Keep writing Dustin
sufficientlyadvanced.net
sufficientlyadvanced.net
"Reasonable people would probably not spend the time to read a book about the history of flatware, buy twenty sets, and test the feeling of each metal utensil against their teeth. That sounds completely insane. But who cares about reasonable people?"
Out of curiositiy: how much money 20 sets of designer flaware cost? Because if it is something around the price I suspect, then dustin's original article is very close to saying: 'I am rich, and you should be too'. You know where I live ... I've just sold some of the used clothes of my 1 year old child to a middle-class woman... Even buying designer stuff is about money, not to mention buying 20 sets just to try out...
Fortunatelly there are obscure hobbies for unreasonable people which do not take money. (Like learning set theory just for the fun (or insight) of it.)
tl;dr: dustin's original article is a triviality:
1. if you have enough money 2. you have enough time 3. your obsession is buying very well designed things
then go for it.
But it is a triviality that most people lack (1.) even if they do not lack (2.) and (3.) (And because of lacking (1.) many people lack (2.) and maybe even partially (3.) (having bigger problems, they do not think about these things that much))
"This isn’t materialism, it’s a deep consideration for the non-materialistic things that depend on the material. A lamp for reading or helping. A flatware set for eating. A backpack for hiking. A towel for traveling. These are all intellectual and spiritual pursuits that are also important."
Eating is not about flatware, neither is hiking about backpacks, nor traveling about towels. Obsessing over the best backpack takes away time you could be spending actually hiking.
At some point there's very little difference between products that are good enough. And after that point? You're into the territory of people like Best Made Company.
$250 for an ax? (http://www.bestmadeco.com/products/american-felling-axe-cour...)
vs $160 (http://www.traditionalwoodworker.com/4-lb-Splitting-Axe-with...)
vs $35 (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Seymour-AX-3-3-5-Lb-36-Single-Bit-Mi...)
You need a towel if you travel. You could drip dry after each shower or decide not to at all but that introduces another set of hygenic and time-wasting problems.
You need utensils to eat. You could use your hands, again not paying attention to hygiene, or you could be civilized and use a knife and fork.
Researching and buying the best ensures you should only buy once. It's appreciating that someone, or group of people, have spent months, even years paying attention to every detail in designing something that serves an important purpose.
I spent about 10 minutes picking out flatware at the store 10 years ago and haven't thought about it since. The stuff looks the same as it did back then, still weighs the same, and still produces the same functionality.
If my alternative was to spend days researching designs, purchasing 20 different sets so I can test them at home, and finally picking one for the sake of "having something my whole life", I would have felt like I wasted time and money that could have been spent on much better things than flatware. I see no reason why my current flatware would become less usable than the kind Dustin is advocating, and if it does, it would take me all of 2 minutes to buy a new set on Amazon. I guess I'm just not seeing the reward for the resources exhausted.
Doshi writes "the takeaway for me is: find the best possible things you deeply depend on in life." Clearly, mapgrep instead read the post as a celebration of materialism. The meanness of the language may have been unjustifiable, but the point made was not irrelevant. There is an argument around how we prioritise people versus things, and some will fall so far on the people side that a preoccupation with things seems almost offensive. pg asserting that the popularity of the post was "the decline of HN embodied" seemed to me equally wrong. I (a lowly newcomer) thoroughly enjoy a top-voted post that strongly contrasts the submission, especially when the pair serve to draw attention to a dichotomy.
Edit: On reflection, the most interesting thing about the two texts might be that they actually seem to share a frustration with materialism. Where the author of the vitriolic response wants the notion of design quality entirely out of the equation, dcurtis liberates himself by settling it one object at a time. I see examples of both in my own life: choosing the watch or the sneakers and buying them over and over, so that I never again need to think seriously and qualitatively about watches or sneakers. And, in moments of design obsession, waking as if from a trance thinking "When was the last time I called my mum?"