Hacker News Reader

Comment by dkarl | Hacker News Reader

Does the middle ground have to be so confusing? I mean, if you looked at your silverware and thought, "These forks are kind of ugly, and it's bothering me a little bit," so you went to Target and saw a $50 set of silverware that looked pretty okay and bought it, would that be confusing? I guess there's no way to spin it as being particularly awesome. You couldn't boast of being the most sophisticated and tasteful buyer of silverware, nor could you boast of being completely liberated from your belongings, since if you mangled a couple of forks in the garbage disposal you'd face the annoyance of going back to Target and paying $50 for another set.

But isn't that okay? Isn't it okay if I own something that can't be used as proof of how awesome I am?

View on HN

The problem is, if repeated often enough, this process leads to a house full of crap, most of which you no longer care about.

With The Best philosophy, you have much less crap and clutter around you.

With The Worst philosophy, you may have a lot of crap and clutter, but at least you didn't waste much money on it.

Most of us in the rich world end up in an in between place that's not very satisfying.

It isn't a matter of quantity. You need the same number of forks and knives no matter whether you find them at Target, Urban Ore in Berkeley, or the FT's How to Spend It[1].

[1] http://howtospendit.ft.com/

Edit: Oooh, even better How to Spend It link: http://howtospendit.ft.com/home-accessories/5004-tableware-t...

"if repeated often enough, this process leads to a house full of crap"

So unless you buy the absolute "best" of a given product, it's just crap and couldn't possibly be satisfying? There's no middle ground there at all?

The idea here is the choice between:

easy/disposable/cheap combined with a wide selection of possessions and

requires research/lasts a long time/expensive combined with a minimal aesthetic about what you need to own.

Don't get stuck on the semantic argument of if "best" means absolute single best, it's that idea that is the interesting and potentially powerful part.

That's a false dichotomy, though. There's no reason I can't have a minimal aesthetic about what I need to own while also getting some things that are "good enough" (maybe even "crappy"), and getting other things that may be considered the "best".

The parent seemed to be saying that this state (i.e., between the two extremes) was "not very satisfying", and that without strictly adhering to "The Best" philosophy you'd end up with all crap. That's primarily what I'm objecting to.

Ah, I may have misinterpreted. I was assuming it was a given that one would choose either "the best" or "the worst" for each area of your life based on what's important to you. I took the "not very satisfying" part to refer to what happens when you regularly buy a specific thing that lives in the middle of those philosophies.

I agree that it would make perfect sense to have your choice about clothes differ from your choice about laptops or cars. A commitment to one philosophy for everything you own seems strict for no reason, although I have personally found that the minimalist aesthetic ends up spreading to seemingly unrelated parts of your life once you start enjoying it.

This is silly.

If you cook, buy a great chef knife. It doesn't have to be the best in the world, but spending a little more will get you a terrific blade with a great service policy that you'll use constantly and enjoy forever.

Buy a bunch of cheap scissors though, and stick them in every room you ever find yourself wishing you had scissors, and then never worry about that problem again.

Some things you might need more than once, but not all the time, and you'd rather it didn't break, get old, or get lost but you wouldn't mind quickly replacing it if it does. I'm thinking shower towels on this one, but yours might be something different. That's fine. There's no reason to get the finest terrycloth, but I'd rather not rub my skin raw every morning with sandpaper. Whichever towel is slightly more expensive than cheapest on Amazon will do just fine.

Not every purchase has to be an uncompromising statement on your position and perspective on the world. Choosing something other than the absolute best in every category does not mean living a life of cluttered crap. This entire debate makes me seriously question the rationality of anyone with religious devotion to either extreme. There are better things for smart folk to be spending their time thinking about.

A thousand times yes. Do you want to know how I pick a product? Decide the features I want, then pick something that has those features and is either from a brand I trust, or seems to be well received by those who care more about that product than I do. Sometimes this means I get the cheapest thing available, sometimes the best, and sometimes something in between. Easy, and I am satisfied almost 100% of the time without overpaying.

I'm just curious, what does a service policy on a chef's knife get you btw? Will they sharpen it for you, or something? There's not much that can break on a chef's knife unless you really maltreat it, is there?

Yup, free knife sharpening is a common perk. I've also seen generous policies on repairing the grip etc - not because those areas are prone to breaking, but they expect you to use the knife for a long time and it's a way to stand behind their product.

There's the art of disposing of not the cheapest things when they bother you. Then you get self-regulating process: you find disposing of some kinds of things too often and end up not caring about these kinds of things and buying the 'worst'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com