Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever • Hacker News Board

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#501

Post by Anthony-G » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:29 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #420

hobs wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't apply logic to fashion choices Fast fashion is literally harming the earth, screw everyone who says that and thinks about that, I absolutely reject it and we SHOULD apply logic to fashion choices that directly harm us and our planet.

You can say the same thing about fast technology. There are mountains of discarded gadgets from just last year filled with toxic materials that first had to be mined from the Earth, and now are polluting the Earth.

I totally would say the same thing. That’s why I support all steps that make it easier for devices to be repaired and re-used.

My hi-fi system is 30 years old. My Squeezeboxes (audio players) are 15 years old. Laptop (running LXDE) is 13 years old. TV is 10 years old (only 720p but free of “smart” aka tracking features). The mobile phone is about 7 years old; this one is due for replacement and while I usually buy second-hand, I am considering a Fairphone 3. The most recent device I bought (a year ago) was an Apple TV which I’d hope to be using for at least another 5 years.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#502

Post by NikolaeVarius » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:30 PM UTC

saberdancer wrote: post #429

akarma wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many women won't directly tell their partner "I want you to spend a couple months' salary on a beautiful diamond" because it's tasteless to request and it removes all the meaning behind the man doing so, but they'd also be disappointed if the man didn't do so unprompted. People and their emotions are complex like that. I don't think there's any glaring issue with either party above, but it's like you expect all women…

It's like typical "I don't need anything for my birthday". Even the most rational people tend to get disappointed if they really get nothing.

Nope. I dont want or need more shit.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#503

Post by NikolaeVarius » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:31 PM UTC

beaconstudios wrote: post #473

akarma wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many women won't directly tell their partner "I want you to spend a couple months' salary on a beautiful diamond" because it's tasteless to request and it removes all the meaning behind the man doing so, but they'd also be disappointed if the man didn't do so unprompted. People and their emotions are complex like that. I don't think there's any glaring issue with either party above, but it's like you expect all women…

there's nothing rational about HN's brand of rationalism - which is really just materialist reductionism. In this thread alone are dozens of people completely blind to the concept of social signals, thinking instead about price, clarity and the vague notion of distant moral dilemmas. Beyond basic survival requirements, social signals are one of the most important concepts in human society! To exclude them from your c…

Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation. Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#504

Post by jbay808 » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:34 PM UTC

RobertKerans wrote: post #496

washadjeffmad wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went through this not that many years ago buying a ring for my SO. My biggest mistake was including her in the decision. She described what she wanted exactly– nothing gaudy or ostentatious, just a singular, tasteful stone on a plain band. Couldn't be simpler, could it? Finding stones that met her criteria was easy. Some were natural diamonds, some lab grown, many moissanite. From the outset, she said the meaning o…

Well, if you ever want an example of advertising working... (I realise it plays enormously on preexisting traditional cultural notions of value, but still, as mentioned, de Beers did quite the job). I had similar conversations pre-engagement, but felt forced into a real diamond once the time actually came.

"Real diamond" as opposed to zirconia, or did you mean natural diamond (as opposed to a real artificial diamond)?

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#505

Post by woofcat » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:36 PM UTC

55555 wrote: post #481

woofcat wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I wonder if your literal children would feel like that if you'd taken the same money for a ring that will (presuming you proceed with marriage) pretty much never get worn, and invested it in an index fund until their 21st birthday. I don't know what culture you're from. But in North America engagement rings are worn as every day jewellery. So it gets used daily. >I wonder if your literal children would feel like tha…

Warren Buffet takes this even further. He doesn't spend any money on consumption, choosing instead to invest it for 21+ years. And then he keeps it invested and refuses to give it to his children. (He's giving it all to charity, though.)

Yeah, I just enjoy the logic of:

"How dare you spend what at the end of the day is a trivial amount of money on something that your significant other appreciates and enjoys. You should be eating soylent green and living in a 400 square foot home!"

If I were struggling to get by, it would be a fair discussion. However the audience on HN I presume to be middle class, if not upper middle class it seems like an odd argument to make.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#506

Post by beaconstudios » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:37 PM UTC

NikolaeVarius wrote: post #503

beaconstudios wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's nothing rational about HN's brand of rationalism - which is really just materialist reductionism. In this thread alone are dozens of people completely blind to the concept of social signals, thinking instead about price, clarity and the vague notion of distant moral dilemmas. Beyond basic survival requirements, social signals are one of the most important concepts in human society! To exclude them from your c…

Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation. Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid.

> Except this particular social signal was entirely made up by a corporation.

They didn't make it up, they just made a display of wealth (and therefore social status) associated with their product. Brands do that all the time but the signal has always existed.

The advertising serves to put the association between the product and wealth into the common knowledge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge_(logic). Or in other words, everybody knows that everybody knows that rings are expensive.

> Social signals that cost significant resources for something worthless are stupid.

No, you just don't understand social signals, which was my point. The "costing significant resources" part is the whole idea. Wedding rings and fresh kicks aren't expensive because they're valuable, they're valuable because they're expensive. If you want to understand the idea, check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Honest_signa.... It makes perfect sense (ie, it's rational).

It's equivalent to saying, "I am willing to burn all of this valuable money to prove that I value you".

If we only bought things that were of purely-material value, we'd stop at food, weather-protective but un-aesthetic clothing, and basic shelter. Everything beyond those is social (or hyperreal).

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#507

Post by aksss » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

danbruc wrote: post #457

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would have immediately ended it right there, but that's probably why I'm single. Every time I was in a relationship long enough to discuss marriage, I made it clear that there is no way I would ever buy a diamond. Only one was actively on board with it, because she liked the idea of picking out an alternative gem.

Take the money and have a nice honeymoon, buy two $5 seashell necklace at the beach. There are so many ways to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars that are way better than investing them into small chunks of metal.

Some wise older friends of ours literally wear hose clamps as wedding rings. Adjustable over the course of their lives.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#508

Post by toxik » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:39 PM UTC

djdjdjdjdj wrote: post #383

toxik wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your threat model includes you disguising as someone else, sure. If your threat model includes crazy people stalking you, my decision is justified.

That is really unfortunate. At least in germany you can go to the Einwohnermeldeamt (citizen Report office) and can request a blockage into your data. This should be enough for a stalker. Are you allowed to decide what happens to your partner in case of an emergency? Or to decide for her if she is unable to decide anymore? Also would you save taxes? Here our income is combined and divided 50/50. When I earn 100k and…

Tax difference is non-existent, and you can't block it from the public registry.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#509

Post by lucideer » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:50 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #462

ashtonkem wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Original Super Mario Bros carts are rare, diamonds are not. Natural diamonds have an artificially reduced supply thanks to a cartel, if their market actually functioned they’d be very cheap.

The original Super Mario Bros sold ~40 million copies, excluding all the re-releases. It’s not a rare game at all. You can buy the cartridges on eBay for less than $10. Complete in box versions for a few hundred at most. The only thing rare about this big sale is that it’s sealed in the box in perfect condition. All that extra money just for packaging material. Collectors are truly weird.

I saw an "unboxing" video for Nintendo amiibo's recently, by a collector who had amassed a large collection (all of them?) was unboxing them on video. The unboxing process obviously de-values each of the items, but the amazing thing about it was how shocked he was at the detail & manufacturing quality of the figures after removing the packaging: details he couldn't make out at all when they were packaged.

It's so strange. Buying boxed items with no intention to (ever?) unbox essentially amounts to just paying for the box itself, rather than the contents.

Re: Pandora says laboratory-made diamonds are forever

#510

Post by hnfong » Tue, May 04, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

washadjeffmad wrote: post #406

joeblau wrote: post #65

Random diamond story! As a freshman in college, I took a geology class and our teacher asked all of the women in our class to raise their hand if they would rather have natural or human-made diamonds. Most of the women (over 80%) raised their hands for natural. The reasons they gave all seemed to tie back to branding and natural diamonds being “real.” Then our teacher gave another analogy. He asked if people would ra…

I went through this not that many years ago buying a ring for my SO. My biggest mistake was including her in the decision. She described what she wanted exactly– nothing gaudy or ostentatious, just a singular, tasteful stone on a plain band. Couldn't be simpler, could it? Finding stones that met her criteria was easy. Some were natural diamonds, some lab grown, many moissanite. From the outset, she said the meaning o…

When looking for a mate, animals often engage in so called "irrational" behavior to signal to the other party of their readiness and seriousness for mating. This is how, for example, peacocks get their ridiculous plumage.

And thus, when somebody "irrationally" buys a "worthless" ring for a hefty amount, it signals to some extent that one is serious, committed and financially capable of the proposed marriage.

It's often not that the partner wants the expensive thing, but more that they want a proof that the marriage is worth more than that expensive and useless thing, which they want precisely because it's useless objectively and the purchase is "irrational".

It's basically a trolley problem of "do I value my partner more, or my hard earned $XXXX more?" The forced irrational choice makes the game rational on a meta level. I don't disagree that the game kind of sucks, and there are other ways to build trust and understanding regarding the level of commitment between partners, but I consider the ring thing to be the "easy" way to do it. (which is why it's de-facto standard in many cultures)

I think the hatred against capitalism and marketing is slightly off the mark here, since capitalism is merely supplying these expensive things to satisfy the somewhat "biological" demand in our mating rituals. Capitalists might be unscrupulous, but somebody had to do it.

(Disclaimer in case it matters - I'm male, happily married to my wife, and bought a non-diamond ring as an engagement ring. I don't think this necessarily applies to any gender in any specific case, but generally speaking so far as humans are animals, the biological aspect dominates)