29 ms·

The Worst

770 points by ldayley 14y ago

by_Seeing 14y ago
As my friend Phelan put it: "The Best" and "The Worst" are both fascinating reads, although, in my opinion the authors completely missed the point. Here is my three-sentence rebuttal. The point is not to place one’s possessions upon pedestals, only to bring them down for special occasions. In the same respect, appreciating something is not synonymous with being owned by it. The point is to respect one's possessions, because they are the tools that enrich your life.
charlieok 14y ago
As different as these two attitudes are, I'll stick up for Dustin Curtis by pointing out one thing he expressed in his post: the pleasure of owning a small number of things. If I keep a small number of possessions, and their total value is a small fraction of the money I have in savings, I don't need to be too concerned about preserving them. I can easily replace anything that is damaged, lost or stolen, so these occurrences don't have to be a huge source of stress. I like the idea of being able to go through everything I have and organize, clean and maintain all of it, say, once a week. If that's too much of a burden, that's a sign that I have too many things. Thinking in these terms also makes it very easy to give away things to lighten this load. This thinking is partly informed by my experience maintaining software. Running and writing software means constantly keeping it up to date. New standards and new versions of dependencies are constantly being published, and security flaws are constantly being found, as Moxie Marlinspike certainly knows. Code needs to be updated to keep up with these things in order to be considered well-maintained or secure. Minimizing that burden gives you a better chance of keeping the quality high.
stephengillie 14y ago
Each of my forks cost 25c. Each of my knives and spoons too. They work great. Buy the cheapest. Use it and learn your use case. If you ever need another, you'll know which quality of tool is the right one.
cjensen 14y ago
The author of this linked article has made an error: he assumes dcurtis' flatware is inordinately expensive. It is not; traditional flatware really is absurdly expensive. Much of the author's article is based on this assumption. I'd suggest he familiarize himself with "wedding gift"-style flatware. Then do a rewrite because I think there is a good argument still to be had.
- Breefield 14y ago
  I thought the author was suggesting that maybe flatware isn't worth that much. There being a bunch of expensive flatware in existence is just a straw man's rebuttal to the point that affordable flatware works just fine.
  - njr123 14y ago
    I think cutlery is probably the worst possible example to illustrate the argument. The cheapest cutlery you can buy is still works 90% as well as the best, and they last approximately forever. I've never in my life been eating something and noticed the quality of the cutlery. I think a better example would be dress shoes. The cheap versions are uncomfortable and wear out all the time, where as a good pair of leather shoes should last so much longer they probably end up being cheaper in the long run.
    - npsimons 14y ago
      Precisely. I know it's fiction, but Terry Pratchett sums it up nicely in "Men at Arms": But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
      - jonnycoder 14y ago
        That might not be too far off. I actually already posted a comment regarding boots, but I know people with $400 boots that last 6+ years under hardcore/milaage whereas the $100 cheap boots give out once a year...and I'm not talking about worn out soles.
Breefield 14y ago
This reminded me of my father. Expensive things only complicated his interactions with other people, because of our ability to potentially break or abuse the object. There is a sweet spot in-between the highest quality, and poor craftsmanship. As well as between expensive and cheap. I like to operate somewhere in the middle.
- wazoox 14y ago
  So you are an Aristotelian of sorts.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
zafka 14y ago
While I do like the look of the perfect spoons, I am an advocate of owning the worst. Actually I make my own bowls and plates, so while they are "perfect", it is okay to smash them, as I can always make another. When folks come over for a meal, they can pick the color and shape of their plates and bowls. And yes, my "silver" does come from the second hand store. Eventually I would like to cast my own utensils too....ah, too many hobbies, not enough time.
imgabe 14y ago
Thank you. That article about "The Best" bothered me in a way I couldn't completely verbalize. Beyond a certain threshold, the quality of objects just simply doesn't matter. The example of flatware was particularly annoying, because, really, in what way does a fork ever actually "fail"? Have you ever had food halfway to your mouth when the fork just suddenly collapses or something? As a tool, flatware is completely superfluous. Just ask the billion some odd people who eat with their hands. Anyway, maybe some people enjoy the process of endlessly researching and hunting around for "the best" of something. If you do, more power to you. Personally, I think when you look back at the end of your life you're going to remember the meals you ate and the people you ate them with more than the utensils you used.
- bunderbunder 14y ago
  > Have you ever had food halfway to your mouth when the fork just suddenly collapses or something? -- shaking fist -- One of these days, Uri Geller, you'll get yours!
- daniel-cussen 14y ago
  So, I had a small spoon get scratched pretty badly by the dishwasher grinder the other day. On the back, still pretty useful, except for one detail: being scratched, it could hold much more bacteria for much longer. And though it could have been stainless steel, it wasn't underneath. Furthermore, silver silverware, which is expensive, is very clean because it kills germs so well.
  - imgabe 14y ago
    Silver silverware on the other hand, has to be polished by hand. This is not only time consuming but exposes you to harsh chemicals which probably negate any health benefit you get from not being exposed to (mostly harmless) bacteria. Anything you put in the dishwasher is going to come out more or less sterile anyway.
    - Domenic_S 14y ago
      > exposes you to harsh chemicals Why not go the old-school way and use baking soda and lemon juice/vinegar? Organic! > Anything you put in the dishwasher is going to come out more or less sterile anyway. Dishwashers don't get nearly hot enough to properly sterilize, and they definitely won't sterilize the parts that most need sterilization -- deeply nicked flatware, for example.
ryanwhitney 14y ago
After years of having cheap, shitty can openers that made it a pain to do the task, I spent 20 minutes looking it up and bought the best that I could find on Amazon. While I may never figure out how to service it if something happens to it (the thought!), it has worked pretty well so far. Cans are opened with little to no effort. It stays out of the way, it does exactly the task it was designed for, and it does it well.
- ssharp 14y ago
  I think you're just hitting on a case where cheaper stuff is substantially less useful than more expensive stuff. One of the issues with "The Best" was how poor of an example flatware is at doing that. Also, cost and utility are a sliding scale. There isn't "the best" and "the worst" and nothing in between. In fact, it's usually the stuff in the middle that makes the best trade offs between cost and functionality.
  - Sumaso 14y ago
    I thought the point of the article was that regardless of the cost of the item, you should try and get the best object you could possibly get. I find it amusing that the article actually attacked the cost of the object not the utility. There seemed to be some sort of fear of the money lost if that object failed them. Moxie seems to think that if he spent 50 dollars on a single set of utensils he would be seemingly enslaved by them. The original post was not about being enslaved by your possessions it was about not having to worry about them fulfilling their function. I could buy a cheap set of stainless steel utensils and watch them tarnish as well as leaving a metallic taste in my mouth (hypothetical utensils). Sure they may have saved me money, but was it worth it? I can buy the worst car, be late to my meeting and lose my job. I can buy the worst computer and not only be frustrated by my computing experience but also question how long it will be until I need to replace it. You never ever want to buy the worst, you /may/ not always want to buy the best
    - ssharp 14y ago
      Thee "best" and "worst" are subjective. You need to define criteria for what makes something the best. In Dustin's case maybe it was the total blend of style and function. But for many people, that isn't what makes it the best. The best may be the one that has intricate designs and costs a huge amount of money to manufacture. The rarity, design, and expense makes it the best.
cllns 14y ago
I hope Moxie starts posting more frequently, especially if they're these these HN-popular posts, though I'd be interested in his security stuff too.
awakeasleep 14y ago
The dichotomy between Moxie and Dustin's posts illustrates an interesting split in the 'hacker' world. Wheras Hacker and Startup seemed to represent the use of unconventional tools to achieve a unexpected results (often) in unpleasant or tedious circumstances, those connotations have become mixed with the sense glamor usually reserved for celebrities. Now, the ostensibly boring (or at least detail-ridden, interesting only to those directly involved) practice of starting a business has taken a sort of crazy sheen, with list stories [1] written by starry eyed marketers praising the romance of the fast paced, powerful, and interesting startup industry shaping the public's view. And Hackers, once conceptualized as loners fiddling with inscrutable technicalities, are now expected to attain material success and internet celebrity. After all, if you're a real hacker you should be pulling in at least $150k. (Though you'll have to spend some of that on a load balancer to handle your blog traffic.) Dustin and Moxie seem to represent the two sides of this spectrum. Dustin, maybe hot off the aquihire of a desirable web property, looking for how to best direct his affluence. Moxie, pondering the important parts of the system he operates in, chooses to forgo what he considers symbolic representations of success with undeserved merit. It's as easy to imagine the dreadlocked Marlinspike talking to stallman (who is eating from his foot) as it is to imagine Curtis speaking to a crowd of socialites in a bell-aire hotel lobby. At least for me. A weird example I ran across, it struck me for its resemblance to a Cosmo article. [1] http://tech.co/the-top-10-tech-cocktail-stories-of-the-week-6-2012-11 http://tech.co/the-top-10-tech-cocktail-stories-of-the-week-...
- diminish 14y ago
  In those 2 articles, I see more a contradiction between design and function. In recent years, design for web sites, and mobile apps has been a major focus for startups and consumers. Simple functional products are seen with more skepticism from investors; that is the journey from Google to Pinterest or from Dell to Apple.
  - debacle 14y ago
    Not unexpected - as the technical cost for implementations of most ideas approaches the market minimum, it's only logical that the sell, the approach, and the design are the key factors in determining success.
mcnkldzyn 14y ago
Glad I had a chance to read this today.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
debacle 14y ago
I, like many others, see a lot of self-serving "founder" spam on HN and at this point it's not worth commenting on. Except for a few grossly abhorrent pock marks, it's easier to let the posts have their time on HN - if not, something else will fill the void.
rthomas6 14y ago
Could it be possible that there is a spectrum of choices which represent a trade-off between cost and quality? What if both authors took an already understood and practiced idea in our culture and took it to an absurd extreme? Every person will desire different quality for different items. Even Dustin Curtis doesn't get "the best" of all of his items. He says that he does, but if you keep reading, what he really means is getting "the best for him." That's what everyone does. People just pay for as high of a quality as is justified to them by the price. Assuming perfect knowledge, that's theoretically what all consumers do. Different people desire different quality for different items, and have different amounts of money. I love listening to music at work, so I did a lot of research and got a nice pair of $150 headphones with a $30 headphone amp. They're wonderful. Well, well worth the purchase price to me. Could I have paid $1500 dollars and gotten a higher quality set of headphones? Sure. But who the fuck would spend $1500 on headphones? It just wasn't justifiable to me. Some people will buy the $1500 headphones. Some people will buy the $15 headphones. None of these people are following some abstract philosophy. They're just regular consumers in a capitalist society, buying what makes the most sense for them.
- chetan51 14y ago
  This. Both articles seemed extreme to me, and then again, only the extreme will really make it to the front page. If you rewrote this comment in a blog post and titled it "The Middle-Point", it wouldn't make front page, because it's just plain obvious. Buy what fits at the right point in the spectrum for you, and move on with your life.
- mistermann 14y ago
  > I love listening to music at work, so I did a lot of research and got a nice pair of $150 headphones with a $30 headphone amp. I was looking into this very same thing yesterday, I'd be very interested in knowing what you decided on for the headphones and amp, or even particularly useful websites for research. (And does an amp make a big difference in your opinion?) I was looking at a bit of a lower price point, around ~$80 or so in case you happened to accidentally soak up some information about that price point while you were at it, but I'm not really financially constrained at all so if you truly do get noticeably better performance a bit higher up I wouldn't mind spending the money. (Aesthetics are also rather important to me, for no particularly good reason since I'd never leave the house with them.)
klawed 14y ago
And then somewhere in between are the partisans of "good enough" When I'm eating food I like to get as close to "The best" as I can reasonably afford (I'll spend $50 on a steak but I won't fly to Japan just to get some fresh Kobe). On most other things, "Good Engough" is a good enough. And when I buy a car, I ask myself if I'll care if the bumper get's scratched - if the answer's yes, I look for a different car.
- npsimons 14y ago
  Sometimes, it's worth it to splurge. If nothing else, think of it as investing in an experience rather than a thing, and treat yourself to a tasting menu with wine pairings at least once in your life. Take your time, smell, taste and feel every bite and every sip, and savor the moments. If you have a significant other, definitely take them. I say try at least once, because in my experience my first one was the best (Chez TJ in Mountain View, CA). It's also bloody expensive (I usually don't do it more than once a year, and none of the other ones have been as expensive as Chez TJ). But sometimes just trying the expensive stuff (even if it's a test drive, a rental, or an experience) is worth it just to let you know what it's like, and if it's worth it to you. Or to let you know if it's just overpriced.
- jonnycoder 14y ago
  I think of the "middle" as a place where I put in enough energy to learn and do my research, but settle with what fits my needs both economically and ergonomically. For example, the "best" burger is the one I've learned to make on my own because it contains my favorite type of bun, meat I've ground up myself, etc. Other times I enjoy the quick fix at Carl's Jr because I'm in no mood to cook. I've also learned that I prefer the "best" when it comes to hiking/hunting boots. The ok ones at $100 work well for a while because of their high economic value, but great ones are $300-$430 for a reason, such as having a higher heel, very aggressive tread, having lasting leather that dominates cheap boots, and being a perfect custom fit (Schnees Granite or Whites Smokejumper for example).
npsimons 14y ago
First and foremost, I'd like to point out that the "The Best" article seemed to be roundly attacked here on HN, with critics and defenders alike chiming in; that might be a better indicator of why it stayed on the front page for so long. Second, I'd like to point out that this article seems to be completely missing some of the points made, namely, when you invest in good tools you can rely on, you stop thinking about them because they just work, and you are therefore liberated to worry about more important things. Sure, you shouldn't let the things you own end up owning you, but if you have ever had something you rely on fail (and if you are working in technology, you have), you can appreciate doing research to make sure it doesn't happen again. Is this a waste of time? No. Is it stupid? No. Can it be taken too far? Yes. But it can also be taken too far in the other direction. The unexamined life isn't worth living. BTW, partisans of the worst wouldn't get metal cutlery, they'd buy plastic and throw it out when they were done, thereby creating waste and showing how actually thinking about what you buy and whether it will last or not is a good idea.
trotsky 14y ago
preach on brother marlinspike!
nyargh 14y ago
I loved this. I admit I did not read Dustin's article, but it sounds like it could have been any one of thousands of fawning techno-fetishist blog posts made over the years. I think an interesting thing that Moxie touches on tangentially, is that life does not go as planned; things break. Everything breaks, in fact. Learning to recover from failure is often more important (and personally rewarding) than learning to use the tool in the first place. You may choose to get better tools, but given time and use, these too will eventually fail. Operating with the understanding that everything fails, allows us to be more flexible and pragmatic in our decisions and planning. Assuming that something will never fail only ensures that a disaster will eventually happen, and that you will be unequipped to handle it.
- marmot1101 14y ago
  Dustin's article was worth a read. It was as enlightening to his perspective as this article was to it's author. Everything fails, but poorly made things fail in less predictable manners. Really this is a false dichotomy. Anyone who always buys the best everything or the worst everything is missing a whole lot of nuance.
m0nastic 14y ago
If forced to decide between Dustin's reality and Moxie's, I think I'd chose Dustin's. A world made up of overly-reviewed, pretentious gadgets slightly edges out a utilitarian, post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown where people scavenge through wreckage looking for makeshift utensils and clothing. I picture oil drum fires. Thankfully, I am not limited by those choices. I can continue to do what I already do, which is decide the level of attention that things require of me, optimize the ones I choose to, and not spend inordinate amounts of time fretting about the others.
- jacoblyles 14y ago
  That second scenario sounds great to me. Reminds me of Burning Man. You'd be surprised what tools you can cut out of a gallon jug.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    http://shialabeowulf.tumblr.com/post/33670447154/99-life-hacks-to-make-your-life-easier http://shialabeowulf.tumblr.com/post/33670447154/99-life-hac...
- tptacek 14y ago
  When you say "utilitarian, post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown where people scavenge through wreckage looking for makeshift utensils and clothing", you mean Wal Mart, right?
  - m0nastic 14y ago
    Don't be ridiculous, the post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown will still provide health benefits for it's employees; they're not monsters.
- lilsunnybee 14y ago
  Who is scavenging through wreckage? Moxie mentioned buying used at a thrift store, which many many people do out of necessity anyways. And believe it or not, oil drum fires are a pretty infrequent occurrence.
MattRogish 14y ago
"Any reasonable person wouldn’t feel liberated by a $50 fork, but constrained by it. One wouldn’t be able to help but worry: is it being cared for correctly, is my friend going to mess it up when absentmindedly tapping the table with it, is it going to get dropped or stepped on if a dance party erupts in the kitchen? After all, it is the perfect fork, what if something happened to it to make it… not perfect?" This is why, whenever I get something new and "perfect", I damage it in some slight way (nothing that hurts the functionality or will ultimately destroy the product). Every car I've owned gets a nick in the paint to remind me that it's just a "thing" and not to take it too seriously.
- apike 14y ago
  Indeed. I don't intentionally damage new things, but people are often surprised that I don't agonize over keeping my phone, car, or laptop looking brand new. The idea of a scratched Honda sort bothers people, but idea of a scratched Audi makes people crazy. Why waste your energy worrying about this? A Audi with some scratches is a very nice car, and an iPhone with some scratches is a very nice phone.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    > [the] idea of a scratched Audi makes people crazy. Why waste your energy worrying about this? Because other people worry about it when buying a used Audi. And the obscene cost to repair auto paint. A carelessly placed shopping cart or thoughtless lean against the car in riveted jeans can cause thousands of dollars of damage.
    - apike 14y ago
      I fon't think resale value is why most worry about it, but ptobably some. If scratches decrease resale value so much, it seems those in the market for a luxury car should seek out a scratched one.
      - Domenic_S 14y ago
        There's the rub -- dent/paint repair costs dealerships next to nothing. They often have a guy on staff to do it. So dealerships won't sell scratched/dinged luxury cars, they'll repair them for pennies and mark them up.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
eshvk 14y ago
> Dustin Curtis also suggests that as a partisan of the best, he is taking on the hardship of truly understanding a domain in order to identify the best consumer good within that domain. Really? I am sure Dustin can speak for himself but I would have thought it obvious that is impossible to objectively assert that something is the best and that when you say that something is "the best", you are implicitly solving a matching problem given your constraints. In general, I am not convinced by your case as to why getting something that you personally think is the best is so bad. Sure, there might be some people who would worry about the best getting damaged or whatever. Then again, I would argue that your matching algorithm should choose something that doesn't get damaged so easily. E.g. One of the best investments I made was in getting a pair of Shure in-ear headphones. They weren't the most expensive I could have got but they were five times as expensive as the skull candy crap that I get. Guess what though? They have lasted me 5 times as long. Sure, there has been some change in the way I handle earphones but still there are many days where I close my laptop and remove my earphones and leave the entire setup on my bed and go to sleep. Having said this, I get the idea that the cognitive load created by having to make decisions about what to buy can be annoying at times. I have been putting off the decision of buying a bike because there is so much research to do.
marknutter 14y ago
I recently got into road biking and had to a road bike which can get quite expensive. I wasn't sure I would really stick with the sport in the long term so I bought a bike on the cheap end off bikesdirect.com. I have no doubt were a seasoned road biker to try my bike they would be frustrated by the overall quality of the ride. Because I'm a newbie, however, I have never ridden anything of better quality to compare it to, so it feels awesome to me. The point is, sometimes it's easy to forget that the worst products in a given category are still high quality, and that the premiums you pay for more expensive products give you diminishing returns. You end up having to trick your brain into believing the more expensive product is giving you increased value proportionate to the extra cost.
zacharyvoase 14y ago
It's really quite something when an author manages to put down in words a thought or a feeling you were hitherto incapable of expressing. Bravo. The dichotomy of best/worst — or, as I often think of it, acceptable versus available — is a tricky one, and it's not one which I feel I've yet solved. But I can certainly see how areas of my life tend towards the latter. Take my dotfiles, for example. I spent ages writing a vimrc which sets up key bindings just so, the way I like them. Then one day I have to SSH onto a remote server and make a hotfix, and I start vimming files and get instantly confused when my muscle memory betrays me. I tried out Dvorak for a while, but then every time I had to help someone with their computer, or go to a client site, I was struggling to adjust to the 'normal' QWERTY layout. Eventually I realized it was better to learn the vim defaults like a pro, and then extend them without overriding them. We can get very comfortable in environments we create for ourselves, expending huge quantities of energy to build a nest suited just for us. But Stoicism teaches us that fate is a lot more powerful than our nesting activities. One day a flood comes tearing through your house, or your hard drive fails, or you miss a credit card payment, and if you've wired your brain to only be happy in the environment you created, you are going to have a breakdown. In my childhood alone, I was evicted twice, moved countries several times, and had times when we were very well-off and times when we couldn't afford food. These things happen to all of us. Nevertheless, in the Poisson distribution of cataclysms, before disruptive events, the Best approach may render you far more productive than the Worst. I consider this penalty to be my insurance policy; others have a different risk tolerance. Just my $0.02.
- Schwolop 14y ago
  Your point about key bindings is very prescient. At my work, our book club is (re)reading The Pragmatic Programmer. There's a section which advocates picking one text editor, mastering its arcane secrets, customizing it until it's perfect, and never using anything else. All my colleagues happily agreed with this, and I couldn't quite express why I didn't. Then I did a bit of pair programming with a few different people. In every case there was a significant learning curve just to follow what the driver was doing in their comfortable editing environment, and in the most customized cases, it was nigh impossible for me to drive at all. So we relocated to my desk instead. I have a standard qwerty keyboard with vim, emacs, and textmate - all completely un-customized and ready to go. I couldn't care less which editor we use as I've learnt the bare minimum to be proficient in all of them. And importantly, so have my colleagues. Sure they grumble at not having their own autocompleting magic, but we can get our work done at a good enough rate, and either of us can drive. (My previous work took this one (enterprise management style) step further and forced everyone to use the exact same model laptop, operating system, and editor. As a youngster I hated this required conformity. As a cynical old bastard I can see the logic...) I definitely sit in the middle of the two camps. Not 'The Best', not 'The Worst'; just 'The Satisficing'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing
fudged71 14y ago
I just bought a car for $1. The previous owner was frustrated by all the things that it wasn't great at. For a first car, I love the character of it, and learning how to fix, maintain, and control this beast. Like the article says, it gives me more experience and knowledge in this space, rather than reading textbook and articles about it. In contrast, I love using LaTeX, even though it's a pain in the ass, because I know it's probably the best quality typesetting out there, and that people have spent decades perfecting it.
crazygringo 14y ago
I think the authors of "The Best" and "The Worst" are both right. In fact, pretty much everything I own is either "the best" or "the worst" -- no middle ground. I identify the very few things that really make a difference to me (my laptop, my stereo, my kitchen pots & pans & knives, my jeans) and buy the absolute best I can afford. And I identify the things I don't really care about (the rug, the chairs, most kitchen utensils, my T-shirts, my toilet brush, my bike) and buy the absolute cheapest -- disposable, really. So the real point is -- avoid the middle ground, which is muddled/confused life priorities. Do your best to figure out what actually matters and what actually doesn't, and spend accordingly.
- tptacek 14y ago
  This is an argument against satisficing, since seeking the worst is a form of optimization. I don't want $50 spoons and I don't happen to want the worst spoons.
  - zerovox 14y ago
    It depends on the function of the spoons. If it's to stir your tea for a few seconds, there's no need to spend money there, you're better off buying the cheapest spoons that perform that function (i.e they don't have holes in or are made of francium). If it's for hosting dinner parties, then clearly you want something more decorative and should spend an appropriate amount of money on them.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- xianshou 14y ago
  Well, well, Mr. Galt: "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." Much as absolutism makes for simple priorities, applying these general principles out of any context is going to make you wrong no matter what you choose. As in game theory, where mixed strategies often defeat any individual strategy, the best, the worst, and the middle all encounter their uses in different spheres. Personal possessions? I'm fine with the best or the worst, but not always. For instance, I could buy one of the world's most powerful supercomputers if I were rich enough, but I'm fine with my MacBook Air. Also, try political or religious thought. I typically prefer a moderate liberal or conservative to a fire-spitting Tea Partier or an ardent communist. I also prefer secular humanism to, say, fundamentalist Bible-bashing or virulent atheism. I propose a different criterion: the right philosophy for the right context.
konstruktor 14y ago
Most things that you can buy used are already so much better than the worst product you can buy new, but at a similar price. If you make the effort to bring something to the thrift store, donate it or put it on ebay, it shows that you believe it to be too good to throw away. This is usually stuff that has already seen some use (e.g. clothing that has been washed a few times) and is still OK, as opposed to shitty stuff you buy that breaks soon.
engtech 14y ago
Why do I get the feeling that dcurtis' friends are going to endlessly chide him whenever they go out for dinner? I wish one of my friends would write an anecdotal story like that.
NarTh 14y ago
These are the ways you guys choose to buy your stuff. Cool. Still, I dislike ideas that you should 'always' do something, always buy best, always buy worst. I'll take time, care (and my limited funds ;) ) to research and buy what's best if I think research will be fun. Or interesting. Or useful in the future. Or the item is somehow important to me (and the spoon sure as hell is not). Otherwise - first thing that seems to be good enough should do just fine.
baconhigh 14y ago
THIS. SO MUCH THIS. fuck yes.
adambard 14y ago
Perhaps one ought to compromise on a "minimum viable fork."
robocat 14y ago
Dustin's "best" philosophy: * depends upon a search for an expert designer * follows a "waterfall" process (large up front costs, infexible result) * trusts that the expert has made good decisions for you Moxie's is a hackers approach: * A/B testing * learn what matters as you go * customise * exploration and innovation Both strategies have different costs and benefits.
marmot1101 14y ago
One of my favorite song lyrics of all times: "I've been losing lots of keys lately, I don't know what that means But maybe I've been better off with things that can't be locked at all" I'm a happier person when I am using things that I don't worry about breaking or being stolen than I am taking care of nice things.
pelle 14y ago
As some one who's only "best purchases" have included portable items like a good chef knife, MacBook Airs, iPhones etc over the last 10 years I agree with this whole heartedly. I've been able to live and work in 8 different countries. Experience amazing things and work with fantastic people. It frees you from all kinds of things to not have that $5000 TV, $1000 monitor and $5000 sofa. It was big step (with a lot of fear) for me recently to buy a $180 24" monitor and a $800 Aeron chair as it implicitly makes my life less portable. I have noticed how these purchases have changed my thought patterns. Now before thinking about the future I'm actually thinking what to do with the Aeron. The funny think is that I'll hardly think twice about spending $800 on a flight.
binarymax 14y ago
I'm surprised nobody here has yet mentioned Fight Club... "The things you own, end up owning you"
- ontheotherhand 14y ago
  Or Erich Fromm, or Marc Aurel... etc., etc.... learn from the best or stfu, seriously. Both blogs should be shot.
raganwald 14y ago
I'm a hypocrite. Coffee, anyone? http://raganwald.posterous.com/coffee-anyone http://raganwald.posterous.com/coffee-anyone
- RBerenguel 14y ago
  Appreciating a thing of beauty is not a bad thing. I'd add something to moxie's post: when you have already tested the worst and are intimate with it, you can choose, or find "a best." Just like you got beautiful china.
- guyzero 14y ago
  I don't think you have to apply the same philosophy to absolutely everything in life. You can buy cheap cutlery and have nicely designed, expensive plates. As a matter of fact, a lot of people have two sets of dishes - a "best" and a "worst" because there's a time for each.
personlurking 14y ago
I see a difference between having the worst flatware but the best laptop (I've used Apple for over 20 years and I'm perfectly content with it). By buying a reliable brand that I have experience with, I save a bunch of time. All in all, I agree with the OP's article.
vavarachen 14y ago
Moxie, Check out "Paradox Of Choice" by Barry Schwartz. It deals with this very subject but defines the two groups as "maximizers" and "satisficers". Here is a good overview by the author at TED: 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... ISBN-13: 978-0060005696 V
geofft 14y ago
This reminds me strongly of the arguments between the "Worse is Better" and "Do The Right Thing" philosophies. Buying ridiculously cheap forks so you can treat them like they're disposable is a perfect example to me of someone living out "Worse is Better". http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
PilateDeGuerre 14y ago
Moxie, I read your "Money Machine"[1] in print and loved it. After becoming aware of your security work and browsing your website, I discovered you are the author. Small world. My partner and I often fall asleep together listening to "Letters of Insurgents". Thank you for that! [1] http://www.thoughtcrime.org/stories/money-machine/ http://www.thoughtcrime.org/stories/money-machine/
frozenport 14y ago
A large portion of the HN readership are DIRTY HIPSTERS whose support of well defined, but gimmicky ideas often leaves me at a loss for words. Much as the fork example from the article.
tptacek 14y ago
One guy likes a set of dinnerware. One guy doesn't care about dinnerware. Religious war ensues.
- thaumaturgy 14y ago
  ...and everyone focuses on the dinnerware when really they were just examples held up in each author's actual point. A completely absurd amount of time and words have now been spent discussing a message that apparently nobody actually comprehended.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Two households, both alike in strength of opinion over spoons.
    - thaumaturgy 14y ago
      You're in a mood. This thread finally break you?
      - tptacek 14y ago
        Where be these enemies? Spoonians! Antispoonians! See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.
        thaumaturgy 14y ago
        For some of us it is performance, for others, patronage. They are two sides of the same spoon, or, let us say, being as there are so many of us, the same side of two spoons.
venomsnake 14y ago
I would never give up my keyboard with cherry blues. But if I happen to be in a situation where my "best keyboard" is unavailable I will hack with whatever idiotic input device I manage to get. Same is with the ceramic knife, and everything else. I like the best, but I never allow myself the illusion that it is irreplaceable.
weisser 14y ago
I put on the song "Wing$" by Macklemore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA) right before I started reading "The Worst" completely by coincidence but the similarities in subject matter are striking: "We are what we wear, we wear what we are But see I look inside the mirror and think Phil Knight tricked us all Will I stand for change, or stay in my box These Nikes help me define me, but I'm trying to take mine, off"
anish_m 14y ago
Ah, what a fking wonderful nice philosophy. We should show the world that humans matter more than things.
LanceJones 14y ago
Can "the best" (or worst, for that matter) even exist without the element of subjectivity? In other words, is there a fixed set of quantifiable and objective measures for anything one purchases? Across how many attributes could you rate a set of kitchen utensils? I get "the fastest runner in the world" or the "top-ranked college basketball team in 2012" -- but the words "best" and "worst" rely on a person's [subjective] opinion.
CKKim 14y ago
Whenever these posts come up I question to myself whether an ideology for "stuff" is actually required, desirable, or helpful at all. They are usually thoroughly entertaining and informative, but I always leave feeling it's been therapy for the writer, a defense of their preferences whipped up into a reassuring formal-looking philosophy. Like much writing, the damage is in the contextual assumptions imposed on the reader before the article even begins. Once you've started reading and focusing on the details of the piece, it's too late - you've unwittingly accepted the assumptions and are playing by the author's rules. In these cases, one such assumption is that an overarching, complete and consistent methodology can be applied to personal property in the first place (and that certainly if there's a good one then it can be knocked out in a few hours on a blog post...). This is part of a larger pattern I'm falling into of scrutinously questioning the motives behind articles posted on personal blogs. I could be going in the wrong direction entirely but it seems very often to be validation-seeking behaviour, whether by submitting one's views for the approval of others, or simply that writing it all down gives it some mental gravitas to assuage personal doubts that the individual might be "doing it wrong". It certainly appears consistent with the range of submissions to Hacker News related to personal improvement (or, "lifehacking", as the internet seems to be running with these days). Why did these authors write these two pieces? It's very difficult to analyse! If "for validation" seems a little condescending...well, I'd prefer it to the standard interpretation: "The Best" is unsubtle status-signaling, "The Worst" is equally unsubtle counter-signaling.
desireco42 14y ago
I somehow missed this post of his, but you are spot on and rightfully disgusted with both his post and HN reaction to it. Stuff doesn't make you more free, it enslaves you. The stuff you have, more you need to care about it. Thoreau would be horrified :) ( Said he writing on macbook air, simbol of cult of stuff)
jayferd 14y ago
Forks and knives might not be the best examples here, but buying "the best" (as in the most likely to last the longest, has a generous warranty, and is relatively simple to repair) is often sound financial planning. It tends to be a more expensive outlay at the beginning, but it sure beats the disposable "planned-obsolescence" stuff we're usually suckered into buying.
nerdo 14y ago
There's a new subreddit for this "Best" thing: http://www.reddit.com/r/buyitforlife http://www.reddit.com/r/buyitforlife
owenjones 14y ago
Why is everyone telling me how I should live and what I should buy or not buy in order to maximize my happiness?
- homosaur 14y ago
  You're a consumer, fella, better get used to it.
ricardobeat 14y ago
> both ideas and material possessions should be tools that serve us, rather than things we live in service to I think dustin and moxie are talking about different things. For me, the philosophy behind "The best" is exactly that: you don't need to worry that your friends will step on your cutlery, because it's strong enough to not get damaged. You don't worry about replacing it because of rust or wear, etc etc (enough with cutlery). By going for "the worst" you end up with a lot of crap that you don't really use or care about. It's what almost everybody does. The opposite means buying only what you need; the best == expensive, so you'll buy less. The author also dismisses the environmental effect of this mentality; millions of people buying buckets of 50-cent crap every couple months equals a fuckload of plastic waste. This is preaching consumerism, and I'm surprised by how many people fall for it.
- lilsunnybee 14y ago
  Who is using plastic? Not spending obscene amounts of money on things does not mean buying disposable.
Wingman4l7 14y ago
And the winner for The Most Ambiguous Title of the Year Award is...
tlrobinson 14y ago
"But to me, “simplify” is about removing clutter" ... "Partisans of the worst will get 15 sets of cutlery (out of a bucket that’s an overflowing fucking sea of cutlery)" A massive bucket of cutlery sounds like clutter to me. I don't think Dustin was arguing you should spend so much money on cutlery that you worry about it getting damaged/stolen, but rather the act of thinking about what you're buying will prevent you from buying low quality and unnecessary things.
- guelo 14y ago
  I understood the bucket to have been located at a thrift store where he fished out the 15 sets that he bought.
blackman 14y ago
sounds like they are both optimising for value
- WettowelReactor 14y ago
  Yes if you re-frame the whole discussion as pay for value then the concept of best or worst is irrelevant. What additional value does expensive cutlery provide over the bargain bin equivalent? Surly durability and use are comparable so it comes down to a subjective valuation of aesthetics. At the same token springing for quality stainless steel cookware can provide a lifetime of service vs. the cheap stuff.
petercooper 14y ago
Any reasonable person wouldn’t feel liberated by a $50 fork, but constrained by it. One wouldn’t be able to help but worry: is it being cared for correctly, is my friend going to mess it up when absentmindedly tapping the table with it, is it going to get dropped or stepped on if a dance party erupts in the kitchen? After all, it is the perfect fork, what if something happened to it to make it not perfect? The flaw here is assuming getting "the best" also means it has to remain "perfect." I tend to err towards the higher quality and (usually) more expensive side in my long term purchases but have no qualms about treating them as I would anything else. My 2 week old retina MBP has a funky dent in it now, for example. It's still a great notebook! And so would a $50 dinner set remain an excellent dinner set, even if someone did chip or tarnish it.
dwb 14y ago
The right answer I'd bet, is, as it so often is, "yes and no." Both this and "The Best" are extreme points of view, and extremes never strike me as particularly realistic. There's a happy medium for pretty much everything. I've never found too much trouble in judging how much research and care I need to put into any given purchase. How often will I use it? How long do I want it to last for? Is it likely to break? How much will I care if it does break? There's a limit to this of course, I don't go to Curtis' lengths. Not enough hours in the day. I have put a reasonable amount of care into buying a good laptop, desk, piano, headphones etc though. These are important to me. The list isn't particularly long. For just any old thing (including, I would say, cutlery), I have a rule-of-thumb that's served me well: never buy the cheapest, always the second-cheapest. The cheapest of any particular thing so often has had an incredible number of corners cut, but the next one up is usually just fine.
yaix 14y ago
Some people just need expensive stuff to feel good, others don't. Whatever. Don't question the other's way of living and just be happy with your's.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Halfway through reading this I closed it with two conclusions: 1. Thank God I didn't read "The Best". 2. Why the hell am I reading this. I don't have the energy to have such a trite opinion, let alone read a thousand words about it from someone else. I hate these pithy comments but this stuff feels like "Hacker Drama", not "Hacker News".
- Narretz 14y ago
  Now you made me wonder why I read almost the whole omment thread, additionally to two posts that both didn't really make a lot of sense to me.
enraged_camel 14y ago
Look, I don't know why two extremities are battling it out like this when the reasonable and rational answer lies somewhere in the middle. I care deeply about an item if it relates to a hobby. As a geek, I research every part of a computer I am building thoroughly. I read reviews, compare specs and prices, run it by friends on tech message boards for opinions, etc. When the time comes to play Skyrim on uber settings on the machine I built, I get more enjoyment out of it, and feel satisfied in knowing that the components in it won't melt. Same mindset applies to my other hobbies. I always try to get the best and most reliable matches when I go cross-country backpacking, because if a storm comes and I need to light a fire, I want to make sure the matches won't fail me. Last month I bought a new set of tires for my commuter bike, and I did actually get the most tires because for the types of trips I make, it matters. In contrast, I don't give a crap about things that don't relate to hobbies. I moved to a new apartment recently and was in need of a new trash bin. I went to the nearest Walmart (conveniently located across the across the street) and purchased the cheapest one that had a lid. Had I done more research, I might have gone with a metal one that had a mechanism for securing the trash bag in place, but I don't care. Here's why: a trash can is not something I want to be proud of.
lubujackson 14y ago
The "best"'s problem is that there is no clear "best" of almost anything. (Especially that silverware.) I think the point, though, is that buying highly-rated things tends to pay off in ways you might not be aware of, such as avoiding silverware with toxic chemicals. So let's say to buy "better" stuff. The "worst"'s problem is he is only really concerned about the cost. Ultimately, I think this is a shift many people have as they get older and more settled - they want to buy a chair that lasts, silverware that is nice, etc. When you're 19 and moving every other year it doesn't really make sense.
jaggederest 14y ago
I like Ikea tables, dishes, and flatware because I can smash them into tiny bits and chuckle while I work, but they serve their purpose as well as any ten-times-as-expensive model of the same thing. I think there's a threshold effect relative to the longevity and expense of material goods. It's better to buy durable goods with quality, but it's silly to buy consumables with the same strictures because they inevitably will be consumed.
smoyer 14y ago
I'm not sure either of these positions (the best or the worst) is really important. But it's absolutely important to be satisfied with your life, including what you "have". Just for the record, my favorite piece of flatware is a titanium spork from ThinkGeek. And there's a lot more to owning "stuff" than anyone generally thinks about. So as I age, I'm actually finding that I want less stuff, but that the reliability of that stuff is important. The "opportunity cost" (paid for by time that you can't get back) can be high enough that it's hard to justify. So ... things that simply "cost too much". Number one is TV/cable/satellite. It sucks time away faster than you could ever imagine. I haven't completely given it up, but I watch far less than the national average (and usually it's more about spending time with my kids). What else do you have that isn't really worth it? (my boat probably qualifies but I can't give THAT up). I also see an issue with quality today. So much is designed to be thrown away, but I love to cobble pieces together enough to keep things working. Many devices in my house run on "Frankencords". An old computer power supply is a great source of +5V if you splice the barrel jack from a dead wall-wort to it. One of my favorite past-times is to fix things that other people have decided were junk ... just to say that I can. I guess this is a long-winded way of warning everyone that you really can't buy happiness ... you have to find it within yourself.
ThomPete 14y ago
I think this can best be illustrated with drinking wine. Some people have to have the perfect Amarone at precisely 21 degrees celsius in exactly those specific glasses in order to feel it's a good wine experience. Other people, while they appreciate the same as the first group of people, can still enjoy a powerful wine a little to cold in whatever glass and still feel it's a great experience. Quality of life really is about what you want it to be.
gbog 14y ago
Since I read "The Best" I wanted to write exactly this answer. Thanks. I'd have added a cultural point of view: This debate is likely typically American, and Americans may have a problem with their owning stuff. I'd bet it is a perverse fascination on physical things, maybe induced by some TV/Movie propaganda. For instance, I remember fairly well an American friend I had 5 years ago. We discussed one night long on "consumerism" and how bad it was. Then, the /next/ day, this nice clever guy bought an extremely expensive backpack filled with useless gadgets (an incorporated lighter, a water bag with a pipe so you can drink without taking a bottle out of the pocket, etc. etc.), showing it to me with tears in his eyes: it was so awesome a thing for a kiker like him! I couldn't help remembering the "other kind of" hickers I crossed in Nepal: those Nepalese, they /walk/ from Snow mountains to India back and forth looking for work, and their "backpack" is an empty tissue thing with 2 rupees and one toothbrush inside, and they wear plastic slippers, and they sleep outside every day. So what? So, "the Best" philosophy is both producing sometime very nice little pieces of perfection, like the iPod, and I understand why a professional designer would bend on this side. But I fear it is also pernicient and overall negative for normal people and the hole society, because it generates waste, frustration, greed, and so on... Disc: I live in China, where the Best/Worst dialectic exists, but is obviously drawn along very different lines.
rsanheim 14y ago
It's the classis "Worse is Better" debate, lived out via consumer objects instead of lisp and c. Paging Richard Garbriel to Hacker News... http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html
lennexz 14y ago
I believe one does whats best for them, if you want cheap stuff get them but also give the same opportunity to choose to those that want the best(finer) things in life. We all get what we want.
willholloway 14y ago
To me the worst set of cutlery is not from the thrift store but a set made of lead.
mseebach 14y ago
It seems that Dustin Curtis and Moxie Marlinspike between them has re-invented "trading up": 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-...
- 1_player 14y ago
  Thank you, that is a really interesting article, and appropriate for this period of my life.
RenierZA 14y ago
Here is the discussion for The Best: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755470 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755470
joss82 14y ago
Reminds me of Fight Club's Palaniuk "sofa citation": You buy furniture. You tell yourself, this is the last sofa I will ever need in my life. Buy the sofa, then for a couple years you're satisfied that no matter what goes wrong, at least you've got your sofa issue handled. Then the right set of dishes. Then the perfect bed. The drapes. The rug. Then you're trapped in your lovely nest, and the things you used to own, now they own you. ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 5
tripzilch 14y ago
They may disagree, but they're trying to convey the same message. And both of them are IMO way too extreme about it. What both Curtis and Moxie seem to want is to not have to think or worry about their possessions after they bought them. You can do this by buying "the best" so you won't have to worry about breaking[1], or you can do this by buying the (cheap) "worst", so you won't have to worry about breaking. If you get "the best", you'll have the added benefit of them being extremely pleasant to use, but a second hand fork eats just fine, too. And IMO, they're both "consumerism", though someone may correct me if the following is not exactly consumerism, but something else: > Partisans of the worst will get 15 sets of cutlery (out of a bucket that’s an overflowing fucking sea of cutlery) for fifty cents at the neighborhood thrift shop, and as a result, won’t have the slightest reservation if five of their housemates simultaneously decide to start a band that uses nothing but spoons for instruments. Partisans of the worst won’t give a shit if someone drops a dish while people are hanging out in the kitchen. They can push their crappy bicycle to the limit without worrying if it gets scratched — without even being too concerned about it getting stolen. Ugh. This is absolute bullshit. I used to feel this way, up to my first few years of college, but then I grew up. If how much you paid for an object is the biggest factor in how much you care whether it breaks or not, isn't that consumerism too? At the very least it's disrespectful. At least Curtis cares about the things he owns. See it's fine if you buy cheap dishes because you like to throw the type of parties where things sometimes break. In fact it'd be stupid to get expensive AND fragile dishes. But that's a whole different POV than when you buy dishes because you can just break them, Moxie makes it sound like he already stopped caring about such items the moment he bought them. (also, it's nice to own some plates that share the same design. You can't really cook up a beautiful meal and then serve it up on heterogeneous plates--but that's a matter of taste) You can also get plastic camping dishes. They may be ugly but they will not break. Same for cups. You'll have ugly plastic things in your cupboard drawers FOREVER! And the few people I know that will say to get the most shitty bike possible so they won't care if it gets stolen, I usually want to slap in the face when I ask them where they would acquire such a bike. Invariably on the street, for 10 euros, from a junkie. Not saying the author would do that, but a real second hand bike costs at least 10x that much, which is more than I would not care about getting stolen. He does address this later in the essay, but I think he still misses the point: > Some amongst the best will resort to a resources perspective and say that in this increasingly disposable world, it’s refreshingly responsible for those of the best to be making quality long-term buying decisions. But we’re a long way away from a shortage of second-hand forks in the global north — let’s take care of those first. Because that still sounds to me like he treats cheap second-hand forks as disposable. And makes a mockery of the "Green" in the title of that section, we're also a long way from a shortage of plastic shopping backs. Now most forks don't break easily. They just become increasingly shitty. Especially the half metal / half plastic ones that will come apart a bit but are still perfectly serviceable as a fork. Those ones are the absolute worst. I bet even most thrift stores throw them away. Sorry if this post might just seem overly critical at Moxie, I have similar (yet opposite) problems with Curtis' post. [1] as far as I can judge from the pics, nothing short of a disc grinder would damage those expensive spoons.
RyanMcGreal 14y ago
This piece works well as a study in the absurdity of Dustin Curtis's thesis. That said, I can't help but observe myself leaning to The Best in some areas and The Worst in others. For example, our cutlery drawer is full of decent, generic Ikea cutlery - except for a few random pieces that we have accumulated over the years, including an oddball fork and a couple of oddball spoons. I find myself actively avoiding using those oddball pieces because I don't like how they feel in my hand or my mouth. To that extent, I can appreciate just how much hedonic benefit comes from using cutlery that feels "right". On the other hand, my bicycle is well over 20 years old and looks like a piece of garbage. In fact, it was actually retrieved from the garbage several years ago by a friend, who passed it on to me when he heard that my bike had just died. It's heavy and ugly, but these are features, not bugs: the heaviness means I get a better workout riding it, and the ugliness means it's less likely to be stolen when I park it downtown. In short, both approaches to choosing consumer durables have their uses, and it's silly to elevate either to the level of a philosophy of living. ---- See also: http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

770 points by ldayley 14y ago

As my friend Phelan put it: "The Best" and "The Worst" are both fascinating reads, although, in my opinion the authors completely missed the point. Here is my three-sentence rebuttal. The point is not to place one’s possessions upon pedestals, only to bring them down for special occasions. In the same respect, appreciating something is not synonymous with being owned by it. The point is to respect one's possessions, because they are the tools that enrich your life.

charlieok 14y ago

As different as these two attitudes are, I'll stick up for Dustin Curtis by pointing out one thing he expressed in his post: the pleasure of owning a small number of things. If I keep a small number of possessions, and their total value is a small fraction of the money I have in savings, I don't need to be too concerned about preserving them. I can easily replace anything that is damaged, lost or stolen, so these occurrences don't have to be a huge source of stress. I like the idea of being able to go through everything I have and organize, clean and maintain all of it, say, once a week. If that's too much of a burden, that's a sign that I have too many things. Thinking in these terms also makes it very easy to give away things to lighten this load. This thinking is partly informed by my experience maintaining software. Running and writing software means constantly keeping it up to date. New standards and new versions of dependencies are constantly being published, and security flaws are constantly being found, as Moxie Marlinspike certainly knows. Code needs to be updated to keep up with these things in order to be considered well-maintained or secure. Minimizing that burden gives you a better chance of keeping the quality high.

stephengillie 14y ago

Each of my forks cost 25c. Each of my knives and spoons too. They work great. Buy the cheapest. Use it and learn your use case. If you ever need another, you'll know which quality of tool is the right one.

cjensen 14y ago

The author of this linked article has made an error: he assumes dcurtis' flatware is inordinately expensive. It is not; traditional flatware really is absurdly expensive. Much of the author's article is based on this assumption. I'd suggest he familiarize himself with "wedding gift"-style flatware. Then do a rewrite because I think there is a good argument still to be had.

Breefield 14y ago
I thought the author was suggesting that maybe flatware isn't worth that much. There being a bunch of expensive flatware in existence is just a straw man's rebuttal to the point that affordable flatware works just fine.
- njr123 14y ago
  I think cutlery is probably the worst possible example to illustrate the argument. The cheapest cutlery you can buy is still works 90% as well as the best, and they last approximately forever. I've never in my life been eating something and noticed the quality of the cutlery. I think a better example would be dress shoes. The cheap versions are uncomfortable and wear out all the time, where as a good pair of leather shoes should last so much longer they probably end up being cheaper in the long run.
  - npsimons 14y ago
    Precisely. I know it's fiction, but Terry Pratchett sums it up nicely in "Men at Arms": But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.
    - jonnycoder 14y ago
      That might not be too far off. I actually already posted a comment regarding boots, but I know people with $400 boots that last 6+ years under hardcore/milaage whereas the $100 cheap boots give out once a year...and I'm not talking about worn out soles.

Breefield 14y ago

This reminded me of my father. Expensive things only complicated his interactions with other people, because of our ability to potentially break or abuse the object. There is a sweet spot in-between the highest quality, and poor craftsmanship. As well as between expensive and cheap. I like to operate somewhere in the middle.

wazoox 14y ago
So you are an Aristotelian of sorts.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

zafka 14y ago

While I do like the look of the perfect spoons, I am an advocate of owning the worst. Actually I make my own bowls and plates, so while they are "perfect", it is okay to smash them, as I can always make another. When folks come over for a meal, they can pick the color and shape of their plates and bowls. And yes, my "silver" does come from the second hand store. Eventually I would like to cast my own utensils too....ah, too many hobbies, not enough time.

imgabe 14y ago

Thank you. That article about "The Best" bothered me in a way I couldn't completely verbalize. Beyond a certain threshold, the quality of objects just simply doesn't matter. The example of flatware was particularly annoying, because, really, in what way does a fork ever actually "fail"? Have you ever had food halfway to your mouth when the fork just suddenly collapses or something? As a tool, flatware is completely superfluous. Just ask the billion some odd people who eat with their hands. Anyway, maybe some people enjoy the process of endlessly researching and hunting around for "the best" of something. If you do, more power to you. Personally, I think when you look back at the end of your life you're going to remember the meals you ate and the people you ate them with more than the utensils you used.

bunderbunder 14y ago
> Have you ever had food halfway to your mouth when the fork just suddenly collapses or something? -- shaking fist -- One of these days, Uri Geller, you'll get yours!
daniel-cussen 14y ago
So, I had a small spoon get scratched pretty badly by the dishwasher grinder the other day. On the back, still pretty useful, except for one detail: being scratched, it could hold much more bacteria for much longer. And though it could have been stainless steel, it wasn't underneath. Furthermore, silver silverware, which is expensive, is very clean because it kills germs so well.
- imgabe 14y ago
  Silver silverware on the other hand, has to be polished by hand. This is not only time consuming but exposes you to harsh chemicals which probably negate any health benefit you get from not being exposed to (mostly harmless) bacteria. Anything you put in the dishwasher is going to come out more or less sterile anyway.
  - Domenic_S 14y ago
    > exposes you to harsh chemicals Why not go the old-school way and use baking soda and lemon juice/vinegar? Organic! > Anything you put in the dishwasher is going to come out more or less sterile anyway. Dishwashers don't get nearly hot enough to properly sterilize, and they definitely won't sterilize the parts that most need sterilization -- deeply nicked flatware, for example.

ryanwhitney 14y ago

After years of having cheap, shitty can openers that made it a pain to do the task, I spent 20 minutes looking it up and bought the best that I could find on Amazon. While I may never figure out how to service it if something happens to it (the thought!), it has worked pretty well so far. Cans are opened with little to no effort. It stays out of the way, it does exactly the task it was designed for, and it does it well.

ssharp 14y ago
I think you're just hitting on a case where cheaper stuff is substantially less useful than more expensive stuff. One of the issues with "The Best" was how poor of an example flatware is at doing that. Also, cost and utility are a sliding scale. There isn't "the best" and "the worst" and nothing in between. In fact, it's usually the stuff in the middle that makes the best trade offs between cost and functionality.
- Sumaso 14y ago
  I thought the point of the article was that regardless of the cost of the item, you should try and get the best object you could possibly get. I find it amusing that the article actually attacked the cost of the object not the utility. There seemed to be some sort of fear of the money lost if that object failed them. Moxie seems to think that if he spent 50 dollars on a single set of utensils he would be seemingly enslaved by them. The original post was not about being enslaved by your possessions it was about not having to worry about them fulfilling their function. I could buy a cheap set of stainless steel utensils and watch them tarnish as well as leaving a metallic taste in my mouth (hypothetical utensils). Sure they may have saved me money, but was it worth it? I can buy the worst car, be late to my meeting and lose my job. I can buy the worst computer and not only be frustrated by my computing experience but also question how long it will be until I need to replace it. You never ever want to buy the worst, you /may/ not always want to buy the best
  - ssharp 14y ago
    Thee "best" and "worst" are subjective. You need to define criteria for what makes something the best. In Dustin's case maybe it was the total blend of style and function. But for many people, that isn't what makes it the best. The best may be the one that has intricate designs and costs a huge amount of money to manufacture. The rarity, design, and expense makes it the best.

cllns 14y ago

I hope Moxie starts posting more frequently, especially if they're these these HN-popular posts, though I'd be interested in his security stuff too.

awakeasleep 14y ago

The dichotomy between Moxie and Dustin's posts illustrates an interesting split in the 'hacker' world. Wheras Hacker and Startup seemed to represent the use of unconventional tools to achieve a unexpected results (often) in unpleasant or tedious circumstances, those connotations have become mixed with the sense glamor usually reserved for celebrities. Now, the ostensibly boring (or at least detail-ridden, interesting only to those directly involved) practice of starting a business has taken a sort of crazy sheen, with list stories [1] written by starry eyed marketers praising the romance of the fast paced, powerful, and interesting startup industry shaping the public's view. And Hackers, once conceptualized as loners fiddling with inscrutable technicalities, are now expected to attain material success and internet celebrity. After all, if you're a real hacker you should be pulling in at least $150k. (Though you'll have to spend some of that on a load balancer to handle your blog traffic.) Dustin and Moxie seem to represent the two sides of this spectrum. Dustin, maybe hot off the aquihire of a desirable web property, looking for how to best direct his affluence. Moxie, pondering the important parts of the system he operates in, chooses to forgo what he considers symbolic representations of success with undeserved merit. It's as easy to imagine the dreadlocked Marlinspike talking to stallman (who is eating from his foot) as it is to imagine Curtis speaking to a crowd of socialites in a bell-aire hotel lobby. At least for me. A weird example I ran across, it struck me for its resemblance to a Cosmo article. [1] http://tech.co/the-top-10-tech-cocktail-stories-of-the-week-6-2012-11 http://tech.co/the-top-10-tech-cocktail-stories-of-the-week-...

diminish 14y ago
In those 2 articles, I see more a contradiction between design and function. In recent years, design for web sites, and mobile apps has been a major focus for startups and consumers. Simple functional products are seen with more skepticism from investors; that is the journey from Google to Pinterest or from Dell to Apple.
- debacle 14y ago
  Not unexpected - as the technical cost for implementations of most ideas approaches the market minimum, it's only logical that the sell, the approach, and the design are the key factors in determining success.

mcnkldzyn 14y ago

Glad I had a chance to read this today.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

debacle 14y ago

I, like many others, see a lot of self-serving "founder" spam on HN and at this point it's not worth commenting on. Except for a few grossly abhorrent pock marks, it's easier to let the posts have their time on HN - if not, something else will fill the void.

rthomas6 14y ago

Could it be possible that there is a spectrum of choices which represent a trade-off between cost and quality? What if both authors took an already understood and practiced idea in our culture and took it to an absurd extreme? Every person will desire different quality for different items. Even Dustin Curtis doesn't get "the best" of all of his items. He says that he does, but if you keep reading, what he really means is getting "the best for him." That's what everyone does. People just pay for as high of a quality as is justified to them by the price. Assuming perfect knowledge, that's theoretically what all consumers do. Different people desire different quality for different items, and have different amounts of money. I love listening to music at work, so I did a lot of research and got a nice pair of $150 headphones with a $30 headphone amp. They're wonderful. Well, well worth the purchase price to me. Could I have paid $1500 dollars and gotten a higher quality set of headphones? Sure. But who the fuck would spend $1500 on headphones? It just wasn't justifiable to me. Some people will buy the $1500 headphones. Some people will buy the $15 headphones. None of these people are following some abstract philosophy. They're just regular consumers in a capitalist society, buying what makes the most sense for them.

chetan51 14y ago
This. Both articles seemed extreme to me, and then again, only the extreme will really make it to the front page. If you rewrote this comment in a blog post and titled it "The Middle-Point", it wouldn't make front page, because it's just plain obvious. Buy what fits at the right point in the spectrum for you, and move on with your life.
mistermann 14y ago
> I love listening to music at work, so I did a lot of research and got a nice pair of $150 headphones with a $30 headphone amp. I was looking into this very same thing yesterday, I'd be very interested in knowing what you decided on for the headphones and amp, or even particularly useful websites for research. (And does an amp make a big difference in your opinion?) I was looking at a bit of a lower price point, around ~$80 or so in case you happened to accidentally soak up some information about that price point while you were at it, but I'm not really financially constrained at all so if you truly do get noticeably better performance a bit higher up I wouldn't mind spending the money. (Aesthetics are also rather important to me, for no particularly good reason since I'd never leave the house with them.)

klawed 14y ago

And then somewhere in between are the partisans of "good enough" When I'm eating food I like to get as close to "The best" as I can reasonably afford (I'll spend $50 on a steak but I won't fly to Japan just to get some fresh Kobe). On most other things, "Good Engough" is a good enough. And when I buy a car, I ask myself if I'll care if the bumper get's scratched - if the answer's yes, I look for a different car.

npsimons 14y ago
Sometimes, it's worth it to splurge. If nothing else, think of it as investing in an experience rather than a thing, and treat yourself to a tasting menu with wine pairings at least once in your life. Take your time, smell, taste and feel every bite and every sip, and savor the moments. If you have a significant other, definitely take them. I say try at least once, because in my experience my first one was the best (Chez TJ in Mountain View, CA). It's also bloody expensive (I usually don't do it more than once a year, and none of the other ones have been as expensive as Chez TJ). But sometimes just trying the expensive stuff (even if it's a test drive, a rental, or an experience) is worth it just to let you know what it's like, and if it's worth it to you. Or to let you know if it's just overpriced.
jonnycoder 14y ago
I think of the "middle" as a place where I put in enough energy to learn and do my research, but settle with what fits my needs both economically and ergonomically. For example, the "best" burger is the one I've learned to make on my own because it contains my favorite type of bun, meat I've ground up myself, etc. Other times I enjoy the quick fix at Carl's Jr because I'm in no mood to cook. I've also learned that I prefer the "best" when it comes to hiking/hunting boots. The ok ones at $100 work well for a while because of their high economic value, but great ones are $300-$430 for a reason, such as having a higher heel, very aggressive tread, having lasting leather that dominates cheap boots, and being a perfect custom fit (Schnees Granite or Whites Smokejumper for example).

npsimons 14y ago

First and foremost, I'd like to point out that the "The Best" article seemed to be roundly attacked here on HN, with critics and defenders alike chiming in; that might be a better indicator of why it stayed on the front page for so long. Second, I'd like to point out that this article seems to be completely missing some of the points made, namely, when you invest in good tools you can rely on, you stop thinking about them because they just work, and you are therefore liberated to worry about more important things. Sure, you shouldn't let the things you own end up owning you, but if you have ever had something you rely on fail (and if you are working in technology, you have), you can appreciate doing research to make sure it doesn't happen again. Is this a waste of time? No. Is it stupid? No. Can it be taken too far? Yes. But it can also be taken too far in the other direction. The unexamined life isn't worth living. BTW, partisans of the worst wouldn't get metal cutlery, they'd buy plastic and throw it out when they were done, thereby creating waste and showing how actually thinking about what you buy and whether it will last or not is a good idea.

trotsky 14y ago

preach on brother marlinspike!

nyargh 14y ago

I loved this. I admit I did not read Dustin's article, but it sounds like it could have been any one of thousands of fawning techno-fetishist blog posts made over the years. I think an interesting thing that Moxie touches on tangentially, is that life does not go as planned; things break. Everything breaks, in fact. Learning to recover from failure is often more important (and personally rewarding) than learning to use the tool in the first place. You may choose to get better tools, but given time and use, these too will eventually fail. Operating with the understanding that everything fails, allows us to be more flexible and pragmatic in our decisions and planning. Assuming that something will never fail only ensures that a disaster will eventually happen, and that you will be unequipped to handle it.

marmot1101 14y ago
Dustin's article was worth a read. It was as enlightening to his perspective as this article was to it's author. Everything fails, but poorly made things fail in less predictable manners. Really this is a false dichotomy. Anyone who always buys the best everything or the worst everything is missing a whole lot of nuance.

m0nastic 14y ago

If forced to decide between Dustin's reality and Moxie's, I think I'd chose Dustin's. A world made up of overly-reviewed, pretentious gadgets slightly edges out a utilitarian, post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown where people scavenge through wreckage looking for makeshift utensils and clothing. I picture oil drum fires. Thankfully, I am not limited by those choices. I can continue to do what I already do, which is decide the level of attention that things require of me, optimize the ones I choose to, and not spend inordinate amounts of time fretting about the others.

jacoblyles 14y ago
That second scenario sounds great to me. Reminds me of Burning Man. You'd be surprised what tools you can cut out of a gallon jug.
- danielweber 14y ago
  http://shialabeowulf.tumblr.com/post/33670447154/99-life-hacks-to-make-your-life-easier http://shialabeowulf.tumblr.com/post/33670447154/99-life-hac...
tptacek 14y ago
When you say "utilitarian, post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown where people scavenge through wreckage looking for makeshift utensils and clothing", you mean Wal Mart, right?
- m0nastic 14y ago
  Don't be ridiculous, the post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown will still provide health benefits for it's employees; they're not monsters.
lilsunnybee 14y ago
Who is scavenging through wreckage? Moxie mentioned buying used at a thrift store, which many many people do out of necessity anyways. And believe it or not, oil drum fires are a pretty infrequent occurrence.

MattRogish 14y ago

"Any reasonable person wouldn’t feel liberated by a $50 fork, but constrained by it. One wouldn’t be able to help but worry: is it being cared for correctly, is my friend going to mess it up when absentmindedly tapping the table with it, is it going to get dropped or stepped on if a dance party erupts in the kitchen? After all, it is the perfect fork, what if something happened to it to make it… not perfect?" This is why, whenever I get something new and "perfect", I damage it in some slight way (nothing that hurts the functionality or will ultimately destroy the product). Every car I've owned gets a nick in the paint to remind me that it's just a "thing" and not to take it too seriously.

apike 14y ago
Indeed. I don't intentionally damage new things, but people are often surprised that I don't agonize over keeping my phone, car, or laptop looking brand new. The idea of a scratched Honda sort bothers people, but idea of a scratched Audi makes people crazy. Why waste your energy worrying about this? A Audi with some scratches is a very nice car, and an iPhone with some scratches is a very nice phone.
- Domenic_S 14y ago
  > [the] idea of a scratched Audi makes people crazy. Why waste your energy worrying about this? Because other people worry about it when buying a used Audi. And the obscene cost to repair auto paint. A carelessly placed shopping cart or thoughtless lean against the car in riveted jeans can cause thousands of dollars of damage.
  - apike 14y ago
    I fon't think resale value is why most worry about it, but ptobably some. If scratches decrease resale value so much, it seems those in the market for a luxury car should seek out a scratched one.
    - Domenic_S 14y ago
      There's the rub -- dent/paint repair costs dealerships next to nothing. They often have a guy on staff to do it. So dealerships won't sell scratched/dinged luxury cars, they'll repair them for pennies and mark them up.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

eshvk 14y ago

> Dustin Curtis also suggests that as a partisan of the best, he is taking on the hardship of truly understanding a domain in order to identify the best consumer good within that domain. Really? I am sure Dustin can speak for himself but I would have thought it obvious that is impossible to objectively assert that something is the best and that when you say that something is "the best", you are implicitly solving a matching problem given your constraints. In general, I am not convinced by your case as to why getting something that you personally think is the best is so bad. Sure, there might be some people who would worry about the best getting damaged or whatever. Then again, I would argue that your matching algorithm should choose something that doesn't get damaged so easily. E.g. One of the best investments I made was in getting a pair of Shure in-ear headphones. They weren't the most expensive I could have got but they were five times as expensive as the skull candy crap that I get. Guess what though? They have lasted me 5 times as long. Sure, there has been some change in the way I handle earphones but still there are many days where I close my laptop and remove my earphones and leave the entire setup on my bed and go to sleep. Having said this, I get the idea that the cognitive load created by having to make decisions about what to buy can be annoying at times. I have been putting off the decision of buying a bike because there is so much research to do.

marknutter 14y ago

I recently got into road biking and had to a road bike which can get quite expensive. I wasn't sure I would really stick with the sport in the long term so I bought a bike on the cheap end off bikesdirect.com. I have no doubt were a seasoned road biker to try my bike they would be frustrated by the overall quality of the ride. Because I'm a newbie, however, I have never ridden anything of better quality to compare it to, so it feels awesome to me. The point is, sometimes it's easy to forget that the worst products in a given category are still high quality, and that the premiums you pay for more expensive products give you diminishing returns. You end up having to trick your brain into believing the more expensive product is giving you increased value proportionate to the extra cost.

zacharyvoase 14y ago

It's really quite something when an author manages to put down in words a thought or a feeling you were hitherto incapable of expressing. Bravo. The dichotomy of best/worst — or, as I often think of it, acceptable versus available — is a tricky one, and it's not one which I feel I've yet solved. But I can certainly see how areas of my life tend towards the latter. Take my dotfiles, for example. I spent ages writing a vimrc which sets up key bindings just so, the way I like them. Then one day I have to SSH onto a remote server and make a hotfix, and I start vimming files and get instantly confused when my muscle memory betrays me. I tried out Dvorak for a while, but then every time I had to help someone with their computer, or go to a client site, I was struggling to adjust to the 'normal' QWERTY layout. Eventually I realized it was better to learn the vim defaults like a pro, and then extend them without overriding them. We can get very comfortable in environments we create for ourselves, expending huge quantities of energy to build a nest suited just for us. But Stoicism teaches us that fate is a lot more powerful than our nesting activities. One day a flood comes tearing through your house, or your hard drive fails, or you miss a credit card payment, and if you've wired your brain to only be happy in the environment you created, you are going to have a breakdown. In my childhood alone, I was evicted twice, moved countries several times, and had times when we were very well-off and times when we couldn't afford food. These things happen to all of us. Nevertheless, in the Poisson distribution of cataclysms, before disruptive events, the Best approach may render you far more productive than the Worst. I consider this penalty to be my insurance policy; others have a different risk tolerance. Just my $0.02.

Schwolop 14y ago
Your point about key bindings is very prescient. At my work, our book club is (re)reading The Pragmatic Programmer. There's a section which advocates picking one text editor, mastering its arcane secrets, customizing it until it's perfect, and never using anything else. All my colleagues happily agreed with this, and I couldn't quite express why I didn't. Then I did a bit of pair programming with a few different people. In every case there was a significant learning curve just to follow what the driver was doing in their comfortable editing environment, and in the most customized cases, it was nigh impossible for me to drive at all. So we relocated to my desk instead. I have a standard qwerty keyboard with vim, emacs, and textmate - all completely un-customized and ready to go. I couldn't care less which editor we use as I've learnt the bare minimum to be proficient in all of them. And importantly, so have my colleagues. Sure they grumble at not having their own autocompleting magic, but we can get our work done at a good enough rate, and either of us can drive. (My previous work took this one (enterprise management style) step further and forced everyone to use the exact same model laptop, operating system, and editor. As a youngster I hated this required conformity. As a cynical old bastard I can see the logic...) I definitely sit in the middle of the two camps. Not 'The Best', not 'The Worst'; just 'The Satisficing'. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing

fudged71 14y ago

I just bought a car for $1. The previous owner was frustrated by all the things that it wasn't great at. For a first car, I love the character of it, and learning how to fix, maintain, and control this beast. Like the article says, it gives me more experience and knowledge in this space, rather than reading textbook and articles about it. In contrast, I love using LaTeX, even though it's a pain in the ass, because I know it's probably the best quality typesetting out there, and that people have spent decades perfecting it.

crazygringo 14y ago

I think the authors of "The Best" and "The Worst" are both right. In fact, pretty much everything I own is either "the best" or "the worst" -- no middle ground. I identify the very few things that really make a difference to me (my laptop, my stereo, my kitchen pots & pans & knives, my jeans) and buy the absolute best I can afford. And I identify the things I don't really care about (the rug, the chairs, most kitchen utensils, my T-shirts, my toilet brush, my bike) and buy the absolute cheapest -- disposable, really. So the real point is -- avoid the middle ground, which is muddled/confused life priorities. Do your best to figure out what actually matters and what actually doesn't, and spend accordingly.

tptacek 14y ago
This is an argument against satisficing, since seeking the worst is a form of optimization. I don't want $50 spoons and I don't happen to want the worst spoons.
- zerovox 14y ago
  It depends on the function of the spoons. If it's to stir your tea for a few seconds, there's no need to spend money there, you're better off buying the cheapest spoons that perform that function (i.e they don't have holes in or are made of francium). If it's for hosting dinner parties, then clearly you want something more decorative and should spend an appropriate amount of money on them.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
xianshou 14y ago
Well, well, Mr. Galt: "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." Much as absolutism makes for simple priorities, applying these general principles out of any context is going to make you wrong no matter what you choose. As in game theory, where mixed strategies often defeat any individual strategy, the best, the worst, and the middle all encounter their uses in different spheres. Personal possessions? I'm fine with the best or the worst, but not always. For instance, I could buy one of the world's most powerful supercomputers if I were rich enough, but I'm fine with my MacBook Air. Also, try political or religious thought. I typically prefer a moderate liberal or conservative to a fire-spitting Tea Partier or an ardent communist. I also prefer secular humanism to, say, fundamentalist Bible-bashing or virulent atheism. I propose a different criterion: the right philosophy for the right context.

konstruktor 14y ago

Most things that you can buy used are already so much better than the worst product you can buy new, but at a similar price. If you make the effort to bring something to the thrift store, donate it or put it on ebay, it shows that you believe it to be too good to throw away. This is usually stuff that has already seen some use (e.g. clothing that has been washed a few times) and is still OK, as opposed to shitty stuff you buy that breaks soon.

engtech 14y ago

Why do I get the feeling that dcurtis' friends are going to endlessly chide him whenever they go out for dinner? I wish one of my friends would write an anecdotal story like that.

NarTh 14y ago

These are the ways you guys choose to buy your stuff. Cool. Still, I dislike ideas that you should 'always' do something, always buy best, always buy worst. I'll take time, care (and my limited funds ;) ) to research and buy what's best if I think research will be fun. Or interesting. Or useful in the future. Or the item is somehow important to me (and the spoon sure as hell is not). Otherwise - first thing that seems to be good enough should do just fine.

baconhigh 14y ago

THIS. SO MUCH THIS. fuck yes.

adambard 14y ago

Perhaps one ought to compromise on a "minimum viable fork."

robocat 14y ago

Dustin's "best" philosophy: * depends upon a search for an expert designer * follows a "waterfall" process (large up front costs, infexible result) * trusts that the expert has made good decisions for you Moxie's is a hackers approach: * A/B testing * learn what matters as you go * customise * exploration and innovation Both strategies have different costs and benefits.

marmot1101 14y ago

One of my favorite song lyrics of all times: "I've been losing lots of keys lately, I don't know what that means But maybe I've been better off with things that can't be locked at all" I'm a happier person when I am using things that I don't worry about breaking or being stolen than I am taking care of nice things.

pelle 14y ago

As some one who's only "best purchases" have included portable items like a good chef knife, MacBook Airs, iPhones etc over the last 10 years I agree with this whole heartedly. I've been able to live and work in 8 different countries. Experience amazing things and work with fantastic people. It frees you from all kinds of things to not have that $5000 TV, $1000 monitor and $5000 sofa. It was big step (with a lot of fear) for me recently to buy a $180 24" monitor and a $800 Aeron chair as it implicitly makes my life less portable. I have noticed how these purchases have changed my thought patterns. Now before thinking about the future I'm actually thinking what to do with the Aeron. The funny think is that I'll hardly think twice about spending $800 on a flight.

binarymax 14y ago

I'm surprised nobody here has yet mentioned Fight Club... "The things you own, end up owning you"

ontheotherhand 14y ago
Or Erich Fromm, or Marc Aurel... etc., etc.... learn from the best or stfu, seriously. Both blogs should be shot.

raganwald 14y ago

I'm a hypocrite. Coffee, anyone? http://raganwald.posterous.com/coffee-anyone http://raganwald.posterous.com/coffee-anyone

RBerenguel 14y ago
Appreciating a thing of beauty is not a bad thing. I'd add something to moxie's post: when you have already tested the worst and are intimate with it, you can choose, or find "a best." Just like you got beautiful china.
guyzero 14y ago
I don't think you have to apply the same philosophy to absolutely everything in life. You can buy cheap cutlery and have nicely designed, expensive plates. As a matter of fact, a lot of people have two sets of dishes - a "best" and a "worst" because there's a time for each.

personlurking 14y ago

I see a difference between having the worst flatware but the best laptop (I've used Apple for over 20 years and I'm perfectly content with it). By buying a reliable brand that I have experience with, I save a bunch of time. All in all, I agree with the OP's article.

vavarachen 14y ago

Moxie, Check out "Paradox Of Choice" by Barry Schwartz. It deals with this very subject but defines the two groups as "maximizers" and "satisficers". Here is a good overview by the author at TED: 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... ISBN-13: 978-0060005696 V

geofft 14y ago

This reminds me strongly of the arguments between the "Worse is Better" and "Do The Right Thing" philosophies. Buying ridiculously cheap forks so you can treat them like they're disposable is a perfect example to me of someone living out "Worse is Better". http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

PilateDeGuerre 14y ago

Moxie, I read your "Money Machine"[1] in print and loved it. After becoming aware of your security work and browsing your website, I discovered you are the author. Small world. My partner and I often fall asleep together listening to "Letters of Insurgents". Thank you for that! [1] http://www.thoughtcrime.org/stories/money-machine/ http://www.thoughtcrime.org/stories/money-machine/

frozenport 14y ago

A large portion of the HN readership are DIRTY HIPSTERS whose support of well defined, but gimmicky ideas often leaves me at a loss for words. Much as the fork example from the article.

tptacek 14y ago

One guy likes a set of dinnerware. One guy doesn't care about dinnerware. Religious war ensues.

thaumaturgy 14y ago
...and everyone focuses on the dinnerware when really they were just examples held up in each author's actual point. A completely absurd amount of time and words have now been spent discussing a message that apparently nobody actually comprehended.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Two households, both alike in strength of opinion over spoons.
  - thaumaturgy 14y ago
    You're in a mood. This thread finally break you?
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Where be these enemies? Spoonians! Antispoonians! See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.
      - thaumaturgy 14y ago
        For some of us it is performance, for others, patronage. They are two sides of the same spoon, or, let us say, being as there are so many of us, the same side of two spoons.

venomsnake 14y ago

I would never give up my keyboard with cherry blues. But if I happen to be in a situation where my "best keyboard" is unavailable I will hack with whatever idiotic input device I manage to get. Same is with the ceramic knife, and everything else. I like the best, but I never allow myself the illusion that it is irreplaceable.

weisser 14y ago

I put on the song "Wing$" by Macklemore (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA) right before I started reading "The Worst" completely by coincidence but the similarities in subject matter are striking: "We are what we wear, we wear what we are But see I look inside the mirror and think Phil Knight tricked us all Will I stand for change, or stay in my box These Nikes help me define me, but I'm trying to take mine, off"

anish_m 14y ago

Ah, what a fking wonderful nice philosophy. We should show the world that humans matter more than things.

LanceJones 14y ago

Can "the best" (or worst, for that matter) even exist without the element of subjectivity? In other words, is there a fixed set of quantifiable and objective measures for anything one purchases? Across how many attributes could you rate a set of kitchen utensils? I get "the fastest runner in the world" or the "top-ranked college basketball team in 2012" -- but the words "best" and "worst" rely on a person's [subjective] opinion.

CKKim 14y ago

Whenever these posts come up I question to myself whether an ideology for "stuff" is actually required, desirable, or helpful at all. They are usually thoroughly entertaining and informative, but I always leave feeling it's been therapy for the writer, a defense of their preferences whipped up into a reassuring formal-looking philosophy. Like much writing, the damage is in the contextual assumptions imposed on the reader before the article even begins. Once you've started reading and focusing on the details of the piece, it's too late - you've unwittingly accepted the assumptions and are playing by the author's rules. In these cases, one such assumption is that an overarching, complete and consistent methodology can be applied to personal property in the first place (and that certainly if there's a good one then it can be knocked out in a few hours on a blog post...). This is part of a larger pattern I'm falling into of scrutinously questioning the motives behind articles posted on personal blogs. I could be going in the wrong direction entirely but it seems very often to be validation-seeking behaviour, whether by submitting one's views for the approval of others, or simply that writing it all down gives it some mental gravitas to assuage personal doubts that the individual might be "doing it wrong". It certainly appears consistent with the range of submissions to Hacker News related to personal improvement (or, "lifehacking", as the internet seems to be running with these days). Why did these authors write these two pieces? It's very difficult to analyse! If "for validation" seems a little condescending...well, I'd prefer it to the standard interpretation: "The Best" is unsubtle status-signaling, "The Worst" is equally unsubtle counter-signaling.

desireco42 14y ago

I somehow missed this post of his, but you are spot on and rightfully disgusted with both his post and HN reaction to it. Stuff doesn't make you more free, it enslaves you. The stuff you have, more you need to care about it. Thoreau would be horrified :) ( Said he writing on macbook air, simbol of cult of stuff)

jayferd 14y ago

Forks and knives might not be the best examples here, but buying "the best" (as in the most likely to last the longest, has a generous warranty, and is relatively simple to repair) is often sound financial planning. It tends to be a more expensive outlay at the beginning, but it sure beats the disposable "planned-obsolescence" stuff we're usually suckered into buying.

nerdo 14y ago

There's a new subreddit for this "Best" thing: http://www.reddit.com/r/buyitforlife http://www.reddit.com/r/buyitforlife

owenjones 14y ago

Why is everyone telling me how I should live and what I should buy or not buy in order to maximize my happiness?

homosaur 14y ago
You're a consumer, fella, better get used to it.

ricardobeat 14y ago

> both ideas and material possessions should be tools that serve us, rather than things we live in service to I think dustin and moxie are talking about different things. For me, the philosophy behind "The best" is exactly that: you don't need to worry that your friends will step on your cutlery, because it's strong enough to not get damaged. You don't worry about replacing it because of rust or wear, etc etc (enough with cutlery). By going for "the worst" you end up with a lot of crap that you don't really use or care about. It's what almost everybody does. The opposite means buying only what you need; the best == expensive, so you'll buy less. The author also dismisses the environmental effect of this mentality; millions of people buying buckets of 50-cent crap every couple months equals a fuckload of plastic waste. This is preaching consumerism, and I'm surprised by how many people fall for it.

lilsunnybee 14y ago
Who is using plastic? Not spending obscene amounts of money on things does not mean buying disposable.

Wingman4l7 14y ago

And the winner for The Most Ambiguous Title of the Year Award is...

tlrobinson 14y ago

"But to me, “simplify” is about removing clutter" ... "Partisans of the worst will get 15 sets of cutlery (out of a bucket that’s an overflowing fucking sea of cutlery)" A massive bucket of cutlery sounds like clutter to me. I don't think Dustin was arguing you should spend so much money on cutlery that you worry about it getting damaged/stolen, but rather the act of thinking about what you're buying will prevent you from buying low quality and unnecessary things.

guelo 14y ago
I understood the bucket to have been located at a thrift store where he fished out the 15 sets that he bought.

blackman 14y ago

sounds like they are both optimising for value

WettowelReactor 14y ago
Yes if you re-frame the whole discussion as pay for value then the concept of best or worst is irrelevant. What additional value does expensive cutlery provide over the bargain bin equivalent? Surly durability and use are comparable so it comes down to a subjective valuation of aesthetics. At the same token springing for quality stainless steel cookware can provide a lifetime of service vs. the cheap stuff.

petercooper 14y ago

Any reasonable person wouldn’t feel liberated by a $50 fork, but constrained by it. One wouldn’t be able to help but worry: is it being cared for correctly, is my friend going to mess it up when absentmindedly tapping the table with it, is it going to get dropped or stepped on if a dance party erupts in the kitchen? After all, it is the perfect fork, what if something happened to it to make it not perfect? The flaw here is assuming getting "the best" also means it has to remain "perfect." I tend to err towards the higher quality and (usually) more expensive side in my long term purchases but have no qualms about treating them as I would anything else. My 2 week old retina MBP has a funky dent in it now, for example. It's still a great notebook! And so would a $50 dinner set remain an excellent dinner set, even if someone did chip or tarnish it.

dwb 14y ago

The right answer I'd bet, is, as it so often is, "yes and no." Both this and "The Best" are extreme points of view, and extremes never strike me as particularly realistic. There's a happy medium for pretty much everything. I've never found too much trouble in judging how much research and care I need to put into any given purchase. How often will I use it? How long do I want it to last for? Is it likely to break? How much will I care if it does break? There's a limit to this of course, I don't go to Curtis' lengths. Not enough hours in the day. I have put a reasonable amount of care into buying a good laptop, desk, piano, headphones etc though. These are important to me. The list isn't particularly long. For just any old thing (including, I would say, cutlery), I have a rule-of-thumb that's served me well: never buy the cheapest, always the second-cheapest. The cheapest of any particular thing so often has had an incredible number of corners cut, but the next one up is usually just fine.

yaix 14y ago

Some people just need expensive stuff to feel good, others don't. Whatever. Don't question the other's way of living and just be happy with your's.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Halfway through reading this I closed it with two conclusions: 1. Thank God I didn't read "The Best". 2. Why the hell am I reading this. I don't have the energy to have such a trite opinion, let alone read a thousand words about it from someone else. I hate these pithy comments but this stuff feels like "Hacker Drama", not "Hacker News".

Narretz 14y ago
Now you made me wonder why I read almost the whole omment thread, additionally to two posts that both didn't really make a lot of sense to me.

enraged_camel 14y ago

Look, I don't know why two extremities are battling it out like this when the reasonable and rational answer lies somewhere in the middle. I care deeply about an item if it relates to a hobby. As a geek, I research every part of a computer I am building thoroughly. I read reviews, compare specs and prices, run it by friends on tech message boards for opinions, etc. When the time comes to play Skyrim on uber settings on the machine I built, I get more enjoyment out of it, and feel satisfied in knowing that the components in it won't melt. Same mindset applies to my other hobbies. I always try to get the best and most reliable matches when I go cross-country backpacking, because if a storm comes and I need to light a fire, I want to make sure the matches won't fail me. Last month I bought a new set of tires for my commuter bike, and I did actually get the most tires because for the types of trips I make, it matters. In contrast, I don't give a crap about things that don't relate to hobbies. I moved to a new apartment recently and was in need of a new trash bin. I went to the nearest Walmart (conveniently located across the across the street) and purchased the cheapest one that had a lid. Had I done more research, I might have gone with a metal one that had a mechanism for securing the trash bag in place, but I don't care. Here's why: a trash can is not something I want to be proud of.

lubujackson 14y ago

The "best"'s problem is that there is no clear "best" of almost anything. (Especially that silverware.) I think the point, though, is that buying highly-rated things tends to pay off in ways you might not be aware of, such as avoiding silverware with toxic chemicals. So let's say to buy "better" stuff. The "worst"'s problem is he is only really concerned about the cost. Ultimately, I think this is a shift many people have as they get older and more settled - they want to buy a chair that lasts, silverware that is nice, etc. When you're 19 and moving every other year it doesn't really make sense.

jaggederest 14y ago

I like Ikea tables, dishes, and flatware because I can smash them into tiny bits and chuckle while I work, but they serve their purpose as well as any ten-times-as-expensive model of the same thing. I think there's a threshold effect relative to the longevity and expense of material goods. It's better to buy durable goods with quality, but it's silly to buy consumables with the same strictures because they inevitably will be consumed.

smoyer 14y ago

I'm not sure either of these positions (the best or the worst) is really important. But it's absolutely important to be satisfied with your life, including what you "have". Just for the record, my favorite piece of flatware is a titanium spork from ThinkGeek. And there's a lot more to owning "stuff" than anyone generally thinks about. So as I age, I'm actually finding that I want less stuff, but that the reliability of that stuff is important. The "opportunity cost" (paid for by time that you can't get back) can be high enough that it's hard to justify. So ... things that simply "cost too much". Number one is TV/cable/satellite. It sucks time away faster than you could ever imagine. I haven't completely given it up, but I watch far less than the national average (and usually it's more about spending time with my kids). What else do you have that isn't really worth it? (my boat probably qualifies but I can't give THAT up). I also see an issue with quality today. So much is designed to be thrown away, but I love to cobble pieces together enough to keep things working. Many devices in my house run on "Frankencords". An old computer power supply is a great source of +5V if you splice the barrel jack from a dead wall-wort to it. One of my favorite past-times is to fix things that other people have decided were junk ... just to say that I can. I guess this is a long-winded way of warning everyone that you really can't buy happiness ... you have to find it within yourself.

ThomPete 14y ago

I think this can best be illustrated with drinking wine. Some people have to have the perfect Amarone at precisely 21 degrees celsius in exactly those specific glasses in order to feel it's a good wine experience. Other people, while they appreciate the same as the first group of people, can still enjoy a powerful wine a little to cold in whatever glass and still feel it's a great experience. Quality of life really is about what you want it to be.

gbog 14y ago

Since I read "The Best" I wanted to write exactly this answer. Thanks. I'd have added a cultural point of view: This debate is likely typically American, and Americans may have a problem with their owning stuff. I'd bet it is a perverse fascination on physical things, maybe induced by some TV/Movie propaganda. For instance, I remember fairly well an American friend I had 5 years ago. We discussed one night long on "consumerism" and how bad it was. Then, the /next/ day, this nice clever guy bought an extremely expensive backpack filled with useless gadgets (an incorporated lighter, a water bag with a pipe so you can drink without taking a bottle out of the pocket, etc. etc.), showing it to me with tears in his eyes: it was so awesome a thing for a kiker like him! I couldn't help remembering the "other kind of" hickers I crossed in Nepal: those Nepalese, they /walk/ from Snow mountains to India back and forth looking for work, and their "backpack" is an empty tissue thing with 2 rupees and one toothbrush inside, and they wear plastic slippers, and they sleep outside every day. So what? So, "the Best" philosophy is both producing sometime very nice little pieces of perfection, like the iPod, and I understand why a professional designer would bend on this side. But I fear it is also pernicient and overall negative for normal people and the hole society, because it generates waste, frustration, greed, and so on... Disc: I live in China, where the Best/Worst dialectic exists, but is obviously drawn along very different lines.

rsanheim 14y ago

It's the classis "Worse is Better" debate, lived out via consumer objects instead of lisp and c. Paging Richard Garbriel to Hacker News... http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html

lennexz 14y ago

I believe one does whats best for them, if you want cheap stuff get them but also give the same opportunity to choose to those that want the best(finer) things in life. We all get what we want.

willholloway 14y ago

To me the worst set of cutlery is not from the thrift store but a set made of lead.

mseebach 14y ago

It seems that Dustin Curtis and Moxie Marlinspike between them has re-invented "trading up": 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-...

1_player 14y ago
Thank you, that is a really interesting article, and appropriate for this period of my life.

RenierZA 14y ago

Here is the discussion for The Best: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755470 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755470

joss82 14y ago

Reminds me of Fight Club's Palaniuk "sofa citation": You buy furniture. You tell yourself, this is the last sofa I will ever need in my life. Buy the sofa, then for a couple years you're satisfied that no matter what goes wrong, at least you've got your sofa issue handled. Then the right set of dishes. Then the perfect bed. The drapes. The rug. Then you're trapped in your lovely nest, and the things you used to own, now they own you. ~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 5

tripzilch 14y ago

They may disagree, but they're trying to convey the same message. And both of them are IMO way too extreme about it. What both Curtis and Moxie seem to want is to not have to think or worry about their possessions after they bought them. You can do this by buying "the best" so you won't have to worry about breaking[1], or you can do this by buying the (cheap) "worst", so you won't have to worry about breaking. If you get "the best", you'll have the added benefit of them being extremely pleasant to use, but a second hand fork eats just fine, too. And IMO, they're both "consumerism", though someone may correct me if the following is not exactly consumerism, but something else: > Partisans of the worst will get 15 sets of cutlery (out of a bucket that’s an overflowing fucking sea of cutlery) for fifty cents at the neighborhood thrift shop, and as a result, won’t have the slightest reservation if five of their housemates simultaneously decide to start a band that uses nothing but spoons for instruments. Partisans of the worst won’t give a shit if someone drops a dish while people are hanging out in the kitchen. They can push their crappy bicycle to the limit without worrying if it gets scratched — without even being too concerned about it getting stolen. Ugh. This is absolute bullshit. I used to feel this way, up to my first few years of college, but then I grew up. If how much you paid for an object is the biggest factor in how much you care whether it breaks or not, isn't that consumerism too? At the very least it's disrespectful. At least Curtis cares about the things he owns. See it's fine if you buy cheap dishes because you like to throw the type of parties where things sometimes break. In fact it'd be stupid to get expensive AND fragile dishes. But that's a whole different POV than when you buy dishes because you can just break them, Moxie makes it sound like he already stopped caring about such items the moment he bought them. (also, it's nice to own some plates that share the same design. You can't really cook up a beautiful meal and then serve it up on heterogeneous plates--but that's a matter of taste) You can also get plastic camping dishes. They may be ugly but they will not break. Same for cups. You'll have ugly plastic things in your cupboard drawers FOREVER! And the few people I know that will say to get the most shitty bike possible so they won't care if it gets stolen, I usually want to slap in the face when I ask them where they would acquire such a bike. Invariably on the street, for 10 euros, from a junkie. Not saying the author would do that, but a real second hand bike costs at least 10x that much, which is more than I would not care about getting stolen. He does address this later in the essay, but I think he still misses the point: > Some amongst the best will resort to a resources perspective and say that in this increasingly disposable world, it’s refreshingly responsible for those of the best to be making quality long-term buying decisions. But we’re a long way away from a shortage of second-hand forks in the global north — let’s take care of those first. Because that still sounds to me like he treats cheap second-hand forks as disposable. And makes a mockery of the "Green" in the title of that section, we're also a long way from a shortage of plastic shopping backs. Now most forks don't break easily. They just become increasingly shitty. Especially the half metal / half plastic ones that will come apart a bit but are still perfectly serviceable as a fork. Those ones are the absolute worst. I bet even most thrift stores throw them away. Sorry if this post might just seem overly critical at Moxie, I have similar (yet opposite) problems with Curtis' post. [1] as far as I can judge from the pics, nothing short of a disc grinder would damage those expensive spoons.

RyanMcGreal 14y ago

This piece works well as a study in the absurdity of Dustin Curtis's thesis. That said, I can't help but observe myself leaning to The Best in some areas and The Worst in others. For example, our cutlery drawer is full of decent, generic Ikea cutlery - except for a few random pieces that we have accumulated over the years, including an oddball fork and a couple of oddball spoons. I find myself actively avoiding using those oddball pieces because I don't like how they feel in my hand or my mouth. To that extent, I can appreciate just how much hedonic benefit comes from using cutlery that feels "right". On the other hand, my bicycle is well over 20 years old and looks like a piece of garbage. In fact, it was actually retrieved from the garbage several years ago by a friend, who passed it on to me when he heard that my bike had just died. It's heavy and ugly, but these are features, not bugs: the heaviness means I get a better workout riding it, and the ugliness means it's less likely to be stolen when I park it downtown. In short, both approaches to choosing consumer durables have their uses, and it's silly to elevate either to the level of a philosophy of living. ---- See also: http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html