Hacker News Reader

Comment by jbay808 | Hacker News Reader

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

Natural, as in what would commonly be referred to as a real diamond (yes, I realise they're they're chemically and structurally the same).

Edit: As I said in another reply, there's nothing illogical about it. If value is placed culturally and socially on natural diamonds, then they are valuable, regardless of if that value is "artificially" created via advertising of whatever. Lots of stuff is quite stupid if you look at it objectively, out of context. Doesn't mean it isn't true in context.

I truly mean this to be thoughtful and not antagonistic, and your notion of value being subjective is accurate. But I think I can somewhat snarkily summarize a lot of the doubt some HNers are feeling (I'm not saying I agree or disagree): it's basically saying diamonds are like NFTs.

EDIT: Just did a ctrl-f for NFT and I guess I wasn't the first to say that, although those comments are much lower on the page.

Oh, sure, not to going to disagree! I don't think it's being sarky to compare the two (although NFTs have slightly different cultural precursors), no offence taken. I also think that in this case many commenters [being human] have equally subjective notions of value (edit: which are also correct in context, I'm not just having a pop) but would just like to pretend that they do not, that they are being "rational".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com