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

Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 542 posts

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#361

Post by rendall »

scaramanga wrote: post #191
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will note that I often wish Dan Luu was a bit less apparently-uniformly-confident in some of the statements he writes. He does back up what he says, but he'll use the same tone for something he's seen anecdotally and something he's spent a month personally investigating. Dan Luu is one of my favorite currently-active bloggers. He's obviously a smart person with a good amount of experience in specific areas. Howev…

I think that's kind of the point. Dan Luu can change his priorities to do a performative display of what interviewers expect and then Dan Luu can pass a job interview. In which case you are not hiring Dan Luu, but a different guy who has most likely internalised a different world-view and set of values. Even if you assume he can compartmentalize his interview performance skills, he will have at least devoted time to…

What do you mean when you say "hiring a guy like Dan Luu"? If I were to be on a team with a guy like Dan Luu, what might I expect?

Im asking as someone who does not generally read his blog.

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#362

Post by PixelOfDeath »

spacebanana7 wrote: post #330
analog31 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

House foundations, light switches, and water delivery, along with the professions that install them, are all regulated and licensed. There is somewhat of a trend for the quality of those things to have regional variation, e.g., lower quality in places that have historically had weak code enforcement and weak unions. And yes, the regulation probably did make those things more expensive.

The filesystems example given by OP is an interesting counterpoint - Linux filesystems are the opposite of regulated, regionally varied, and expensive.

Well we also ended up with BTRFS raid5/6

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#363

Post by Ensorceled »

This is a really good essay, but kind of depressing.

Re: professional services ... I think there is some kind of sweet spot where professionals stop focusing on delivering a good service and start focusing on their brand. Also, some people realize they are not actually a very good accountant/developer/lawyer and focus almost entirely on their brand. Trying to discern if your potential professional is one of those two types of professionals is the hardest part.

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#364

Post by bluedino »

namdnay wrote: post #281
dotancohen wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like a quality automobile, to bring the discussion closer to the article. For example, a Tesla Model 3 might cost more than a Hyundai I10, but after three years of ownership you've not had to change the oil, fill it with gas, get the tailpipe emissions inspected, possibly see the catalytic converter stolen, etc. And the difference in maintenance only grows from there, when the plugs and timing belt and seals and…

How many miles are you putting on that i10?! An oil change is every 2 years or 15k km. I think it’s a bad example btw, it’s a famously reliable car (the taxi of choice in Bogota fwiw)

Many Americans drive 15k (9,000 miles) in 6 months

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#365

Post by DannyBee »

solveit wrote: post #233
DannyBee wrote: post #110

The problem here is actually very basic - markets do not enforce efficiency. Period. The efficient market hypothesis is simply wrong. Strong form efficiency was already formally disproven quite a while ago. Weak form efficiency has been show to only true if P=NP. There is not really a strong need to go into why inefficiencies can persist, etc, because at a baseline, it turns out there is no provable theory that marke…

Sure, sure, you can encode difficult computational problems into markets in convoluted ways, but this is uninteresting unless you're into that kind of thing. When people usually say that markets aren't efficient, they don't mean that optimal resource allocation is a computationally intractable problem. They're saying that they see, clear as day, obvious inefficiencies that aren't being corrected. They're saying that…

It's only uninteresting because economics refuses to be based on anything but the empirical (leading us into the situation we are in now), and so considers things like "math" to be mostly uninteresting "unless you are into that kind of thing". I looked at markets for a while, this is what i saw. Therefore, it's true.

As I said, there is no reason those efficiencies should be easily correctable - because markets aren't efficient! That's the whole point. It's only in an efficient market that they would be correctable. This is the same as lots of computational and other problems. Lots of instances are easy and heuristics can often work very well. But you will still come up with situations where obviously broken things happen and are hard to make algorithms work.

It's sort of like having a cocktail party conversation about why you can't exceed the speed of light. Except because it's economics, you get stuck because there often isn't any real rigor behind it that you can push on. Just the empirical. Which I get why it's fun to talk about (really!) - without any meaningful rigor, anyone can participate and have fun - got a crazy empirical story? Awesome, that's all you need to prove something in economics! It makes for fun discussions where most people can participate and feel like it's not too hard.

I have no issue with that - my issue is of course that the cocktail party is not distinguishable from the field ;)

Beyond that, arguing they are inexploitable/unpredictable seems equivalent to whether they are efficient (and in most papers is considered equivalent to the efficiency hypothesis). I'm really unsure how you are trying to distinguish it. Maybe you could formulate it for real and show how it is not equivalent to the efficiency question?

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#366

Post by kasey_junk »

pmyteh wrote: post #349
ncmncm wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't even know how I would identify a good toaster to buy, nowadays. Electric kettles are a problem, too.

Commercial toasters (and, I imagine, commercial electric kettles) are 'good' in the sense of being well-built and long-lasting. I've got a 1980s Dualit toaster which is essentially bomb-proof (the clockwork timer will eventually stop working but is easily replaced; even the elements can be readily changed out if they get damaged). Of course, the downside is that new ones start at £150 or so. So it's difficult to make…

The problem with ‘commercial’ kitchen equipment is that most of it is just up branded domestic equipment.

When you do buy ‘commercial’ kitchen equipment you’ll notice lots of things that are just downright worse. Energy efficiency, safety features, and noise reduction are all things that are _way_ worse than with their domestic counterparts.

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#367

Post by dotancohen »

PinguTS wrote: post #313
dotancohen wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, I updated the post. I had no idea that oil changes are now once every two years. On the wife's Subaru I still change the oil every six months, and I remember when the standard was actually every three months. She puts about 10 km on the car during those six months, we live in a hilltop village half an hour drive from a city.

What? Oil change every three month? WTF is wrong with the US industry? The very same cars in Europe will have an oil change every 2 years or so. My Volvo S60 Model 2000 has an oil change every 3 years. There must be something that you get sold on by marketing that is so wrong. BTW. Also a Tesla has oil in their gearbox, even if it is just a single gear integrated into the single unit combined with motor and inverter.…

I'm not in the US, but I have lived there and I did learn that frequency there. Like I mentioned in another thread, I worked as a service technician at Ford and that was the recommendation then (1990s).

As for the Model S fluid change, thank you for mentioning it, I did not know that. I believe that there is no fluid change interval defined on the Model 3, which I just recently bought.

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#368

Post by ahel »

ketzo wrote: post #190
Centigonal wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like I'm missing something here. > The ability to sort out opinions and anecdotes from factual claims and evidence is… well… something you’d expect from a proficient reader! How does a proficient reader separate facts from opinions if good writing doesn't disambiguate facts and opinions? Do they just assume? e.g.: Butter is about as healthy as vegetable oil. Arugula is healthier than lettuce. I can cite a meta…

Nothing in Dan Luu’s writing is ever ambiguous. Quite the opposite. He just writes in the same voice for both researched facts/studies and personal anecdotes. But it’s always very clear which is which, and an informed reader should (IMO) not have a problem differentiating. The commenter you’re replying to is objecting to unnecessary couching and cloaking of opinion/anecdote. And I think there’s very, very little of t…

I disagree. it sometimes gives me that feeling as well even though I like the guy and his blog. i don't know if it's a cultural thing. i'm no native english storage

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#369

Post by dotancohen »

sneed wrote: post #357
dotancohen wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like a quality automobile, to bring the discussion closer to the article. For example, a Tesla Model 3 might cost more than a Hyundai I10, but after three years of ownership you've not had to change the oil, fill it with gas, get the tailpipe emissions inspected, possibly see the catalytic converter stolen, etc. And the difference in maintenance only grows from there, when the plugs and timing belt and seals and…

It all catches back up to you when the battery replacement cost nearly totals the car though.

I've got a 10 year warranty on the battery pack. And at the rate that independent battery servicing is expanding, there is a very good chance that independent pack refurbishment or replacement will be affordable by March 2032.

In any case, the wife's 1996 Hyundai was worth more to the breaking yard than it was to the second hand market when it's transmission failed in summer of 1997. So even if the battery pack fails immediately after the warranty period and that totals the car, I've still come out ahead in total cost of ownership.

Re: Why is it hard to buy things that work well?

#370

Post by dotancohen »

nly wrote: post #316
dotancohen wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like a quality automobile, to bring the discussion closer to the article. For example, a Tesla Model 3 might cost more than a Hyundai I10, but after three years of ownership you've not had to change the oil, fill it with gas, get the tailpipe emissions inspected, possibly see the catalytic converter stolen, etc. And the difference in maintenance only grows from there, when the plugs and timing belt and seals and…

My partner leases a petrol car, and except for pumping up the tyres every now and then we've never done anything to it. Servicing is fully covered and the garage keeps track of when things need changing. It wasn't so long ago that leasing was actually cheaper option than buying (on credit).

Even if you're not paying for the service, you still need to take the time to do it or get it done for you.
Post reply on HN