Hacker News Reader

Comment by sefrost | Hacker News Reader

You need a straw if you're wearing lipstick.

Maybe I'm sheltered but I'm baffled by all of these replies. Is this a US thing?

At least in Europe and East-Asia, it's unheard of for any nice restaurant to have straws except for kids. And it's not like women there don't wear lipstick. The image of going for a candlelight dinner and drinking from a straw is something straight out of a comedy sketch to me. I guess if it's a certain kind of cocktail, but that's the only exception. And even then the majority of cocktails won't have straws.

I truly have not been this confused by any HN thread and I've been reading this place almost daily for years.

Outside of specific cocktails, straws are not a fine dining thing in the US either. There's a reason why people are talking about things like Coke and burgers in the context of straws in drinks.

Right. Another commenter mentioned "a nice sit down restaurant", and some of the other replies imply they're just not used to not drinking without a straw at all, hence my confusion.

Now fine dining is on the extreme end, but a nice sit down restaurant to me implies something at least halfway inbetween a McDonalds and fine-dining, and at that halfway point I'd never expect straws.

Do you mean people want a straw if they want to wear lipstick and want to not ruin its application?

This is the third thing someone is demanding people give up just so we could have a token, ineffective, anti-straw policy.

1) lipstick (and the effort put into applying it)

2) health reasons (not trusting the cup's sanitary credentials)

3) children (no idea why, but I have kids, and let me tell you: they want straws. Plus prevents spills if you tell them to leave the glass on the table)

How about we give up paper straws instead?

Yeah that's a more accurate way of phrasing it. Sentiment's the same though imo.

Schematics - you mean people _want_ water if they _want_ to live and _want_ to do it in a healthy manor?

There's quite a difference with your example than the exchange you were replying to.

(For what it's worth, I have no problem with people wanting to accessorize their bodies with lipstick. I don't see beauty in those things, but I have no problem with others seeing beauty that way. Ultimately it is a choice though, as people can also decide to be beautiful through their grace, words, actions, etc; not what some company tells them they need.)

Huge difference, one might say life and death. Neither do I but want vs need is almost entirely subjective.

>Ultimately it is a choice though

That's my point, context independent

> people _want_ water if they _want_ to live

> want vs need is almost entirely subjective

People need water if they want to live. Somehow you managed to picked the one need which is literally the single biggest need for life as we know it to exist, making it quite the opposite of "entirely subjective".

A statement like "I think pretty paint on lips is just as important as water because everything is subjective" is not making the point you think it is.

Its almost like I picked an extreme example intentionally and then made a joke about it to illustrate it was intentional. I wrote my point you missed it.

Which did I say? "almost entirely subjective" or "entirely subjective"? Where did I write the quote "I think pretty paint on lips is just as important as water because everything is subjective"? I remember writing "context independent" tho as to indicate it's not about lipstick its about semantics of defining a need

Perhaps I need to tell my wife, she uses lipstick and no straws. What would be your source for this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com