Live data from Hacker News

On Trouser Pockets

sambleckley.com

371–380 of 400 posts

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#371
post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are all curvy in different ways How hard can it be to 3d scan a person and output a custom fitted garment? Print? Robo sew? Anyway it seems like a bounded engineering problem.

There was a ‘startup’ that planned for the client to take a bunch of measurements and would then manufacture a garment to those. A post, which floated on HN, detailed why it turned out to not be too feasible. Edit: it was ‘Getwear’, found the name through the design company portfolio. They specialized in jeans. Alas, since the site is dead, I can't locate the postmortem, only this article in Russian: https://vc.ru/of…

There is a suit company that does that already. Chino something. I've heard it's good but I don't have any first hand experience

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you’re wearing is _still_ fashion. It’s based on a different aesthetic.

I do not think you would find a single person who would call it fashionable. I don't dress based on aesthetics, I dress based on practicality and comfort. How it happens to look is a consequence, not a goal. Form follows function. I don't wear boots because I think they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable to walk around in for a whole day and last much longer than regular shoes. I don't wear polo shirt…

Fashion and fast fashion are different things. I dress fairly practically as well. Even in work wear, there is fashion involved — although some of the changes in fashion may be driven by practical or safety considerations much more than appearance, appearance still makes a difference.

For each of the things that you’ve mentioned (boots are comfortable and last longer, etc) that you attribute as “form following function”, each of the functions may be fit by alternative forms.

You say you wear boots: what type? Even within steel-toed work boots there’s several different styles and fashions, and colour makes a difference. I did a quick search and on “Boot Barn”, there are 611 styles of steel-toed work shoes. For “style”, you have: 202 pull-on style, 172 lace-up (137 6" and 80 8"); 66 cowboy; 30 high/low top; 28 logger; 20 hiking; 19 roper; 19 wedge; 16 slip-on; 16 work sneaker; 10 driving shoe; 9 authentic; 7 Chukka; 7 Oxfords… You have work shoes that are heavily rubberized for electrical hazards; you have anti-slip.

You picked a style of boots that you _liked_. You may have had functional reasons for picking boots in the first place, but whether you want to admit it or not, you picked a particular _fashion_.

When you buy polo shirts (which I don’t wear because they look _awful_ on me, and they’re not at all comfortable), do you have colours and/or brands that you buy regularly? You might buy Lacoste brand entirely because you’ve found their quality good, or maybe you buy Hilfigger (or do you buy an entirely different brand because both Lacoste and Hilfigger are too “fashion”, so you’ve chosen the “anti-fashion” fashion brand?). Do you always buy the same two or three colours of polo shirts? You’re following a fashion.

Fashion is what people _do_. It’s not this amorphous thing. What is fashionable this year is not fashionable next year. Sometimes this is driven by fashion designers, but more often than not, a “fashion trend” takes two to ten years to catch on and become popular enough to become a “trend”. (Was punk a fashion trend? No, but it spawned at least three or four fashion trends out of it as people started to follow the scene and then age out of it.)

So dude, what you wear _is_ your fashion. You may not think that it’s fashionable, but you’re choosing your look based on an aesthetic that you believe you inhabit _whether you think so or not_. Otherwise, you’d have chosen an entirely _different_ look based on the same functional requirements you stated.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a little disheartening to spend so much time talking about cargo pants, when I relegated them to a postscript and only mentioned them to say "I am not talking about cargo pants". But that is totally your own fault for denigrating cargo pant wearers in the initial version of the post.

He didn't denigrate cargo pants wearers, he just said this design isn't for people who wear them... And then cargo pants wearers decided that was reason to complain even more.

> Cargo pants are fashion-as-pretend-occupation — when not at work, wear a fancy chronometer to suggest you’re a pilot or a diver, or camo to suggest you’re in the military. Cargo pants are a paratrooper costume. Cargo shorts have giant external pouches so teenagers in the 90’s, trapped in school, could say (sartorially) “I go out into the world and do adventurous things!” even though the things they stored in those pouches were doritos and portable cd players.

> I am discussing clothing as it might be worn by people while doing their real jobs, not their pretend ones. If cargo pants are appropriate for your real job, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa."

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#374
post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All fashion has symbolism. Just because you ignore doesn't mean it isn't there.

Not every garment is a fashion statement. Some people dress for practicality, and not to appease others' innane sense of fashion or vanity.

This is like saying "stop making everything political." It's not even possible.

Everything is a statement, the lack of intention can be doubly so. There are entire utilitarian schools of thought in fashion just like there is in everything else.

Also fashion doesn't exist solely to please others! I wouldn't dismiss an entire massive industry as inane. Vanity is a big part of it like a lot of other things, but if you're making a conscious choice in what you wear... fashion is playing some small role.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#375

The dismissiveness in this thread is unreal. From the comments you'd think the article only had one sentence insulting the Sanctity of Cargo Pants. If you happily wear baggy jeans or cargo pants, these are not for you and you don't have the problem they solve. It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the p…

The dismissiveness is a reflection of the author's own, plus the fact fashion is inherently classist: It's the rich telling the poor they don't dress well, and making up rules for why they're right. It's impossible to gainsay those rules, because you end up with a courtier's reply, in very nearly the literal sense.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#376
These are present on my carpenter pants; I find them invaluable for holding my phone, some rags (I have kids) and similar need-to-have-near-always things.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did the author insult cargo pants users? This is all I saw mentioning cargo pants in the article. > Appendix: Sam, have you simply invented cargo pants? > No. Cargo pants solve different problems for different people. > If cargo pants are appropriate for your daily life, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa. Cargo pants aren’t office-wear; these dress pants aren’t combat-w…

> Cargo pants aren’t office-wear That sounds like an awfully pretentious office, that I personally would never agree to work in.

I'm currently wearing cargo _shorts_; I bet I wouldn't be allowed past the foyer. ;)

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#378
post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lucky you people: I've been followed around the web for over ten years with Google ads for scammy dating sites (since Zoosk if anyone can remember that). When I click the x I only get another scammy dating site. And unlike GP I cannot remember visiting one in the first place :-/

Can't you change your google ad preferences?

Doesn't help it seems. I've tried at least twice.

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#379
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not 100% sure of the correct english word for them. In the UK we might call them "combats" or "combat trousers", and the best ones tend to come from military surplus stores.

I considered that term, but the ones I like the most are made from heavyweight cotton twill, similar in weight to denim but with a different weave and feel. Whereas I think combat pants are generally some sort of polycotton or cordura ripstop fabric. So it's "service" as in service tech or mechanic, not military service.

Another UK commenter - over here that cotton twill is known as moleskin and a lot of the army surplus is in that fabric which I agree is much nicer than the ripstop stuff

Re: On Trouser Pockets

#380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think you would find a single person who would call it fashionable. I don't dress based on aesthetics, I dress based on practicality and comfort. How it happens to look is a consequence, not a goal. Form follows function. I don't wear boots because I think they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable to walk around in for a whole day and last much longer than regular shoes. I don't wear polo shirt…

Fashion and fast fashion are different things. I dress fairly practically as well. Even in work wear, there is fashion involved — although some of the changes in fashion may be driven by practical or safety considerations much more than appearance, appearance still makes a difference. For each of the things that you’ve mentioned (boots are comfortable and last longer, etc) that you attribute as “form following functi…

Of course there are multiple possible forms to the same function, and even the workers segment is subject to silly whims of fashion. However, a set of basic practical and durable work pants generally looks the same now as they did 20 years ago, and will probably look about the same 20 years from now.

If you buy from the fashion-adjacent brands, some of which have also introduced streetwear collections, of course they will reflect some trends. If you buy from brands that purely make work clothes, practicality still comes first, because if they don't last, they just lost a repeat customer. The main drivers in that segment are durability and comfort, not looks.

Generally I just try to avoid clothes with obviously tacked-on flair and garish design elements. That means I mostly buy straight forward work pants and shirts, polos/t-shirts with no logos (or minimal logos for polos, they're hard to find without the traditional little logo on them), and boots/shoes in subdued or clean classic designs. I like the Norwegian M77 military boots because they're affordable, comfortable and super durable, and because they don't scream "look at me I'm so tacticool!", unlike a lot of newer designs. They've been made unchanged since 1977, and they obviously got it right.

Is it fashion or anti-fashion? I don't know, I just don't want to be a walking billboard for silly trends.

I've had this discussion a number of times, and I guess it really bugs people that not everyone cares obsessively about fashion and outward appearance as they do.

Just stop buying trends. Buy sustainable and long-lasting. Repair when things break. Keep the same things for as long as possible instead of buying something new all the time. Frequent thrift shops.

Post reply on HN