261–270 of 278 posts
These guys are gonna be sad, this comes in at 1.8mm https://www.bulgari.com/en-us/watches/mens/octo-finissimo-wa... This guy comes with a heckin NFT though so there's um that!
Source: https://www.hodinkee.com/articles/richard-mille-sets-a-new-r...
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…
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.”
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…
Expensive timepiece today is the only way for a man to show off his wealth indoors in a relatively tasteful manner. Woman can wear gold and diamonds on the neck, in the ears, on the wrists, on the lapel. She may carry a bag which costs thousands. Man can't wear any gold at all, except he is a rap star. He can't even wear cufflinks outside formal attire. Not sure about even a ring with stone. Maybe steel one with smal…
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…
I mean, herein lies the philosophical argument of opportunity cost to society in general. Every thing we spend money that is, perhaps, any amount over-engineered or nice-for-nice sake, or made of slightly higher grade materials, or, well, anything other than strictly utilitarian and minimalist as possible is technically consuming opportunity cost that could benefit society. If I order wings with my pizza tonight, as…
And yeah, ideally charities would not need to exist. I also believe that government could become a lot more efficient. I think a luxury tax is a good solution, provided that those funds are put to good work. The nature of these ultra-rich toys can make them hard to tax, though. If America wants to levy a tax, I can just buy it the next time I'm in Geneva.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why? Are watchmakers not people who deserve to have an income? Why? Just because they're good at something that takes effort? By that logic everyone who has a challenging hobby - and most hobbies are ultimately challenging - deserves an income from it. Would you say that anyone who's good at any sport, or any craft, or any game, or even knowing celebrity trivia, deserves an income? IMO at most people who produce re…
> IMO at most people who produce real value This is a terrible take. So you're saying restaurant workers in high end restaurants don't deserve income, neither do musicians, or any number of artists and artisans based on what YOU think is valuable to society. The value isn't in what they produce, the value is in the fact that someone will pay them for it and the worker will then contribute to and participate in the ec…
Good service or entertainment definitely has real value. But yes, IMO if people are producing something whose value is fake (e.g. artificial scarcity) then they don't "deserve" income; if they can get someone to pay them for whatever they're doing then more power to them, but they shouldn't feel entitled to it.
One of the best looking watches I have ever seen. Truly a mechanical pearl. Also looks quite unique in contrast to basically every other watch looking almost the same.
Can you say why you think the design is good? That logo is unnecessary and takes up more room than the watch face. I don’t think this is even for telling the time. I can’t imagine this distinctive look is merely to signal that you have 1.8m on your wrist. This to me is like Louis Vuitton. I always thought plastering their logo everywhere was ugly.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, herein lies the philosophical argument of opportunity cost to society in general. Every thing we spend money that is, perhaps, any amount over-engineered or nice-for-nice sake, or made of slightly higher grade materials, or, well, anything other than strictly utilitarian and minimalist as possible is technically consuming opportunity cost that could benefit society. If I order wings with my pizza tonight, as…
I find a super-yacht less offensive than an expensive watch, because at least a super-yacht lets you do things that a regular yacht couldn't, or do them better. Getting a yacht with e.g. a helipad on it is obviously a luxury, but it's a reasonable luxury: anyone can see how it's nicer to be able to fly to your yacht rather than having to bring it in and out of port. What makes these watches so infuriating is that all…
- you can be relatively certain it's not spying on you.
- you don't need to charge it every week.
- it probably has better water resistance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your vocabulary isn't at fault, nothing to do with that at all, it's that you think 150 of a watch is in some way mass produced.
I had an incorrect sense of when to use the term "mass". It's vocabulary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had an incorrect sense of when to use the term "mass". It's vocabulary.
What weird hill are you trying to die on here? You're saying that 150 of a watch means it's mass-produced, ie that there's a heap of them, that they're made en masse, in bulk, whatever terminology you want to use. You understand that because it's exactly what you were getting at. The point is that 150 of them is still bugger all.
It doesn't matter if they're both "bugger all" compared to some arbitrary threshold. It's a huge difference in scale and methodology. There's more than two categories here!
And I don't know why you think I'm trying to die on a hill, the only downvoted comment in the chain is your first one...