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

Worse on Purpose

ledger.worseonpurpose.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: Worse on Purpose

#51

Post by thesuitonym »

FinnLobsien wrote: post #9
altacc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The site lists "Approved" companies that have not been enshittified by private equity. What springs to mind for me are scissor manufacturers Ernest Wright and Whiteley. They maintained quality, relied on expert workers and aim to keep high quality staff for their career and hire people to learn manual skills. The result of this is high prices and waitlists for many of their products, which is the exact opposite of wh…

Yeah it's quite interesting how most of the decline of great brands came as a result of ownership changes, not complacency on part of the owner/founder. I've actually found AI a great resource for finding brands that offer great value for money by buying from obscure factories/brands with the same quality attributes as major brands, but without all the marketing spend and brand margin to subsidize.

This is actually a terrible use for AI, since it's going to regurgitate the marketing astroturfing on Reddit without showing you the source so you can see it's all bots.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#52

Post by mikestew »

bob1029 wrote: post #11

I have a hard time with the Instant Pot case. If you have their first generation product, you never have to buy another one. This is not really worse on purpose. They made a product so good no one ever bought it again and they couldn't afford to keep making immortal products. It's really hard to get the customers to pay a premium for something that will last for 50 years but hasn't proven the ability to do so yet. No…

I’d like to know what’s supposed to be bad about a late-model Instant Pot. We have one that’s at least ten years old, and we just bought a 3 quart one. AFAICT, it’s the same thing only smaller. Buttons seem the same, seals look to be the same spec. I’m not saying there isn’t an internal difference, but painting it with “owned by PE, bad!” without further information isn’t helpful.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#53

Post by smallmancontrov »

brk wrote: post #37
LastTrain wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you are saying - make the poor pay taxes for the rich?

Not quite sure how you got that out of my comment, but no. In the US at least, those classified as poor have a very low tax burden, in many cases they pay $0, or close to $0 in federal taxes after standard deductions.

US taxes are wildly regressive. Last time Elon's taxes came up, I calculated that he pays taxes at about 1% the rate that I do (and most of us here do). Crazy!

Re: Worse on Purpose

#55

Post by skippyfish »

xnx wrote: post #31

This site is absolute catnip for HN. Do we know what motivates the site? Long-term SEO content authority reputation building before pivoting to affiliate links?

The page is entirely AI-generated and each piece is written with the same silly thesis (things used to be better and then they ruined everything). I see why this works, but it's frankly disappointing to see so many smart people fall for it over and over again. There's no human on the other end of these essays that believes these things. They're not true and not meant to be true. Yes, they're what we want to hear, but that shouldn't be enough.

As to why it exists: when generation of content costs next to nothing, I think that question is harder to pin. The basic answer is "clicks".

Re: Worse on Purpose

#56

Post by jiveturkey »

How is Snap-On approved and Proto is on the watchlist?

Proto >> Snap-On IMHO. Both in raw quality and in value.

And while Craftsman may have changed significantly even before Sears' demise, there are still some excellent tool lines within the brand.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#57

Post by sjsdaiuasgdia »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #38
sjsdaiuasgdia wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Geez, the rich already take credit for the things their employees do...and now you want to give them credit for the taxes their employees paid too! Wild!

It's kind of weird. There is a lot of propaganda that says * rich people spending money==great investment into the economy and we need to give them more so they make the economy even better * poor people spending money==mindless consumption, it's a bad idea to give them money because they are wasting it anyways

Yep, and you see a similar thing with government spending and presumption of waste.

Sure, government spending can be wasteful. But it's also generally going into the economy. It's buying stuff from companies who use the revenue to pay their employees and supply chains. It's paying government employees who spend their pay on places to live, food to eat, entertainment, etc. Some folks act like that money disappears. Waste or not, governments aren't generally hoarding cash, they're spending it.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#58

Post by metalliqaz »

skippyfish wrote: post #55
xnx wrote: post #31

This site is absolute catnip for HN. Do we know what motivates the site? Long-term SEO content authority reputation building before pivoting to affiliate links?

The page is entirely AI-generated and each piece is written with the same silly thesis (things used to be better and then they ruined everything). I see why this works, but it's frankly disappointing to see so many smart people fall for it over and over again. There's no human on the other end of these essays that believes these things. They're not true and not meant to be true. Yes, they're what we want to hear, but…

> They're not true and not meant to be true.

The two companies I looked up were accurately described, according to my own experience with them.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#59

Post by add-sub-mul-div »

skippyfish wrote: post #55
xnx wrote: post #31

This site is absolute catnip for HN. Do we know what motivates the site? Long-term SEO content authority reputation building before pivoting to affiliate links?

The page is entirely AI-generated and each piece is written with the same silly thesis (things used to be better and then they ruined everything). I see why this works, but it's frankly disappointing to see so many smart people fall for it over and over again. There's no human on the other end of these essays that believes these things. They're not true and not meant to be true. Yes, they're what we want to hear, but…

The site may be slop and poorly made, but that doesn't invalidate that consumer products of a given quality tier are lower quality than they used to be. People like to see it confirmed because it matches their lived experience.

Re: Worse on Purpose

#60

Post by bluGill »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #36
msdz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s the downside of requiring infinite (in the sense of “never-ending”) growth, and not being content “just” with profit.

I'm moderately sure that there's a part of private equity that would be content with a steady profit (at the right price). It's just not the part that you usually hear about.

The path to "get rich quick" is selling a lot of cheap junk for a high price. In order to make this work you need to constantly be on the lookout for a new scheme though as the money will run out on the old one fast.

The get rich not quick as quick (and perhaps not quite as rich) it make a good quality product with consistent margins as you earn a reputation.

Post reply on HN