Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
[deleted]
Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
471–480 of 511 posts
Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whataboutism isn't a useful or helpful way to discuss an industry with unbelievable human suffering. I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was not that there's not human suffering in the diamond industry, nor that it isn't bad. My point is that you, a person that cannot afford expensive natural diamonds (speaking statistically here, I don't know you personally), probably should not cast moral judgments…
I make approximately 750k/year. I can afford diamonds. I choose not to buy them because they are a symbol of accepting human suffering for my luxury.
[flagged]
Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Whataboutism isn't a useful or helpful way to discuss an industry with unbelievable human suffering. I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was not that there's not human suffering in the diamond industry, nor that it isn't bad. My point is that you, a person that cannot afford expensive natural diamonds (speaking statistically here, I don't know you personally), probably should not cast moral judgments…
In the case of diamonds, you have the choice of buying the exact same product with human suffering involved, or without. If there were a lab-grown iPhone on the market, of course I would choose it
https://shop.fairphone.com/fairphone-5
Or, is some level of human suffering ok for you to have the luxury of using an iPhone?
Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
On FM radio, Mervis Diamond Importers talks about how they offer both natural and lab-grown, but they make sure to mention that natural will "increase in value over time" (I assume because limited quantity + as lab becomes more common, natural becomes rarer). As cynical as I am, I'm sure they'd justify a high price for a natural diamond on those grounds, but also justify a similar high price for lab-growns because th…
they will not increase over time, and there is a ton of market proof to show that, going back to the 1980s. e.g. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-yo... (spoiler: it's harder to do than you'd think, and you won't get anything near what you pay -- and that in the 80s, before synthetic diamonds pushed the market down further)
Figures they were lying through their teeth.
Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#475Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s definitely price performant at 6.5 on the mohs scale, sapphire panels are 2-4x more expensive to produce but 9 on the mohs scales so they’re typically only found in watches I bet. At a 10 on the mohs scale diamond is still best for hardness. Maybe the same effect of the prince Rupert’s drop could be induced on a round diamond with an alpha particle beam treatment where you add these ions primarily on the surface…
I'm not exactly a watch nerd, so don't know how true this is, but I hear that sapphire shatters on impact. Or maybe that's just an excuse for people peddling "alternative" materials for their watches? But if it is true, then I'd say that sapphire is a poor choice for mobile phones. IME I'm far more likely to drop the phone, preferably on some form of hard surface, that to scratch it. Phones are nowadays so ridiculous…
The threat isn't so much scratching it in your pocket (but that is possible, I typically have my sunglass clip in the same pocket--it's supposed to be in it's own case but in theory something could happen) as scratching it against things.
Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes things worse.
Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Yikes—you can't post like this to HN and we have to ban accounts that do. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
> diamond windows for lasers 10cm across > Diamonds are now something you can buy by the kilo, in plastic bags. I can’t wait to use diamond cookware. A pan with a thin layer of 430 stainless steel for induction, a wafer of diamond, and then another thin layer of stainless on top will be amazing. Almost perfect evenness over any cooktop.
This is what oil-core cookware already does. But there's only so much "heat spreading" you can do before faster conductivity does basically nothing. The thermal conductivity of steel itself becomes the limiting factor pretty quickly. That said, if they can figure out vapor depositing diamond onto stainless steel, I'd take a diamond surface over an enamel surface. Provided they can figure out how to make it perfectly…
Having contemplated pan materials a bit, it seems to me that high thermal conductivity is nice, but one really wants is even heating, and that might be best accomplished by highly anisotropic thermal conductivity. Or maybe by having a good conductor sandwiched between poor conductors.
Re: Synthetic diamonds are now purer, more beautiful, and cheaper than mined
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Yikes—you can't post like this to HN and we have to ban accounts that do. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for. If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
I'm sorry, I come from an English speaking part of the world that uses swear words quite differently. (As is very common in pidgin English variants.)
The parents post was objectively sexist, and objectively highly sexist. Calling that out must be ok, apologies I dropped expletives, it's a cultural difference.
That said, it's very telling that the post says using expletives to call out sexism is bad, but there's not a similar chastisement of the sexism itself. (Which garnered no comment.) Is decorum more important than cleaning out obvious and odious sexism from HN?