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

Why are most sofas so bad?

dwell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 762 posts

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#501

Post by gannonburgett »

decafninja wrote: post #208
nemothekid wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like real Coach bags utilize some magic leather that doesn't degrade just the same as the $200 leather purse you buy from a local artisan. Not sure why Coach was chosen for this example - I don't believe they are expensive; last I checked they were in the range of $200-500, which doesn't seem egregious as the actual luxury brands (ex. Hermes, where the entry level bags are $4,000). That said, I feel there…

Some brands like Hermes, Rolex, etc. also require you to establish a “relationship” with them to acquire their most popular items (Birkin or Kelly bags, stainless steel watches). This entails a lengthy purchase history, and some schmoozing of your assigned sales associate doesn’t hurt either. Unless you’re some well known figure, just waltzing into a boutique with a suitcase full of cash won’t get you what you want t…

Mercedes and other manufacturers do this as well. While it's arguably an extreme example, you can't purchase the Mercedes Benz Project One hypercar unless you have a history of purchasing their low-volume, extremely expensive cars (AMG Black Series, etc).

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#502

Post by jspash »

lostlogin wrote: post #482
Wohlf wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Particleboard is absolutely useless, MDF is mostly useless except using as a guaranteed flat surface on top of something to support it, hardboard is pretty useful in certain applications though. OSB is great and extremely affordable as sheathing, and there's a massive variety of plywood that's great for their respective purposes - from cheap rough sheathing, mid-grade for shop projects and filling large gaps in furni…

> Particleboard is absolutely useless, MDF is mostly useless except using as a guaranteed flat surface on top of something to support it Unless there is a drop of moisture, then you throw it all away. It’s so depressingly wasteful.

I could be wrong, but isn't MDF basically made from the waste of wood products? I mean, it's graded and standarised. But MDF _is_ the waste. So to waste it again is no great loss.

But as with all things, I'm certain some producers are using raw/virgin materials. Probably from wood that is dirt cheap.

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#503

Post by EraYaN »

Wohlf wrote: post #343
linsomniac wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>or worse, soft pine or particleboard or OSB Having done a lot of DIY projects over the last decade, I've really shifted my view of OSB. Originally I would lump it in with particleboard, but I've since drastically changed my view of it. Particleboard is, truly, junk. OSB and plywood are both pretty good products, and for some uses superior to hardwoods (dimensional stability, for example). High quality plywoods are a…

Particleboard is absolutely useless, MDF is mostly useless except using as a guaranteed flat surface on top of something to support it, hardboard is pretty useful in certain applications though. OSB is great and extremely affordable as sheathing, and there's a massive variety of plywood that's great for their respective purposes - from cheap rough sheathing, mid-grade for shop projects and filling large gaps in furni…

MDF is also great if you need homogeneous materials (for stuff like speaker cabinets). And for those more than sturdy enough, they are also always protected by some layer.

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#504

Post by 8338550bff96 »

RajT88 wrote: post #489
m463 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem I've noticed is - the furniture that is built to last very frequently fails the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff". Same sort of issue with cool remote controls. For example, la-z-boy has pretty good controls - remotes have better designs, have lots of adjustments, and motors seem to move faster. And they too fail the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff" I kind of like some…

I hate to tell you, I don't think you can buy a recliner that doesn't look like "old fart stuff". Recliners are kind of "old fart guy chairs".

After looking at what had to be every nursing chair in the world we found that the most old-farty looking la-z-boy was better in every regard and easier to clean. Sometimes I just go in the nursery and doze off in it

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#505

Post by baggachipz »

RajT88 wrote: post #489
m463 wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the problem I've noticed is - the furniture that is built to last very frequently fails the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff". Same sort of issue with cool remote controls. For example, la-z-boy has pretty good controls - remotes have better designs, have lots of adjustments, and motors seem to move faster. And they too fail the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff" I kind of like some…

I hate to tell you, I don't think you can buy a recliner that doesn't look like "old fart stuff". Recliners are kind of "old fart guy chairs".

Disagree; you have to know where to look. Yeah, you go to the Lay-Z-Boy big box, you're gonna get that. We got a recliner from Ethan Allen that doesn't even look like a recliner. But you lean back, and voila... super comfy.

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#506

Post by tengbretson »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #355
tengbretson wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They pull their kids out of school after grade 8 This is inaccurate. Their schooling is complete after grade 8.

Like hell it is. What they want their kids learning is irrelevant, it's a travesty of "religious freedom" that we don't require this cult to educate their children to the same uniform standard as every other person in our society.

They are not "people in your society". They have their own society and you are not a member.

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#507

Post by uoaei »

tqi wrote: post #19
uoaei wrote: post #2

"Most important piece of furniture" is a heavily loaded ideological claim. It points to the rampant American culture surrounding media consumption. I've been pretty stunned during my travels to find that it's really only Americans who obsessively talk about or reference TV shows and movies in their small talk. No other culture seems nearly as interested, and some actively discourage it in favor of more real, personal…

> really only Americans who obsessively talk about or reference TV shows and movies in their small talk For one, it doesnt seem like americans are significant outliers in tv consumption[1] or smartphone usage[2]. For another, yeah if you're a foreign traveller people probably aren't going to make small talk with you about TV or other pop culture... [1] https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/which-country-watches-th... […

I'm not speaking to consumption, I'm speaking to small talk. There's no good reason to believe there's a tight correlation there.

Americans constantly shove TV into the conversation even if they don't know that the other person or people are familiar with it. Though many are aware of American media output by virtue of the cultural colonialism enacted since brute force fell out of fashion. Even if they're not explicitly speaking about TV they're still doing the IRL version of posting reaction GIFs by quoting memes in response to earnest conversation.

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#508

Post by MikeDelta »

Hamuko wrote: post #426
Doxin wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IKEA sells many products in a couple tiers. E.g. if you get the cheapest billy bookcase it'll just about barely hold up if it's full of books and you don't nudge it. If you get one of the more expensive models it'll be surprisingly sturdy instead. Same sort of thing applies to nearly all their products. Yes they sell cheap crap -- that still serves its purpose mind you -- but they also sell slightly more upscale furn…

And even the cheapest crap you can get from IKEA doesn't seem that bad to me. I've had one of those 5-euro LACK coffee tables for around six years and it really only has some minor surface damage on the top. Far away from throwing out. Although at the same time, I think I'm on my third MARKUS chair because of the gas spring leaking. Thankfully they do have long warranties, so you can exchange them if it doesn't last…

You could even hang some servers underneath your LACK, aka the LackRack [0]

[0] https://wiki.eth0.nl/index.php/LackRack

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#509

Post by Simplicitas »

m463 wrote: post #332
btbuildem wrote: post #181

Twenty some years ago I used to work at a business that made and delivered sofas. They've got showrooms in key large cities in North America, fancy schmancy top end stuff. The factory was a real place; the frames were made of solid wood and plywood, there was a sewing floor and even one (incredibly kooky) person whose sole job was to stuff the pillows. This guy was in a little room full of feathers all day, and they'…

I think the problem I've noticed is - the furniture that is built to last very frequently fails the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff". Same sort of issue with cool remote controls. For example, la-z-boy has pretty good controls - remotes have better designs, have lots of adjustments, and motors seem to move faster. And they too fail the partner test - "that looks like old fart stuff" I kind of like some…

> they fail the "normal human being" test

Hahah

Re: Why are most sofas so bad?

#510

Post by mauvehaus »

Spivak wrote: post #490
gruez wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like the actual problem is that landlords can engage in "greedy rent seeking behavior" at all. Allowing people to opt out, but only if they can afford a 6 figure downpayment and keep 7 figure amounts of their wealth parked in a single non-productive asset that's highly correlated with their job prospects is an imperfect solution to say the least. Everyone deserve protections from "greedy rent seeking behavior"…

Good lord man what first time homebuyer is putting down $100k down payments? I just bought a nice house in a well established in demand neighborhood and my total cost down was less than $30k. No assistance program, no special deal, definitely not a cheap house oof this market. Are you trying to buy 2M+ houses?

Was your Our cost to close was under $100k with a 20% down payment, but still substantial. And yes, we were first time homebuyers. Obviously we did not buy anything approaching 2M.

With closing costs of $10k-15k, 100k doesn't even break a half million at 20% down. That's (sadly) not even table stakes in e.g. most parts of Boston.

Post reply on HN