7 ms·

I think of myself as resistant to the pull of advertising and gear acquisition, but I've developed a related problem. When I find something that I like, I want

by jerlam 2y ago

I think of myself as resistant to the pull of advertising and gear acquisition, but I've developed a related problem. When I find something that I like, I want to buy multiples of it, even if there is a very low chance that I'll wear the item out or lose it, and it may become unusable in that time. I've had many objects in my life that I thought were great, and then they become unavailable and I spend an inordinate amount of time searching for them, even though what I have still works fine. Because my brain says "What happens when it breaks?" and then I have to settle for something new and inferior. I bought a travel backpack ten years ago. It was an unusual design, but I understood its benefits and liked it immensely. Most people did not, so after the first year it was redesigned and then discontinued. I do not know if I can get anything similar to it again, and I doubt the company will repair it. When I now see other bags that are similar but still not as good, they are significantly more expensive (because of inflation) and I regret not buying several at the time. Even though mine still works great.

myself248 2y ago
Same, but I don't consider it a problem. If I find that I love a product, I'll buy a spare. If it turns out that I think the successor product is better, I'll buy that and simply sell my spare to someone with the opposite opinion.
twic 2y ago
This only seems like a problem if you struggle to afford these purchases, or lack space for the spares. Otherwise, it's mildly eccentric but sensible.
bborud 2y ago
The problem is that it usually takes me a while to realize that something is good. Not least because I like durable things and ... well, it takes time to determine if something is durable. I bought my favorite jacket 12 years ago in Tokyo. A very neutral/timeless thing. After 3 years the jacket still looked like new. Although I had worn it almost every day for 3 years. I searched for it online and found one for sale. On eBay. Used. And the wrong size. If I had known the jacket was that good I would have bought 2-3 more. I still use it. It still looks almost new. Fantastic garment.
- dheera 2y ago
  I use a lot of 30-50 year old camera lenses. Stuff was just built better back then. None of all this plastic jiggly crap.
  - loloquwowndueo 2y ago
    Funny because 30 years ago (1994) we used to say the same thing about stuff built in the 50s :)
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      Really? Photography changed a lot from 1950 to 2000. I'd be very surprised if anyone would've preferred the 1950 grayscale and gigantic photography equipment over the 90s-2000 variants
      - dheera 2y ago
        There were a lot of amazing advancements from 1950 to 1980. After 1990 and autofocus the build quality of lenses started going downhill. The plastic focusing mechanisms negated a lot of the otherwise good optics. The affordable category of lenses today also don't gave good optics. While there are good modern optics used in higher-end lenses, it's easier to get better used old optics that outperforms shitty modern optics at the same price point. There are some nice lenses made today but they are extremely costly. A Sony GM 300/2.8 costs $6000. I got my late 70s Canon SSC Fluorite 300/2.8 for $400 and it's tack sharp corner to corner, and considering I paid only $400 for it, I'm not too worried about taking it everyhwere. A Sony GM 50/1.2 costs $1900. I paid $300 for my Nikkor early 80's 50/1.2. For f/1.2 portraits sharpness isn't the thing you're usually after, and mine gives absolutely spectacular results. Back in the 50s-80s almost every lens was built like a tank and they are now available used at a fraction of the price of modern equivalents. If you don't give a crap about autofocus (studio portrait, macro, landscape, product photographers all don't need autofocus), it's a very good deal. Plastic started to show up in the 90s and killed everything. (If you're shooting sports and wildlife, yeah, prioritize autofocus, but that's not what I do.)
herpdyderp 2y ago
I do this with shoes. I won’t need a new pair for decades!
- dmd 2y ago
  I did this with shoes. Bought 4 pairs of the shoes I liked. Right on schedule, they discontinued them, and I was so happy I'd done so! And then when after about 5 years I said "hey, these shoes are getting pretty worn, time to move on to the next pair", I was 43 years old, and lo and behold ... my feet had widened and I couldn't even get my feet into the brand-new shoes. I had to put them in an expanding last for almost two MONTHS before they would fit.
  - loloquwowndueo 2y ago
    Next time don’t store the old shoes - rotate wearing them so at the end of (shoe_lifetime * number_of_pairs) years you’ll have a number of pairs of evenly-worn shoes :)
    - efsavage 2y ago
      I actually did this not too long ago and observed an interesting phenomenon that I had kind of noticed over the years, but never really tested. I found a pair of shoes that I liked, but they wore out quickly with daily use (3-4 months). I bought 3 more pairs and rotated them and those three lasted for like 2 years. As silly as it sounds, I wonder if there is something about giving shoes a "rest" that makes them last longer.
      - AceyMan 2y ago
        Yes. This has been well known in the running community for decades. The foam midsole gets beaten down in a days wear, so resting gives it time to spring back. Additionally, the uppers get to dry out which inhibits bacteria & such and stops moisture from attacking the adhesives and stitching.
- layer8 2y ago
elevation 2y ago
Stockpiling is a valuable technique to limit/defer the risk of being deprived of (whatever you're stockpiling,) while incurring a different set of costs (the time, energy, storage space, and inevitable degradation of the good you've stockpiled.) Set limits on these costs, e.g, "I'll stockpile no more than I can fit in my spare closet" and you can rationally stockpile within those limits to your heart's content.
- nicbou 2y ago
  There is an environmental cost that you are not paying alone.
onewheeltom 2y ago
See if there is a Repair Cafe in your area and maybe they can fix it for free. If in NC go to http://repaircafenc.org http://repaircafenc.org
darkteflon 2y ago
Hi fellow traveller - I do that, too. Can’t say I agree that I think of it as a problem, though: it’s mostly paid off for me. We’re surrounded by so much complexity - anything that helps to defray the cost of learning how to use a new bit of kit is appreciated. Most recently, I’ve been unable to resist the siren call of N100 mini PCs for a Proxmox cluster, but another example would be my teles: having 3 tvs all running the same OS (now long-unplugged from the internet) is just a massive timesaver. One practically needs a PhD and a lifelong Digital Foundry subscription to get the darn things set up just right - why spread that across two different brands or models. Same philosophy with cars - although clearly that’s an area where most of us don’t own more than one. In my case, I chose the car with the best-established record of long-term reliability, and plan to never sell it. Read the docs, spelunk the forums, learn its quirks, then just live with it. Buy one good thing - along with a few identical backups, if possible - then use it for ages. Then go outside and touch grass.
pseudosaid 2y ago
I do this too. I buy two of anything I like and save it in a “timecapsule” for the next decade when it is not available. It also lets me treat my possessions for use and not inconvenient preservation. if i really beat on it, i get a third so i have a replacement available.

by jerlam 2y ago

myself248 2y ago

Same, but I don't consider it a problem. If I find that I love a product, I'll buy a spare. If it turns out that I think the successor product is better, I'll buy that and simply sell my spare to someone with the opposite opinion.

twic 2y ago

This only seems like a problem if you struggle to afford these purchases, or lack space for the spares. Otherwise, it's mildly eccentric but sensible.

bborud 2y ago

The problem is that it usually takes me a while to realize that something is good. Not least because I like durable things and ... well, it takes time to determine if something is durable. I bought my favorite jacket 12 years ago in Tokyo. A very neutral/timeless thing. After 3 years the jacket still looked like new. Although I had worn it almost every day for 3 years. I searched for it online and found one for sale. On eBay. Used. And the wrong size. If I had known the jacket was that good I would have bought 2-3 more. I still use it. It still looks almost new. Fantastic garment.

dheera 2y ago
I use a lot of 30-50 year old camera lenses. Stuff was just built better back then. None of all this plastic jiggly crap.
- loloquwowndueo 2y ago
  Funny because 30 years ago (1994) we used to say the same thing about stuff built in the 50s :)
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    Really? Photography changed a lot from 1950 to 2000. I'd be very surprised if anyone would've preferred the 1950 grayscale and gigantic photography equipment over the 90s-2000 variants
    - dheera 2y ago
      There were a lot of amazing advancements from 1950 to 1980. After 1990 and autofocus the build quality of lenses started going downhill. The plastic focusing mechanisms negated a lot of the otherwise good optics. The affordable category of lenses today also don't gave good optics. While there are good modern optics used in higher-end lenses, it's easier to get better used old optics that outperforms shitty modern optics at the same price point. There are some nice lenses made today but they are extremely costly. A Sony GM 300/2.8 costs $6000. I got my late 70s Canon SSC Fluorite 300/2.8 for $400 and it's tack sharp corner to corner, and considering I paid only $400 for it, I'm not too worried about taking it everyhwere. A Sony GM 50/1.2 costs $1900. I paid $300 for my Nikkor early 80's 50/1.2. For f/1.2 portraits sharpness isn't the thing you're usually after, and mine gives absolutely spectacular results. Back in the 50s-80s almost every lens was built like a tank and they are now available used at a fraction of the price of modern equivalents. If you don't give a crap about autofocus (studio portrait, macro, landscape, product photographers all don't need autofocus), it's a very good deal. Plastic started to show up in the 90s and killed everything. (If you're shooting sports and wildlife, yeah, prioritize autofocus, but that's not what I do.)

herpdyderp 2y ago

I do this with shoes. I won’t need a new pair for decades!

dmd 2y ago
I did this with shoes. Bought 4 pairs of the shoes I liked. Right on schedule, they discontinued them, and I was so happy I'd done so! And then when after about 5 years I said "hey, these shoes are getting pretty worn, time to move on to the next pair", I was 43 years old, and lo and behold ... my feet had widened and I couldn't even get my feet into the brand-new shoes. I had to put them in an expanding last for almost two MONTHS before they would fit.
- loloquwowndueo 2y ago
  Next time don’t store the old shoes - rotate wearing them so at the end of (shoe_lifetime * number_of_pairs) years you’ll have a number of pairs of evenly-worn shoes :)
  - efsavage 2y ago
    I actually did this not too long ago and observed an interesting phenomenon that I had kind of noticed over the years, but never really tested. I found a pair of shoes that I liked, but they wore out quickly with daily use (3-4 months). I bought 3 more pairs and rotated them and those three lasted for like 2 years. As silly as it sounds, I wonder if there is something about giving shoes a "rest" that makes them last longer.
    - AceyMan 2y ago
      Yes. This has been well known in the running community for decades. The foam midsole gets beaten down in a days wear, so resting gives it time to spring back. Additionally, the uppers get to dry out which inhibits bacteria & such and stops moisture from attacking the adhesives and stitching.
layer8 2y ago

elevation 2y ago

Stockpiling is a valuable technique to limit/defer the risk of being deprived of (whatever you're stockpiling,) while incurring a different set of costs (the time, energy, storage space, and inevitable degradation of the good you've stockpiled.) Set limits on these costs, e.g, "I'll stockpile no more than I can fit in my spare closet" and you can rationally stockpile within those limits to your heart's content.

nicbou 2y ago
There is an environmental cost that you are not paying alone.

onewheeltom 2y ago

See if there is a Repair Cafe in your area and maybe they can fix it for free. If in NC go to http://repaircafenc.org http://repaircafenc.org

darkteflon 2y ago

Hi fellow traveller - I do that, too. Can’t say I agree that I think of it as a problem, though: it’s mostly paid off for me. We’re surrounded by so much complexity - anything that helps to defray the cost of learning how to use a new bit of kit is appreciated. Most recently, I’ve been unable to resist the siren call of N100 mini PCs for a Proxmox cluster, but another example would be my teles: having 3 tvs all running the same OS (now long-unplugged from the internet) is just a massive timesaver. One practically needs a PhD and a lifelong Digital Foundry subscription to get the darn things set up just right - why spread that across two different brands or models. Same philosophy with cars - although clearly that’s an area where most of us don’t own more than one. In my case, I chose the car with the best-established record of long-term reliability, and plan to never sell it. Read the docs, spelunk the forums, learn its quirks, then just live with it. Buy one good thing - along with a few identical backups, if possible - then use it for ages. Then go outside and touch grass.

pseudosaid 2y ago

I do this too. I buy two of anything I like and save it in a “timecapsule” for the next decade when it is not available. It also lets me treat my possessions for use and not inconvenient preservation. if i really beat on it, i get a third so i have a replacement available.