9 ms·

This is empty madness. It is, very literally, a celebration of total materialism. What is ultimately important in life are people -- messy, filthy, bacteria-an

by mapgrep 14y ago

This is empty madness. It is, very literally, a celebration of total materialism. What is ultimately important in life are people -- messy, filthy, bacteria-and-disease-laden, imperfect, emotional, sweating shitting cursing crying screaming laughing farting people and the connections we build to them. This celebration of spending insane amounts of time choosing the perfect flatware or the perfect wallet is sick. Steve Jobs spent eight years discussing furniture with his family before buying a sofa etc (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_gladwell http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_...). I will never do that, and I will never have flatware as nice as Dustin Curtis', and I will never have sound as good as an obsessive audiophile, or the perfect car. I won't even write a particularly convincing Hacker News comment on this very topic. I've got to go. Life is too short for this shit.

kiba 14y ago
This is empty madness. It is, very literally, a celebration of total materialism. What is madness to you may not be madness to dcutis, and messy human beings are not all there is worthwhile in the universe. Would you want to watch a reality tv show that records the uglyness and pettyness of human nature? I honestly rather discuss and learn about things rather than about drama-queen contestant #3.
- Swizec 14y ago
  I hear a lot of people have gotten very rich by making reality shows that record the uglyness and pettyness of human nature.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  Dustin Curtis's problem here is that he thinks his subjective preferences are objectively true. I mean, if he says 'I love this flatware because it has these beautiful proportions, is manufactured in such-and-such a way, and exudes timeless quality etc. etc.', then great - he's a good designer, I'm interested in his aesthetic philosophy. But when he says 'I am the arbiter of quality' he's lost me. By doing so, he rejects the possibility of tastes other than his own and comes off as absurdly egotistical. I don't know if Dustin Curtis is married, but if not he may be in for a bit of a surprise down the road, when it turns out that his view is not the only one that matters.
  - tlrobinson 14y ago
    His response to another comment here is directly counter to your assumptions about him: The problem is that "the best" is different for everyone. I can post some of the things that are the best to me, but it's also about the journey of finding out what really matters to you. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755552 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755552
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      Well no. Sure, he assumes each individual will find their own best things. But I suspect that if you too have strong opinions about flatware, it can only end in a knife fight.
  - hartleybrody 14y ago
    Did you read the full article? He's not claiming to be an 'arbiter of quality' at all, he's using the flatware as an example. He specifically says that it's up to each person to determine the best things for themselves: > It requires that you find the best thing for yourself, which means you need to know what actually matters to you.
    - anigbrowl 14y ago
      I did, and that qualifier struck me as little more than a figleaf.
  - reinhardt 14y ago
    > Dustin Curtis's problem here is that he thinks his subjective preferences are objectively true. And that's exactly what mapgrep did too with "what is ultimately important in life are people". Seriously? Glad for you if you've found that people and building connections is your calling in life but if you try to shove your subjective preference down others' throats you aren't any better in principle than Curtis. FWIW I don't particularly care for either materialism, people or connections (that's nihilistic tendencies for you) but I'm not trying to convince anyone.
  - unconed 14y ago
- javert 14y ago
  I'm generally on your side in this argument, but I want to point out that not all human beings are ugly and petty, although many may be. When it comes to finding human beings to spend time with, you have to use the same intense sense of value, judgement, and love of a good product, that dcurtis applies to flatware selection. We are our own greatest products.
  - kiba 14y ago
    Human beings can be very interesting, but if exposed incorrectly, they're also dull.
yew 14y ago
It is possible to enjoy owning things if you know what you're doing and own the right things. At least I think so. Of course I also think that this obsession with the difference between matter and people is a little silly, especially when some of those people are the things you're arguing with. Regardless, I've been thinking about the subject lately thanks to this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/eyt/how_to_have_things_correctly http://lesswrong.com/lw/eyt/how_to_have_things_correctly. Linked for the interested.
jlongster 14y ago
I absolutely agree. Of course it's ok to take pride in what you own, but this is obviously more than that. Relationships are the most important thing in life. Don't wait too long to realize that.
umsm 14y ago
I completely agree. It's extremely difficult to have the best of everything. And it's madness to believe you can. Can you eat the best food? The best cheese? The best water? The best bread?
- sneak 14y ago
  I have Evian ice cubes in my freezer right now. Just sayin'.
driverdan 14y ago
This is a false dilemma and a straw man. You're implying that you can't care about people if you care about owning quality items. Dustin never said he takes time away from his relationships for this endever. Do you ever spend time reading about something you don't need to know? How many times have you ended up on wikipedia reading about something or watching a documentary on TV that isn't relevant to your primary interests? Many hackers want to know and understand as much about the world as they can. What's wrong with understanding flatware?
- jessriedel 14y ago
  I was sort of with you until this: > What's wrong with understanding flatware? This is exactly the thinking the supports rampant materialism. Materialism isn't just owning a bunch of stuff, it's being defined by it, by which I mean your thinking about yourself and life is deep set into the things you own. If you're spending hours reading about flatware and justifying it as educational or explorational, you're falling into the trap.
  - nemof 14y ago
    What if you just like learning about how objects are made? I'm fascinated with the creative process... Suddenly we're being told, as geeks, that seeking understanding is wrong?! I really don't get it. I will make sure that I stick to appropriately cool objects and product design that doesn't include flatware.
    - jessriedel 14y ago
      Your point about the coolness of the object is well taken, but I feel the same way about fast cars, neat smart phones, and camping supplies.
      - MartinCron 14y ago
        Is there no kind of object that speaks to you in a way that you invest non-trivial amounts of time in learning about it? Serious question.
irishcoffee 14y ago
This is all I could think about while reading your comment (the last line really kind of makes me think) : Narrator: There's always that. I don't know, it's just...when you buy furniture, you tell yourself: that's it, that's the last sofa I'm gonna need. Whatever else happens, I've got that sofa problem handled. I had it all. I had a stereo that was very decent, a wardrobe that was getting very respectable. I was close to being complete. Tyler: Shit, man, now it's all gone. Narrator: All gone.
- bitcartel 14y ago
  The comment reminded me of some sketches from British comedy legend, Harry Enfield. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVvcD4Czx4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVvcD4Czx4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXJIi4oCGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXJIi4oCGs
bitcartel 14y ago
Dustin: "The long term durability of each utensil is also important, and so is the slipperiness of the metal against food. Yanagi thought about these things." Product page: "Yanagi Flatware... the essence of Japanese design. Warm and organic, yet minimal and sophisticated, it is made of 18/8 stainless steel." (Product page) It may look nice but will it last? The stainless steel is graded at 18/8 which means it's more likely to rust than flatware graded at 18/10, not to mention sterling silver.
- rdl 14y ago
  There is essentially no difference between 18/8 and 18/10 -- that's an antiquated way to describe steel, and 2 points is within the margin of labeling error. Essentially all flatware is 304 -- some stuff might be 316, which is less mechanically durable but more resistant to corrosion in heated saltwater and acid, but rarely used for flatware. You're basically looking at Type 304. There are multiple types of 304 (304A, 304L), and also variations between mills. There is essentially no difference between the same steel labeled as 18/8 from one vendor and 18/10 from another. I'd also prefer 304 to 925 sterling silver. (or, take the sterling set and sell it and buy an ipad and some stainless) The big lameness is a shift to 18/0 steel, which is cheap and not more durable than 3-5 years, or 14/0 which is essentially trash. One of the huge quality differences in flatware sets is the knife -- whether it has a real blade attached to a handle, vs. formed from a single blank. The cutting quality is a lot higher with a separate blade, as even great 304 isn't an awesome cutting steel, and you want to heat treat the blade differently. There's also hollow handles, balance, and overall design. http://www.sheffield-cutlery.com/store.html http://www.sheffield-cutlery.com/store.html is a horrible site but I like their selection and quality.
nikhilalmeida 14y ago
agree. Also the time spent on researching about getting the best, is orders of magnitude more than the time lost worrying about a 'reasonably good' item.
mrxd 14y ago
That's funny, because I was thinking the exact opposite. Consumerism is about novelty: you buy a thing, then get bored of it, so you dump it in your garage to make room for the next new thing. Buying the best is the opposite of this, because you buy it once.
- benatkin 14y ago
  Where did you get the term consumerism from? Do you think consumerism and materialism are the same thing?
  - mrxd 14y ago
    They are related terms. I thought of consumerism because I don't see perfection as necessarily implying materialism. When I think about materialism, I think of someone who likes to show off their flashy car -- this is about having something expensive, a little bit opulent and excessive. Like how people buy expensive SUVs that are perfectly optimized for off-road driving, but they use it to drive to the mall and back. That's just stupid. Something that's over-engineered is not perfect, even though it might be "the best" in the totally abstract sense, removed from any real-world implications, of having the best specifications. For most people, the perfect car is probably a Camry -- or something else ordinary and ubiquitous, not a status symbol at all, but perfect for solving their problem.
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I think you are both right. Whether it is defining yourself through how perfect your purchase is or defining yourself through continual purchase-and-junk-it cycles, your are defining yourself through the things you purchase instead of the person you are. And often, these attempts at defining oneself this way are ways of self-medicating other issues by replacing the issues with the purchases.
SkyMarshal 14y ago
I both agree and disagree. On the one hand I think it's worth specifically "buying for life" [1], eg buying high quality, durable things once and reusing them indefinitely. Reject our throw-away culture and planned obsolescence, be more effecient and less wasteful with natural resources, recognizing that unless you plan to be a full-on monk you will most likely need to buy some things in life. On the other hand, statements like this strike me as narrow, lacking perspective. After hiking for months across Southeast Asia, I do hope you have more take away than: >These might seem like stupid things to worry about, but when you have trust in everything you own, you don’t have to worry about anything. It’s liberating and an amazing feeling. My life was markedly better because of it. No, what is amazing and liberating is transcending having to trust in things at all because you have such relentless resourcefulness, determination, and physical and mental health that it doesn't matter whether you have every thing you need, you can make do without it. You can, as the US Marines put it, improvise, adapt, and overcome [2]. You're not dependent in any way on what you own, and as a result, are not owned by it [3]. So I think there's a bit of yin/yang here. Of the stuff you must buy, buy high quality for the long haul, but don't become so attached and emotionally invested that it ends up owning you. [1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/ http://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/ [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWCYv40Ur1g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWCYv40Ur1g [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPPvkhGZT7Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPPvkhGZT7Y
- chipsy 14y ago
  The puzzle of evading materialism is that it seems to infest everything. >because you have such relentless resourcefulness, determination, and physical and mental health And what if you don't? What if you're weak in one of those areas and, for whatever reason, can _never_ hope to become strong? Everyone does grow old eventually, if they don't get killed first. So then, relying on "I will always be a strong person" is a kind of material thought. You'll lose it, sooner or later. Perhaps a healthier way to think of yourself is as a sort of resource that can be cultivated for a while - and often considerably, when considering intellectual endeavors - but is ultimately consumed. And then, as in strategy games involving heavy resource constraints, your goal is to maneuver and manage resources carefully so that you can both accomplish key goals and remain in a relatively advantageous position afterwards, even though in an absolute sense, things are always being depleted. At that point, strategy w/r to things you purchase is just a calculation, not something you feel you have to identify with.
baddox 14y ago
What's ultimately important is being happy. "Materialism" is only bad if it causes unhappiness.
- koningrobot 14y ago
  Yes. To say people and the connections we build to them are what ultimately matters is an applause light. People and the connections we build to them are only means to the end of happiness. That isn't cold or selfish. Surely we would all rather live in a world full of disconnected happy people than in a world full of (amicably) connected unhappy people?
romain_dardour 14y ago
I think a middle ground between Dustin's position and yours does exist. Japanese people have found it, as their relation to material objects is ambivalent. On one hand, they strive for perfection, such as found in this kitchenware example and their millennial craftsmanship experience. The documentary Jiro dreams of Sushi is a perfect example of this philosophy. But on the other hand, they have a term for describing the beauty of things imperfect, transient and impermanent, that's [Wabi-Sabi](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi). Even In the aforementioned documentary, one can clearly see that the perfection Jiro seeks is achieved through numerous mundane objects, utterly imperfect in their nature. (The coal barbecue he uses jumps to mind for example) I think that the quest for perfection has to be selective and targeted, not absolute, if you don't want to get lost in the way. In this I don't agree with Dustin on this one.
xutopia 14y ago
I don't see how spending quality time with imperfect people can't be better when we have perfect items we can depend on.
ignostic 14y ago
You're completely right. There's good evidence to show that customers are actually less satisfied after comparison shopping to that extent. http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jtaer/v4n3/art08.pdf http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jtaer/v4n3/art08.pdf http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch... It should also stand to reason that the opportunity cost behind researching the best is absurd.
macey 14y ago
So agreed. And interesting thread you've spawned here. Pretty easy to separate the people I'd like to have a beer with from the people I wouldn't mind never speaking to... ever. :)
MattGrommes 14y ago
This is a very interesting discussion. To me, it's rampant materialism to buy random items at Target/Walmart/etc. and replace them often. Now, I'm lazy enough to do that more often than not but I also plan and research a lot of things that I expect to last. I'm trading time now doing research for time later replacing the thing. Then when I go to use it for whatever task I know I won't have to worry about it, it won't take too much time away from the hobby or people I'm with. The good thing about being slightly obsessive about your purchases now is that you can take advantage of other people's time. I follow Kevin Kelley's Cool Tools mailing list so when I need something I can look there first and let somebody else recommend something good. There's plenty of options for buying good things and not spending lots of time.
- jusben1369 14y ago
  Matt I think both you and SkyMarshal have altered this discussion thoug . I too began reading this article thinking it would be about sustainability. I have changed my buying habits to only try and buy the best. Not because I obsess about design so much as I've come to realize that I'm buying a Timex watch for $50 every 12 months because they have these horrible crappy bands that are really difficult to replace. So instead I buy a good watch for $150 or more where the band will last longer and be easier to switch out. I do that because I'm struck by the landfill of each Timex decision * 100 we continually face. Dustin however never touched upon this in his post so doesn't really deserve to have this raised as a point in his defense against the initial criticism.
  - benatkin 14y ago
    > Dustin however never touched upon this in his post so doesn't really deserve to have this raised as a point in his defense against the initial criticism. That isn't what the blog post is about, though. Why should it contain irrelevant details for laypeople?
    - jusben1369 14y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean here (and why you'd use 'laypeople')
mst 14y ago
He chooses to take his time to do things right, once, and then spend the rest of the time focusing on more important things. The key word you've missed is "trust" - just like I buy things once, and expect them to last, so I can spend more time on real life, mostly on people. Your argument is ... based on an utter misunderstanding. His goal is the same as yours. I'm sorry you can't understand this. Life is too short to buy forks more than once.
- cma 14y ago
  Yes, so we should literally buy them from the Museum of Modern Art. What a crock of shit.
- mcantelon 14y ago
  >Life is too short to buy forks more than once. Any half-decent cutlery lasts a very long time.
  - megablast 14y ago
    I have never had to buy cutlery in my life, and I am 35, have lived in 5 different countries, and about 30 different houses. But even the cheap stuff I have used in a lot of places lasts a long time.
hcarvalhoalves 14y ago
I fail to see how researching before buying stuff is materalism. Our grandparents used to buy one thing, and it would last decades. Materialism for me is impulse buying lots of cheap crap just because China happens to have many mouths to feed, destroying the environment in the process. That is short sightedness.
jakejake 14y ago
A little common sense seems appropriate here. I think it makes sense to consider 1) how important is the item to you 2) what is the risk if it "fails" and 3) what you can afford For example I bought a cheap set of flatware from target 20 years ago and it has never once failed me. And what if a fork bent or lost a tine? Not a great risk. I don't really give a shit about flatware. Why on earth would I waste all of the time and money to have the "best" flatware? My car on the other hand I felt merited some research. I spent a long time researching and comparing. Other items are important to me and I try to buy the best I can afford. What specific items are important would be different for each person.
- erichocean 14y ago
  Why on earth would I waste... I think the point of his post was that to "unreasonable people" like him, it's not a waste. Or at least, that was his experience, and he wanted to share. I don't think he's making the metaphysical argument on life happiness that other posters seem to think he's making. He's just sharing something that worked for him, and suggesting that people who are like him give it a try.
  - jakejake 14y ago
    I can see that. It did seem to me he was trying to say that it's better to have few possessions so that everything you have can be the absolute best. Problem being that most of us need various trivial things we may not really care that deeply about like flatware, brooms, garbage cans, toasters etc. I need a broom to keep my floor clean but I don't really care if it's "the best" $5,000 titanium broom on the planet.
tdavis 14y ago
What a silly straw man argument. No doubt why it is the #1 comment. If I write a particularly effusive post about my love of dogs--how I care for mine meticulously and spend time researching the best toys and vets and so forth--am I celebrating Dogism to the detriment of what is "ultimately important?" The irony of this comment is that your strong discounting of Dustin's point of view is the exact same as your equally strong support of your own. In the same breath you deride him for "being" a materialist and define yourself as "being" the opposite(?) of one. There is no ultimate truth to what is or isn't important in life. What is important in life to you appears to be other people--and strong identification with that position. Maybe Dustin also values other people. Maybe he identifies more with the point of view he presented. Maybe he cares for neither and thought it would be a good story. Who knows. The real question is, why do you care so much?
BrandonM 14y ago
These things don't magically appear as a result of obsession. The best things are crafted in a meticulous process by... people! Taking the time to appreciate the things you buy and get the very best gives the craftsman the (very human!) appreciation he or she deserves. Appreciating human effort in everyday items has just as much merit as appreciating art or making any other connections with humans.
jcromartie 14y ago
Thanks to the Internet it's really easy for people to build and share a consensus on what is worthwhile. Dustin can let us know what the best flatware is, and someone else can spend some time figuring out the best shoes out there. Nobody has to do it all on their own. So of course, just look it up, and don't waste your time trying to figure it all out for yourself.
- Tipzntrix 14y ago
  Thanks to the Internet there is not a consensus behind what is worthwhile because you can't fact-check the credentials of the massive amount of opinions on any topic.
eric-hu 14y ago
I agree with you that he takes this to an extreme. I considered buying that silverware set before I realized to host a dinner party with it, I'd actually need $250 to buy 5 sets, not $50. Still, I'd like to play the devil's advocate. 4 years ago I bought a car. A 1996 Geo Metro with a 3 cylinder 1.0L engine. It served my needs. It was fuel efficient, got me from point A to point B and was generally cheap to maintain. This was good for me since I had little money and wanted to figure things out about my career goals. That went hand-in-hand with making little money. I performed many repairs on the Metro. I rebuilt the engine. Twice. Remove the head, replace the valves. Those made for some good life experiences. They also started to feel like they were getting in the way of doing more important things to me, like learning how to be a better developer. So now, I'm looking for something that won't break down on me every 3 months. I'm looking for something better--in the direction of the "best". This is useful for me. I'm investing more time now to save me time later. ...but again, this mentality can be taken too far. I wouldn't buy a $50 set of silverware for one...but then again, I haven't created a Svbtle yet...
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
- ahelwer 14y ago
  I disagree. Seeing this story at the top of HN... well really, it just made me sad. It is, as was said, empty madness. Really, all this post is is the author telling us he has disposable income. Price factors into what is "best" for people; for him, less so. For others, even less so. Kim Dotcom spends $100K on each bed mattress[1] in his mansion. Kim Dotcom could write a blog post on the topic and it would sound exactly the same but with larger price tags. There is no point at which you will be complete. You cannot perfect your existence with material things, no matter how much time and money you pour into selecting them. There is a hole, but it is not a hole you can fill up; it is a singularity, which grows as it is fed. You must learn to live with the hole. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/
  - erichocean 14y ago
    Your post would make a fine top post, because it lacks the vitriol and anger and name calling of the OP. Thanks for sharing. (Note: I deleted my own post because it was downvoted once, despite getting a number of upvotes before that. It's my policy to delete any comment that gets a downvote, since that's a signal from the community that my contribution isn't wanted.)
    - nollidge 14y ago
      > since that's a signal from the community that my contribution isn't wanted It's a signal from one single person, not "the community".
  - koide 14y ago
    On the other hand, being able to trust on the things you have and having the proper, trusty tools for the things you like to do is indeed something valuable. It's not filling a black hole, but satisfying a concrete need. The key point is not getting attached to those tools.
b3b0p 14y ago
I agree with you and I disagree with you. Dustin Curtis seems to take it to a new level which I've not heard though in this writing though. Almost obsessive. I would only do this for items you actually value and use. The tools that get you through life and you enjoy. Put to heavy usage. Items I consider such are my computer for work, a few of my electronics for entertainment and relaxation (away from work), good books (I enjoy comics, such as Calvin and Hobbes, Peanuts, and Fox Trot), my work chair/desk and bed for proper comfort and rest, my bike, and certain pieces of clothing (my jeans and shirts). I picked out items that made me feel content and satisfied. Not necessarily the best. They are nice items, but far from the best. The last thing I want is some brand, thing, material item cause me to be financially troubled in any such way.
sneak 14y ago
> What is ultimately important in life are people I have, for example, the best luggage possible, because I spend a ton of time traveling long distances to spend time with people I care about. I have the best camera I can afford because I use it to take pictures of time spent with those people. I have the best mobile devices because I don't like to waste time dicking about with software when I am trying to get directions to meet with... (you guessed it) people. They're tools. They're a means to an end. The best is important, because when you don't have it, oftentimes you find yourself not reaching that end in an efficient manner.
- erichocean 14y ago
  Furthermore, those things were all created by (wait for it) people. I guess we can appreciate the maker, but not the things they make? Or perhaps we're oversimplifying this whole "materialism" thing and people are more complex than what they make, or buy, or why they did either.
- lmm 14y ago
  But the time you spend learning about it is not interacting with people, at least not the same way. I buy crappy luggage and once lost some time with a friend because my luggage fell apart. But that's less time than I would've lost becoming an expert on luggage before buying any.
  - sneak 14y ago
    It's not hard. Just ask someone who knows wtf they're doing. I learned about luggage from rdl (who is on HN), who often ranted about his pelican cases while working in Iraq. I have a Pelican carry-on. I was at a hotel once when there was a convention of flight attendants, and there was a gaggle of them checking in all at once, all carrying IDENTICAL hard-sided Delsey luggage. It took me under 30 seconds to ask them the make. Now the checked luggage side is done, too. I guess the moral of the story is to pay attention and you don't have to spend a lot of time knowing what works the best.
grandalf 14y ago
With many things, deliberating over them before purchasing still leaves the would-be purchaser in the dark compared with owning them for a few weeks. Thus it would make more sense to try a variety of kinds of flatware, furniture, or cars (etc. etc.) and figure out not just what sounds like it would be perfect but what actually is. To claim that some flatware or furniture is optimally designed is (in my opinion) somewhat absurd anyway, since both are largely a matter of taste as well as some degree of optimality for the particular use case.
pg 14y ago
No, it's a designer with an interest in all design. I know Dustin sometimes alienates people, but it makes me sad to see such a mean comment in reply to a thoughtful essay. In fact I'll coin a term for it: strawmean (strawman + mean) because you've had to invent a position he didn't take in order to attack it. What makes me even sadder is the huge mob who upvoted this comment. Because that is the decline of HN embodied right there. Illegitimi non carborundum, Dustin.
- viviantan 14y ago
  > No, it's a designer with an interest in all design. Thank you. I've been trying to make the same point, but with far too many words!
- bambax 14y ago
  > Illegitimi non carborundum ... is a mock-Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down", and the first line of an unofficial school song Ten Thousand Men of Harvard, the most frequently played Fight song of the Harvard Marching Band (where presumably PG picked it up). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum
- Void_ 14y ago
  I don't understand what value do you see in Dustin's article. It doesn't deserve to be on the front-page.
  - joshuamerrill 14y ago
    If the Hacker News algorithm is surfacing the wrong items, or being gamed, then that's a question of relevancy. It "deserves" to be on page one because it received a substantial number of upvotes.
- BrandonM 14y ago
  I keep assuming that at some point you'll just shut it down, that your disappointment with it will reach the point that it doesn't really seem worth it anymore. The sad thing is that I (and perhaps a lot of the oldest members) just won't be that disappointed. It's not really Startup News anymore, and there's clearly no going back.
viviantan 14y ago
While it's true that not everyone can afford the "best" that money can buy, whatever that means, picking the best quality whenever possible is quite the opposite of materialism. I associate materialism with superficiality and waste. None of the things you mentioned here were chosen merely to satisfy some status seeking urge. And because these things didn't need to be constantly replaced because they soon broke or went out of style, the people who chose them likely spent less time thinking about what to buy ("materialism" in your view) and more time doing what matters to them. I agree with you only to the extent that people are important and so are the connections we build with them. What I don't get is your argument against appreciating a fine set of cutlery or a well-made wallet when these things were specifically designed to make the lives of people who use them a little better. Well-made things let people live their lives more fully. Dustin Curtis clearly enjoyed his time abroad because he didn't have to worry about his backpack exploding during his travels (a lesson I learned the hard way). Steve Jobs spent months picking a washing machine so he wouldn't have to worry about ruining clothes or wasting water. Clearly that freed up time for SJ to do plenty of other things.
cbsmith 14y ago
It makes sense one might think it would go this way, but I think in practice it actually tends to discourage materialism. I look at the culture in the US vs. Japan. Probably because of differences in population densities more than anything else, US culture tends to encourage buying a lot of cheap (well, more accurately: cost efficient) stuff, whereas Japanese culture tends to encourage buying fewer things, but for those things to be as close to ideal as possible. [I am speaking in generalizations here, as per usual, the variance within cultures is greater than the difference across cultures, so please, let's not argue about THAT.] While I've found pride of ownership in both cultures, the likelihood one will be defined by ownership seems to be much higher in US culture.
ocirion 14y ago
What you seem to be forgetting is if you spend the time researching and ensuring you're buying a quality pen or book or utensils. You're also ensuring you don't need to buy another one next week/month/year when the current one breaks or you realise its not suitable. That's also a bunch of wasted time saved. Whether or not it equates to the time you spend researching the quality item is probably debatable and likely related to the item itself.
tptacek 14y ago
I bought new flatware last year, just because I needed it; we had gradually lost enough spoons and forks to necessitate the purchase. I did not set out to find the best possible flatware. I went to Bed Bath & Beyond and just sort of picked the set I liked the best. I am continually surprised at what a difference it made; in particular, the new flatware has a different bowl shape for the spoons, similar to the shape Dustin's designer used, and it's so much nicer that I actually find myself wanting to eat more soup. Next time I need to buy flatware, I might seriously consider investing more time in the decision. Behind your comment (which is mostly about making yourself feel superior to Dustin Curtis) there is a lurking derisiveness about the craft of flatware design. But that design was someone's life's work. It was not "empty madness" to them when they invested presumably years of their lives perfecting a knife or a spoon. I am much more spooked by America's disposable-everything culture than I am about its materialism.
npsimons 14y ago
Steve Jobs spent eight years discussing furniture with his family before buying a sofa etc As opposed to buying some disposable POS that will break and/or you will throw out in a year? I'm not a fan of Steve Jobs, but I admire his pursuit of "the good", even if I didn't agree with his definitions of "good". And maybe something to stop and think about is that his discussions with family about furniture were time spent building connections with them. Also, it's always fascinated me how some people say that people are absolutely more important than ideas, when that is an idea itself. Sometimes spending too much time finding "the best" can be a waste of time, but absolutism in either direction is a bad thing. Maybe taking some time to pick a better car will save you time and money and stress in the long run because it won't break down on you as often. I can understand your Tyler Durden reaction to the article ("the things you own end up owning you"), but sometimes being responsible and buying something that won't end up in a landfill is the right thing to do.
suhail 14y ago
I decided to write a convincing comment on this very topic rather than insult someone's well-thought out idea in a totally unrelated and baseless way: http://sufficientlyadvanced.net/keep-writing-dustin http://sufficientlyadvanced.net/keep-writing-dustin If you want to publicly haze someone: bring it on.
mcpie 14y ago
Ribbonfarm has an interesting counterpoint, based on a speech by Bruce Sterling, that essentially promotes buying 'the best' in a very limited amount of cases, and buying cheap in all other cases, with some actually interesting socio-political observations thrown in for good measure: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-and-leaving-the-middle-class/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-...
mcpie 14y ago
Ribbonfarm has an interesting counterpoint, based on a speech by Bruce Sterling, that essentially promotes buying 'the best' in a very limited amount of cases, and buying cheap in all other cases, with some actually interesting socialo-political observations thrown in for good measure: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-and-leaving-the-middle-class/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-...
uhwuggawuh 14y ago
I'm reminded of the scene in Fight Club where the narrator masturbates on the loo while perusing a catalog of Ikea furniture.
oh_sigh 14y ago
It's the exact opposite of a "celebration of total materialism". Dustin isn't saying - "Take all of your normal purchases, and instead of just going out and buying them, research each one for 100 hours." He's saying "You don't need most of the shit you buy, and the stuff you do need, you should get things you trust.". That's it. Your idiotic post is surprising because, presumably, you do perform some amount of research on some purchases. Apparently you have struck the perfect balance between time spent researching and time spent making connections with people in this oh so short life.
bobsil1 14y ago
I disagree too. Life is short, and you don't actually have to spend weeks on flatware: http://blog.tryarrow.com/post/35672875816/no-soup-spoon-for-you http://blog.tryarrow.com/post/35672875816/no-soup-spoon-for-...

by mapgrep 14y ago

kiba 14y ago

This is empty madness. It is, very literally, a celebration of total materialism. What is madness to you may not be madness to dcutis, and messy human beings are not all there is worthwhile in the universe. Would you want to watch a reality tv show that records the uglyness and pettyness of human nature? I honestly rather discuss and learn about things rather than about drama-queen contestant #3.

Swizec 14y ago
I hear a lot of people have gotten very rich by making reality shows that record the uglyness and pettyness of human nature.
anigbrowl 14y ago
Dustin Curtis's problem here is that he thinks his subjective preferences are objectively true. I mean, if he says 'I love this flatware because it has these beautiful proportions, is manufactured in such-and-such a way, and exudes timeless quality etc. etc.', then great - he's a good designer, I'm interested in his aesthetic philosophy. But when he says 'I am the arbiter of quality' he's lost me. By doing so, he rejects the possibility of tastes other than his own and comes off as absurdly egotistical. I don't know if Dustin Curtis is married, but if not he may be in for a bit of a surprise down the road, when it turns out that his view is not the only one that matters.
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  His response to another comment here is directly counter to your assumptions about him: The problem is that "the best" is different for everyone. I can post some of the things that are the best to me, but it's also about the journey of finding out what really matters to you. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755552 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755552
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    Well no. Sure, he assumes each individual will find their own best things. But I suspect that if you too have strong opinions about flatware, it can only end in a knife fight.
- hartleybrody 14y ago
  Did you read the full article? He's not claiming to be an 'arbiter of quality' at all, he's using the flatware as an example. He specifically says that it's up to each person to determine the best things for themselves: > It requires that you find the best thing for yourself, which means you need to know what actually matters to you.
  - anigbrowl 14y ago
    I did, and that qualifier struck me as little more than a figleaf.
- reinhardt 14y ago
  > Dustin Curtis's problem here is that he thinks his subjective preferences are objectively true. And that's exactly what mapgrep did too with "what is ultimately important in life are people". Seriously? Glad for you if you've found that people and building connections is your calling in life but if you try to shove your subjective preference down others' throats you aren't any better in principle than Curtis. FWIW I don't particularly care for either materialism, people or connections (that's nihilistic tendencies for you) but I'm not trying to convince anyone.
- unconed 14y ago
javert 14y ago
I'm generally on your side in this argument, but I want to point out that not all human beings are ugly and petty, although many may be. When it comes to finding human beings to spend time with, you have to use the same intense sense of value, judgement, and love of a good product, that dcurtis applies to flatware selection. We are our own greatest products.
- kiba 14y ago
  Human beings can be very interesting, but if exposed incorrectly, they're also dull.

yew 14y ago

It is possible to enjoy owning things if you know what you're doing and own the right things. At least I think so. Of course I also think that this obsession with the difference between matter and people is a little silly, especially when some of those people are the things you're arguing with. Regardless, I've been thinking about the subject lately thanks to this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/eyt/how_to_have_things_correctly http://lesswrong.com/lw/eyt/how_to_have_things_correctly. Linked for the interested.

jlongster 14y ago

I absolutely agree. Of course it's ok to take pride in what you own, but this is obviously more than that. Relationships are the most important thing in life. Don't wait too long to realize that.

umsm 14y ago

I completely agree. It's extremely difficult to have the best of everything. And it's madness to believe you can. Can you eat the best food? The best cheese? The best water? The best bread?

sneak 14y ago
I have Evian ice cubes in my freezer right now. Just sayin'.

driverdan 14y ago

This is a false dilemma and a straw man. You're implying that you can't care about people if you care about owning quality items. Dustin never said he takes time away from his relationships for this endever. Do you ever spend time reading about something you don't need to know? How many times have you ended up on wikipedia reading about something or watching a documentary on TV that isn't relevant to your primary interests? Many hackers want to know and understand as much about the world as they can. What's wrong with understanding flatware?

jessriedel 14y ago
I was sort of with you until this: > What's wrong with understanding flatware? This is exactly the thinking the supports rampant materialism. Materialism isn't just owning a bunch of stuff, it's being defined by it, by which I mean your thinking about yourself and life is deep set into the things you own. If you're spending hours reading about flatware and justifying it as educational or explorational, you're falling into the trap.
- nemof 14y ago
  What if you just like learning about how objects are made? I'm fascinated with the creative process... Suddenly we're being told, as geeks, that seeking understanding is wrong?! I really don't get it. I will make sure that I stick to appropriately cool objects and product design that doesn't include flatware.
  - jessriedel 14y ago
    Your point about the coolness of the object is well taken, but I feel the same way about fast cars, neat smart phones, and camping supplies.
    - MartinCron 14y ago
      Is there no kind of object that speaks to you in a way that you invest non-trivial amounts of time in learning about it? Serious question.

irishcoffee 14y ago

This is all I could think about while reading your comment (the last line really kind of makes me think) : Narrator: There's always that. I don't know, it's just...when you buy furniture, you tell yourself: that's it, that's the last sofa I'm gonna need. Whatever else happens, I've got that sofa problem handled. I had it all. I had a stereo that was very decent, a wardrobe that was getting very respectable. I was close to being complete. Tyler: Shit, man, now it's all gone. Narrator: All gone.

bitcartel 14y ago
The comment reminded me of some sketches from British comedy legend, Harry Enfield. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVvcD4Czx4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVvcD4Czx4Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXJIi4oCGs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQXJIi4oCGs

bitcartel 14y ago

Dustin: "The long term durability of each utensil is also important, and so is the slipperiness of the metal against food. Yanagi thought about these things." Product page: "Yanagi Flatware... the essence of Japanese design. Warm and organic, yet minimal and sophisticated, it is made of 18/8 stainless steel." (Product page) It may look nice but will it last? The stainless steel is graded at 18/8 which means it's more likely to rust than flatware graded at 18/10, not to mention sterling silver.

rdl 14y ago
There is essentially no difference between 18/8 and 18/10 -- that's an antiquated way to describe steel, and 2 points is within the margin of labeling error. Essentially all flatware is 304 -- some stuff might be 316, which is less mechanically durable but more resistant to corrosion in heated saltwater and acid, but rarely used for flatware. You're basically looking at Type 304. There are multiple types of 304 (304A, 304L), and also variations between mills. There is essentially no difference between the same steel labeled as 18/8 from one vendor and 18/10 from another. I'd also prefer 304 to 925 sterling silver. (or, take the sterling set and sell it and buy an ipad and some stainless) The big lameness is a shift to 18/0 steel, which is cheap and not more durable than 3-5 years, or 14/0 which is essentially trash. One of the huge quality differences in flatware sets is the knife -- whether it has a real blade attached to a handle, vs. formed from a single blank. The cutting quality is a lot higher with a separate blade, as even great 304 isn't an awesome cutting steel, and you want to heat treat the blade differently. There's also hollow handles, balance, and overall design. http://www.sheffield-cutlery.com/store.html http://www.sheffield-cutlery.com/store.html is a horrible site but I like their selection and quality.

nikhilalmeida 14y ago

agree. Also the time spent on researching about getting the best, is orders of magnitude more than the time lost worrying about a 'reasonably good' item.

mrxd 14y ago

That's funny, because I was thinking the exact opposite. Consumerism is about novelty: you buy a thing, then get bored of it, so you dump it in your garage to make room for the next new thing. Buying the best is the opposite of this, because you buy it once.

benatkin 14y ago
Where did you get the term consumerism from? Do you think consumerism and materialism are the same thing?
- mrxd 14y ago
  They are related terms. I thought of consumerism because I don't see perfection as necessarily implying materialism. When I think about materialism, I think of someone who likes to show off their flashy car -- this is about having something expensive, a little bit opulent and excessive. Like how people buy expensive SUVs that are perfectly optimized for off-road driving, but they use it to drive to the mall and back. That's just stupid. Something that's over-engineered is not perfect, even though it might be "the best" in the totally abstract sense, removed from any real-world implications, of having the best specifications. For most people, the perfect car is probably a Camry -- or something else ordinary and ubiquitous, not a status symbol at all, but perfect for solving their problem.
SoftwareMaven 14y ago
I think you are both right. Whether it is defining yourself through how perfect your purchase is or defining yourself through continual purchase-and-junk-it cycles, your are defining yourself through the things you purchase instead of the person you are. And often, these attempts at defining oneself this way are ways of self-medicating other issues by replacing the issues with the purchases.

SkyMarshal 14y ago

I both agree and disagree. On the one hand I think it's worth specifically "buying for life" [1], eg buying high quality, durable things once and reusing them indefinitely. Reject our throw-away culture and planned obsolescence, be more effecient and less wasteful with natural resources, recognizing that unless you plan to be a full-on monk you will most likely need to buy some things in life. On the other hand, statements like this strike me as narrow, lacking perspective. After hiking for months across Southeast Asia, I do hope you have more take away than: >These might seem like stupid things to worry about, but when you have trust in everything you own, you don’t have to worry about anything. It’s liberating and an amazing feeling. My life was markedly better because of it. No, what is amazing and liberating is transcending having to trust in things at all because you have such relentless resourcefulness, determination, and physical and mental health that it doesn't matter whether you have every thing you need, you can make do without it. You can, as the US Marines put it, improvise, adapt, and overcome [2]. You're not dependent in any way on what you own, and as a result, are not owned by it [3]. So I think there's a bit of yin/yang here. Of the stuff you must buy, buy high quality for the long haul, but don't become so attached and emotionally invested that it ends up owning you. [1]: http://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/ http://www.reddit.com/r/BuyItForLife/ [2]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWCYv40Ur1g http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWCYv40Ur1g [3]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPPvkhGZT7Y http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPPvkhGZT7Y

chipsy 14y ago
The puzzle of evading materialism is that it seems to infest everything. >because you have such relentless resourcefulness, determination, and physical and mental health And what if you don't? What if you're weak in one of those areas and, for whatever reason, can _never_ hope to become strong? Everyone does grow old eventually, if they don't get killed first. So then, relying on "I will always be a strong person" is a kind of material thought. You'll lose it, sooner or later. Perhaps a healthier way to think of yourself is as a sort of resource that can be cultivated for a while - and often considerably, when considering intellectual endeavors - but is ultimately consumed. And then, as in strategy games involving heavy resource constraints, your goal is to maneuver and manage resources carefully so that you can both accomplish key goals and remain in a relatively advantageous position afterwards, even though in an absolute sense, things are always being depleted. At that point, strategy w/r to things you purchase is just a calculation, not something you feel you have to identify with.

baddox 14y ago

What's ultimately important is being happy. "Materialism" is only bad if it causes unhappiness.

koningrobot 14y ago
Yes. To say people and the connections we build to them are what ultimately matters is an applause light. People and the connections we build to them are only means to the end of happiness. That isn't cold or selfish. Surely we would all rather live in a world full of disconnected happy people than in a world full of (amicably) connected unhappy people?

romain_dardour 14y ago

I think a middle ground between Dustin's position and yours does exist. Japanese people have found it, as their relation to material objects is ambivalent. On one hand, they strive for perfection, such as found in this kitchenware example and their millennial craftsmanship experience. The documentary Jiro dreams of Sushi is a perfect example of this philosophy. But on the other hand, they have a term for describing the beauty of things imperfect, transient and impermanent, that's [Wabi-Sabi](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabi-sabi). Even In the aforementioned documentary, one can clearly see that the perfection Jiro seeks is achieved through numerous mundane objects, utterly imperfect in their nature. (The coal barbecue he uses jumps to mind for example) I think that the quest for perfection has to be selective and targeted, not absolute, if you don't want to get lost in the way. In this I don't agree with Dustin on this one.

xutopia 14y ago

I don't see how spending quality time with imperfect people can't be better when we have perfect items we can depend on.

ignostic 14y ago

You're completely right. There's good evidence to show that customers are actually less satisfied after comparison shopping to that extent. http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jtaer/v4n3/art08.pdf http://www.scielo.cl/pdf/jtaer/v4n3/art08.pdf http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch... It should also stand to reason that the opportunity cost behind researching the best is absurd.

macey 14y ago

So agreed. And interesting thread you've spawned here. Pretty easy to separate the people I'd like to have a beer with from the people I wouldn't mind never speaking to... ever. :)

MattGrommes 14y ago

This is a very interesting discussion. To me, it's rampant materialism to buy random items at Target/Walmart/etc. and replace them often. Now, I'm lazy enough to do that more often than not but I also plan and research a lot of things that I expect to last. I'm trading time now doing research for time later replacing the thing. Then when I go to use it for whatever task I know I won't have to worry about it, it won't take too much time away from the hobby or people I'm with. The good thing about being slightly obsessive about your purchases now is that you can take advantage of other people's time. I follow Kevin Kelley's Cool Tools mailing list so when I need something I can look there first and let somebody else recommend something good. There's plenty of options for buying good things and not spending lots of time.

jusben1369 14y ago
Matt I think both you and SkyMarshal have altered this discussion thoug . I too began reading this article thinking it would be about sustainability. I have changed my buying habits to only try and buy the best. Not because I obsess about design so much as I've come to realize that I'm buying a Timex watch for $50 every 12 months because they have these horrible crappy bands that are really difficult to replace. So instead I buy a good watch for $150 or more where the band will last longer and be easier to switch out. I do that because I'm struck by the landfill of each Timex decision * 100 we continually face. Dustin however never touched upon this in his post so doesn't really deserve to have this raised as a point in his defense against the initial criticism.
- benatkin 14y ago
  > Dustin however never touched upon this in his post so doesn't really deserve to have this raised as a point in his defense against the initial criticism. That isn't what the blog post is about, though. Why should it contain irrelevant details for laypeople?
  - jusben1369 14y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean here (and why you'd use 'laypeople')

mst 14y ago

He chooses to take his time to do things right, once, and then spend the rest of the time focusing on more important things. The key word you've missed is "trust" - just like I buy things once, and expect them to last, so I can spend more time on real life, mostly on people. Your argument is ... based on an utter misunderstanding. His goal is the same as yours. I'm sorry you can't understand this. Life is too short to buy forks more than once.

cma 14y ago
Yes, so we should literally buy them from the Museum of Modern Art. What a crock of shit.
mcantelon 14y ago
>Life is too short to buy forks more than once. Any half-decent cutlery lasts a very long time.
- megablast 14y ago
  I have never had to buy cutlery in my life, and I am 35, have lived in 5 different countries, and about 30 different houses. But even the cheap stuff I have used in a lot of places lasts a long time.

hcarvalhoalves 14y ago

I fail to see how researching before buying stuff is materalism. Our grandparents used to buy one thing, and it would last decades. Materialism for me is impulse buying lots of cheap crap just because China happens to have many mouths to feed, destroying the environment in the process. That is short sightedness.

jakejake 14y ago

A little common sense seems appropriate here. I think it makes sense to consider 1) how important is the item to you 2) what is the risk if it "fails" and 3) what you can afford For example I bought a cheap set of flatware from target 20 years ago and it has never once failed me. And what if a fork bent or lost a tine? Not a great risk. I don't really give a shit about flatware. Why on earth would I waste all of the time and money to have the "best" flatware? My car on the other hand I felt merited some research. I spent a long time researching and comparing. Other items are important to me and I try to buy the best I can afford. What specific items are important would be different for each person.

erichocean 14y ago
Why on earth would I waste... I think the point of his post was that to "unreasonable people" like him, it's not a waste. Or at least, that was his experience, and he wanted to share. I don't think he's making the metaphysical argument on life happiness that other posters seem to think he's making. He's just sharing something that worked for him, and suggesting that people who are like him give it a try.
- jakejake 14y ago
  I can see that. It did seem to me he was trying to say that it's better to have few possessions so that everything you have can be the absolute best. Problem being that most of us need various trivial things we may not really care that deeply about like flatware, brooms, garbage cans, toasters etc. I need a broom to keep my floor clean but I don't really care if it's "the best" $5,000 titanium broom on the planet.

tdavis 14y ago

What a silly straw man argument. No doubt why it is the #1 comment. If I write a particularly effusive post about my love of dogs--how I care for mine meticulously and spend time researching the best toys and vets and so forth--am I celebrating Dogism to the detriment of what is "ultimately important?" The irony of this comment is that your strong discounting of Dustin's point of view is the exact same as your equally strong support of your own. In the same breath you deride him for "being" a materialist and define yourself as "being" the opposite(?) of one. There is no ultimate truth to what is or isn't important in life. What is important in life to you appears to be other people--and strong identification with that position. Maybe Dustin also values other people. Maybe he identifies more with the point of view he presented. Maybe he cares for neither and thought it would be a good story. Who knows. The real question is, why do you care so much?

BrandonM 14y ago

These things don't magically appear as a result of obsession. The best things are crafted in a meticulous process by... people! Taking the time to appreciate the things you buy and get the very best gives the craftsman the (very human!) appreciation he or she deserves. Appreciating human effort in everyday items has just as much merit as appreciating art or making any other connections with humans.

jcromartie 14y ago

Thanks to the Internet it's really easy for people to build and share a consensus on what is worthwhile. Dustin can let us know what the best flatware is, and someone else can spend some time figuring out the best shoes out there. Nobody has to do it all on their own. So of course, just look it up, and don't waste your time trying to figure it all out for yourself.

Tipzntrix 14y ago
Thanks to the Internet there is not a consensus behind what is worthwhile because you can't fact-check the credentials of the massive amount of opinions on any topic.

eric-hu 14y ago

I agree with you that he takes this to an extreme. I considered buying that silverware set before I realized to host a dinner party with it, I'd actually need $250 to buy 5 sets, not $50. Still, I'd like to play the devil's advocate. 4 years ago I bought a car. A 1996 Geo Metro with a 3 cylinder 1.0L engine. It served my needs. It was fuel efficient, got me from point A to point B and was generally cheap to maintain. This was good for me since I had little money and wanted to figure things out about my career goals. That went hand-in-hand with making little money. I performed many repairs on the Metro. I rebuilt the engine. Twice. Remove the head, replace the valves. Those made for some good life experiences. They also started to feel like they were getting in the way of doing more important things to me, like learning how to be a better developer. So now, I'm looking for something that won't break down on me every 3 months. I'm looking for something better--in the direction of the "best". This is useful for me. I'm investing more time now to save me time later. ...but again, this mentality can be taken too far. I wouldn't buy a $50 set of silverware for one...but then again, I haven't created a Svbtle yet...

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

ahelwer 14y ago
I disagree. Seeing this story at the top of HN... well really, it just made me sad. It is, as was said, empty madness. Really, all this post is is the author telling us he has disposable income. Price factors into what is "best" for people; for him, less so. For others, even less so. Kim Dotcom spends $100K on each bed mattress[1] in his mansion. Kim Dotcom could write a blog post on the topic and it would sound exactly the same but with larger price tags. There is no point at which you will be complete. You cannot perfect your existence with material things, no matter how much time and money you pour into selecting them. There is a hole, but it is not a hole you can fill up; it is a singularity, which grows as it is fed. You must learn to live with the hole. [1] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/ff-kim-dotcom/
- erichocean 14y ago
  Your post would make a fine top post, because it lacks the vitriol and anger and name calling of the OP. Thanks for sharing. (Note: I deleted my own post because it was downvoted once, despite getting a number of upvotes before that. It's my policy to delete any comment that gets a downvote, since that's a signal from the community that my contribution isn't wanted.)
  - nollidge 14y ago
    > since that's a signal from the community that my contribution isn't wanted It's a signal from one single person, not "the community".
- koide 14y ago
  On the other hand, being able to trust on the things you have and having the proper, trusty tools for the things you like to do is indeed something valuable. It's not filling a black hole, but satisfying a concrete need. The key point is not getting attached to those tools.

b3b0p 14y ago

I agree with you and I disagree with you. Dustin Curtis seems to take it to a new level which I've not heard though in this writing though. Almost obsessive. I would only do this for items you actually value and use. The tools that get you through life and you enjoy. Put to heavy usage. Items I consider such are my computer for work, a few of my electronics for entertainment and relaxation (away from work), good books (I enjoy comics, such as Calvin and Hobbes, Peanuts, and Fox Trot), my work chair/desk and bed for proper comfort and rest, my bike, and certain pieces of clothing (my jeans and shirts). I picked out items that made me feel content and satisfied. Not necessarily the best. They are nice items, but far from the best. The last thing I want is some brand, thing, material item cause me to be financially troubled in any such way.

sneak 14y ago

> What is ultimately important in life are people I have, for example, the best luggage possible, because I spend a ton of time traveling long distances to spend time with people I care about. I have the best camera I can afford because I use it to take pictures of time spent with those people. I have the best mobile devices because I don't like to waste time dicking about with software when I am trying to get directions to meet with... (you guessed it) people. They're tools. They're a means to an end. The best is important, because when you don't have it, oftentimes you find yourself not reaching that end in an efficient manner.

erichocean 14y ago
Furthermore, those things were all created by (wait for it) people. I guess we can appreciate the maker, but not the things they make? Or perhaps we're oversimplifying this whole "materialism" thing and people are more complex than what they make, or buy, or why they did either.
lmm 14y ago
But the time you spend learning about it is not interacting with people, at least not the same way. I buy crappy luggage and once lost some time with a friend because my luggage fell apart. But that's less time than I would've lost becoming an expert on luggage before buying any.
- sneak 14y ago
  It's not hard. Just ask someone who knows wtf they're doing. I learned about luggage from rdl (who is on HN), who often ranted about his pelican cases while working in Iraq. I have a Pelican carry-on. I was at a hotel once when there was a convention of flight attendants, and there was a gaggle of them checking in all at once, all carrying IDENTICAL hard-sided Delsey luggage. It took me under 30 seconds to ask them the make. Now the checked luggage side is done, too. I guess the moral of the story is to pay attention and you don't have to spend a lot of time knowing what works the best.

grandalf 14y ago

With many things, deliberating over them before purchasing still leaves the would-be purchaser in the dark compared with owning them for a few weeks. Thus it would make more sense to try a variety of kinds of flatware, furniture, or cars (etc. etc.) and figure out not just what sounds like it would be perfect but what actually is. To claim that some flatware or furniture is optimally designed is (in my opinion) somewhat absurd anyway, since both are largely a matter of taste as well as some degree of optimality for the particular use case.

pg 14y ago

No, it's a designer with an interest in all design. I know Dustin sometimes alienates people, but it makes me sad to see such a mean comment in reply to a thoughtful essay. In fact I'll coin a term for it: strawmean (strawman + mean) because you've had to invent a position he didn't take in order to attack it. What makes me even sadder is the huge mob who upvoted this comment. Because that is the decline of HN embodied right there. Illegitimi non carborundum, Dustin.

viviantan 14y ago
> No, it's a designer with an interest in all design. Thank you. I've been trying to make the same point, but with far too many words!
bambax 14y ago
> Illegitimi non carborundum ... is a mock-Latin aphorism meaning "Don't let the bastards grind you down", and the first line of an unofficial school song Ten Thousand Men of Harvard, the most frequently played Fight song of the Harvard Marching Band (where presumably PG picked it up). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegitimi_non_carborundum
Void_ 14y ago
I don't understand what value do you see in Dustin's article. It doesn't deserve to be on the front-page.
- joshuamerrill 14y ago
  If the Hacker News algorithm is surfacing the wrong items, or being gamed, then that's a question of relevancy. It "deserves" to be on page one because it received a substantial number of upvotes.
BrandonM 14y ago
I keep assuming that at some point you'll just shut it down, that your disappointment with it will reach the point that it doesn't really seem worth it anymore. The sad thing is that I (and perhaps a lot of the oldest members) just won't be that disappointed. It's not really Startup News anymore, and there's clearly no going back.

viviantan 14y ago

While it's true that not everyone can afford the "best" that money can buy, whatever that means, picking the best quality whenever possible is quite the opposite of materialism. I associate materialism with superficiality and waste. None of the things you mentioned here were chosen merely to satisfy some status seeking urge. And because these things didn't need to be constantly replaced because they soon broke or went out of style, the people who chose them likely spent less time thinking about what to buy ("materialism" in your view) and more time doing what matters to them. I agree with you only to the extent that people are important and so are the connections we build with them. What I don't get is your argument against appreciating a fine set of cutlery or a well-made wallet when these things were specifically designed to make the lives of people who use them a little better. Well-made things let people live their lives more fully. Dustin Curtis clearly enjoyed his time abroad because he didn't have to worry about his backpack exploding during his travels (a lesson I learned the hard way). Steve Jobs spent months picking a washing machine so he wouldn't have to worry about ruining clothes or wasting water. Clearly that freed up time for SJ to do plenty of other things.

cbsmith 14y ago

It makes sense one might think it would go this way, but I think in practice it actually tends to discourage materialism. I look at the culture in the US vs. Japan. Probably because of differences in population densities more than anything else, US culture tends to encourage buying a lot of cheap (well, more accurately: cost efficient) stuff, whereas Japanese culture tends to encourage buying fewer things, but for those things to be as close to ideal as possible. [I am speaking in generalizations here, as per usual, the variance within cultures is greater than the difference across cultures, so please, let's not argue about THAT.] While I've found pride of ownership in both cultures, the likelihood one will be defined by ownership seems to be much higher in US culture.

ocirion 14y ago

What you seem to be forgetting is if you spend the time researching and ensuring you're buying a quality pen or book or utensils. You're also ensuring you don't need to buy another one next week/month/year when the current one breaks or you realise its not suitable. That's also a bunch of wasted time saved. Whether or not it equates to the time you spend researching the quality item is probably debatable and likely related to the item itself.

tptacek 14y ago

I bought new flatware last year, just because I needed it; we had gradually lost enough spoons and forks to necessitate the purchase. I did not set out to find the best possible flatware. I went to Bed Bath & Beyond and just sort of picked the set I liked the best. I am continually surprised at what a difference it made; in particular, the new flatware has a different bowl shape for the spoons, similar to the shape Dustin's designer used, and it's so much nicer that I actually find myself wanting to eat more soup. Next time I need to buy flatware, I might seriously consider investing more time in the decision. Behind your comment (which is mostly about making yourself feel superior to Dustin Curtis) there is a lurking derisiveness about the craft of flatware design. But that design was someone's life's work. It was not "empty madness" to them when they invested presumably years of their lives perfecting a knife or a spoon. I am much more spooked by America's disposable-everything culture than I am about its materialism.

npsimons 14y ago

Steve Jobs spent eight years discussing furniture with his family before buying a sofa etc As opposed to buying some disposable POS that will break and/or you will throw out in a year? I'm not a fan of Steve Jobs, but I admire his pursuit of "the good", even if I didn't agree with his definitions of "good". And maybe something to stop and think about is that his discussions with family about furniture were time spent building connections with them. Also, it's always fascinated me how some people say that people are absolutely more important than ideas, when that is an idea itself. Sometimes spending too much time finding "the best" can be a waste of time, but absolutism in either direction is a bad thing. Maybe taking some time to pick a better car will save you time and money and stress in the long run because it won't break down on you as often. I can understand your Tyler Durden reaction to the article ("the things you own end up owning you"), but sometimes being responsible and buying something that won't end up in a landfill is the right thing to do.

suhail 14y ago

I decided to write a convincing comment on this very topic rather than insult someone's well-thought out idea in a totally unrelated and baseless way: http://sufficientlyadvanced.net/keep-writing-dustin http://sufficientlyadvanced.net/keep-writing-dustin If you want to publicly haze someone: bring it on.

mcpie 14y ago

Ribbonfarm has an interesting counterpoint, based on a speech by Bruce Sterling, that essentially promotes buying 'the best' in a very limited amount of cases, and buying cheap in all other cases, with some actually interesting socio-political observations thrown in for good measure: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-and-leaving-the-middle-class/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-...

mcpie 14y ago

Ribbonfarm has an interesting counterpoint, based on a speech by Bruce Sterling, that essentially promotes buying 'the best' in a very limited amount of cases, and buying cheap in all other cases, with some actually interesting socialo-political observations thrown in for good measure: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-and-leaving-the-middle-class/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-...

uhwuggawuh 14y ago

I'm reminded of the scene in Fight Club where the narrator masturbates on the loo while perusing a catalog of Ikea furniture.

oh_sigh 14y ago

It's the exact opposite of a "celebration of total materialism". Dustin isn't saying - "Take all of your normal purchases, and instead of just going out and buying them, research each one for 100 hours." He's saying "You don't need most of the shit you buy, and the stuff you do need, you should get things you trust.". That's it. Your idiotic post is surprising because, presumably, you do perform some amount of research on some purchases. Apparently you have struck the perfect balance between time spent researching and time spent making connections with people in this oh so short life.

bobsil1 14y ago

I disagree too. Life is short, and you don't actually have to spend weeks on flatware: http://blog.tryarrow.com/post/35672875816/no-soup-spoon-for-you http://blog.tryarrow.com/post/35672875816/no-soup-spoon-for-...