who the fuck would spend $1500 on headphones? It just wasn't justifiable to me. Some people will buy the $1500 headphones. Some people will buy the $15 headphones. None of these people are following some abstract philosophy. They're just regular consumers in a capitalist society, buying what makes the most sense for them.

Re: The Worst

#28

Post by stephengillie »

drivingmenuts wrote: post #23
kryptiskt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you include the time he spent researching flatware in the bill it would be probably hard to find anything more expensive south of diamond-encrusted things for oligarchs without taste.

Where in the heck do you research flatware in a reliable manner? Cost is easy, but finding out that $75 fork gets scratches like a carpet in a cat factory? Who publishes that? I'm pretty sure I bought my cutlery at Target in one of those handy service-for-4 bachelor packs and maybe my plates at Ikea because I happened to remember I needed plates and I don't hate trees enough to buy paper all the time. But damned if I…

Dustin definitely got us to discuss his blog post, but probably not for the reason we're expecting. That blog post and this comments thread are both huge advertisements for dcurtis.

Re: The Worst

#29

Post by klawed »

And then somewhere in between are the partisans of "good enough" When I'm eating food I like to get as close to "The best" as I can reasonably afford (I'll spend $50 on a steak but I won't fly to Japan just to get some fresh Kobe). On most other things, "Good Engough" is a good enough. And when I buy a car, I ask myself if I'll care if the bumper get's scratched - if the answer's yes, I look for a different car.

Re: The Worst

#30

Post by Sumaso »

ssharp wrote: post #19
ryanwhitney wrote: post #11

After years of having cheap, shitty can openers that made it a pain to do the task, I spent 20 minutes looking it up and bought the best that I could find on Amazon. While I may never figure out how to service it if something happens to it (the thought!), it has worked pretty well so far. Cans are opened with little to no effort. It stays out of the way, it does exactly the task it was designed for, and it does it we…

I think you're just hitting on a case where cheaper stuff is substantially less useful than more expensive stuff. One of the issues with "The Best" was how poor of an example flatware is at doing that. Also, cost and utility are a sliding scale. There isn't "the best" and "the worst" and nothing in between. In fact, it's usually the stuff in the middle that makes the best trade offs between cost and functionality.

I thought the point of the article was that regardless of the cost of the item, you should try and get the best object you could possibly get.

I find it amusing that the article actually attacked the cost of the object not the utility. There seemed to be some sort of fear of the money lost if that object failed them. Moxie seems to think that if he spent 50 dollars on a single set of utensils he would be seemingly enslaved by them.

The original post was not about being enslaved by your possessions it was about not having to worry about them fulfilling their function. I could buy a cheap set of stainless steel utensils and watch them tarnish as well as leaving a metallic taste in my mouth (hypothetical utensils). Sure they may have saved me money, but was it worth it?

I can buy the worst car, be late to my meeting and lose my job. I can buy the worst computer and not only be frustrated by my computing experience but also question how long it will be until I need to replace it.

You never ever want to buy the worst, you /may/ not always want to buy the best

Post reply on HN