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

Buy well, buy once

fellow.ventures

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 392 posts

Re: Buy well, buy once

#361

Post by nerdchum »

helmholtz wrote: post #355
nerdchum wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agree. Theres alot of factors involved in buying anything. So we need to stop acting like we have great wisdom for "Paying more for quality" when in reality status and fashion had as much to do with the purchase as well.

No, I think we need to stop contriving obviously skewed examples like Aldens vs Crocs. Boots vs shitty holey rubber sandals isn't a good comparison. Maybe compare backpack, or suits, or something along those lines.

"obvioudly skewed" how?

Its pretty much the perfect example imo

Re: Buy well, buy once

#362

Post by nerdchum »

comfypotato wrote: post #329
nerdchum wrote: post #214

I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people justifying paying a lot for high status items. a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on the Alden's. but the crocs don't have the same status th…

Crocs are not utilitarian (no structure or support for physical activity) and they aren’t appropriate in the wider spectrum a nice pair of shoes are. I settled on some classic Vans after a deep internet dive signaled that they’re the most popular among homeless people for being durable and comfortable without being too expensive. They look fine, and I have a lot of freedom regarding when to replace them. I’m very hap…

Every pair of vans I bought fell apart in a year. I think they used to be quality back in the day before they got popular and shipped their manufacturing overseas. I've never seen a homeless person in vans but that's just me.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#363

Post by nerdchum »

chrismcb wrote: post #333
nerdchum wrote: post #214

I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people justifying paying a lot for high status items. a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on the Alden's. but the crocs don't have the same status th…

Crocs aren't shoes. I understand what you are trying to say. But that was a lousy comparison. Even if you consider Crocs shoes, you typically won't wear them the same place you will wear Aldens.

this is false. people wear Aldens all the time and people wear crocs all the time to all kinds of different functions and events.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#364

Post by nerdchum »

cookie_monsta wrote: post #339
CPLX wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reliability rankings are determined by surveying people and asking them the frequency of repairs. Assuming my paper airplane never goes into the shop it’s going to outrank the F-18. Ain’t a better plane though.

Well, again "better" is subjective and you would want to agree on some metrics before deciding. Say I wanted a low-cost, lightweight, hand-propelled aircraft capable of flying short distances indoors that I could fold up and put in my pocket afterwards? Which would be the "better" plane then?

Better in this case is durability and there's no way of BMW is more durable than a Toyota Corolla and that is objective.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#365

Post by hxii »

I try and live according to a similar principle, albeit less "pretentious", as other people have labeled it. "Buy once, cry once" only works every so often, but I do stand by one thing: don't cheapen out on things that MATTER (for example safety or comfort).

Generally speaking, the cheaper you go, the less a thing will last. In the end, everything is built/manufactured to meet a price target with the exception of things that are overpriced because brands, and it's important to learn to identify this.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#366

Post by CPLX »

nerdchum wrote: post #364
cookie_monsta wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, again "better" is subjective and you would want to agree on some metrics before deciding. Say I wanted a low-cost, lightweight, hand-propelled aircraft capable of flying short distances indoors that I could fold up and put in my pocket afterwards? Which would be the "better" plane then?

Better in this case is durability and there's no way of BMW is more durable than a Toyota Corolla and that is objective.

A brick handily beats both.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#367

Post by DubiousPusher »

nerdchum wrote: post #247
DubiousPusher wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the world of fashion perhaps. In the world of tools, absolutely not.

In human society its arguable that fashion is a tool of communication. At least thats how I have to justify it to myself because I hate being forced to participate in it but we all are constantly being judged on how we look.

My reply was strictly in regards to

> Yeah completely agree that price is decoupled from quality nowadays

In the world of physic tools, price and quality are highly coupled.

To your other points, I honestly think fashion is very rewarding and healthy so long as you are focused on making yourself look good to you. And I agree, some fashion conformity is unavoidable. Especially depending upon your career field.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#368

Post by ChoGGi »

codpiece wrote: post #48
throwaway22032 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. Of course, the shower isn't yours so it doesn't count. Using this, we can get rid of the sleeping bag and just roll up the carpet in the rented flat and sleep in that. What else can we cut?

Toothpaste. We have soap/shampoo.

No no, dirt works perfectly as a natural scrubbing agent.

Re: Buy well, buy once

#370

Post by klyrs »

nerdchum wrote: post #360
klyrs wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more prophetic than the overwhelming majority of futuristicistic movies. Exceptionally does not equal extremely.

you should write a blog post or something about it. I don't find it very prophetic but would like to hear other people's opinions.

Here's an article and discussion. I find the article somewhat lacking, but oh well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29737533

Post reply on HN