[HN Gopher] Buy well, buy once
___________________________________________________________________
Buy well, buy once
Author : revorad
Score : 298 points
Date : 2023-06-09 12:00 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (fellow.ventures)
(TXT) w3m dump (fellow.ventures)
| dhosek wrote:
| I'm in the midst of a life transition and I've found that it's a
| good opportunity to do some culling. I'm fine with some
| extravagances (I have probably about 1500 books, of which I've
| cataloged 1,166 on LibraryThing (my transition has paused
| cataloging activity as my library is mostly living in boxes now
| and part of the cataloging is shelving everything by Library of
| Congress call number). On the flip side, I have a very well-
| defined wardrobe now, with 9 long sleeve shirt, 9 short sleeve
| shirts, 4 pairs of trousers, 10 pairs of socks and 10 pairs of
| underwear (I make a point of doing laundry once a week, the more
| than 7 of everything allows me to occasionally let laundry day
| slip a little). I have a complete list of all the furniture in
| the house, which is going to end up being reduced somewhat. I
| don't know that I'll be down to 200 items (excluding books), but
| I think that once I've finished my transition, I will be
| definitely much more deliberate about what I allow into my home.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| A ways ago I started sliding towards DRM free digital books.
| They take up much less hoarding space.
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| I like the way a bookshelf looks on a wall. I like that
| friends can browse and discuss and borrow. I like looking at
| book titles and thinking about when I bought them or how I
| felt when I read them.
|
| An e-reader is amazing for travel, but doesn't give you any
| of the above.
| dhosek wrote:
| Pretty much that. My bookshelves are not merely a
| collection of books, but they're also an expression of
| myself. Many of the books I have, I can tell you where,
| when and why I bought them. Even books that I've let go for
| the sake of space still carry that memory with them. Not to
| mention that many of the books I own are not available as
| ebooks and likely never will be (a lot of my collection
| veers towards the esoteric and specialized).
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| Sure, but you should be intentional about the books you
| want a paper copy of. "I will read this again regularly",
| "I want to page through this for reference often", "I want
| to display my love for this book" are all good reasons to
| own a physical copy. But if you have 1,500 books, how many
| fall into that category? Maybe a hundred?
| 0xr0kk3r wrote:
| Wow. Cohelo quotes on a page about hand made wallets and how to
| be a savvy capitalist. So many generations' movements colliding
| here I can't even.
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| Maxi checking in. I have racks of labelled drawers full of
| bearings, screws, glues, specialty tapes, oodles of hand tools,
| power tools, ad infinitum. I'm honestly not super competent or
| anything (I barely know what I'm doing, in any domain) but I do
| learn new things all the time and it brings me joy.
|
| I miss the clarity of minimalism, but I can also have a different
| view on wallets - they're just leather and some stitching and
| such, and I can change them to be what I need.
|
| Of course it's a very particular type of programmer disease to
| fixate on having equipment that can compile any possible wallet
| to solve the problem of having a wallet.
|
| I get a kick out of dumb stuff like fixing the dishwasher latch
| by bending a new spring rather than getting the $70 replacement
| part (... probably spending $100 of my labour, good thing my free
| time is worthless!).
|
| I spend a lot on storage systems and need a lot of discipline
| around stuff like deciding a place for things before acquiring
| them. It's a tradeoff I'm OK with.
| dieselgate wrote:
| I was using a broccoli rubber band as a wallet for years but
| they have a tendency to break after a while. Have settled on a
| metal binder clip and it's worked much better - less friction
| in/out of pocket too
| gnicholas wrote:
| I use a broccoli rubber band as a minimalist iPhone 'case'.
| [1] It makes the back and bottom of the phone grippy, so it's
| easier to hold. It does slightly block the corners of the
| screen, but not much. It doesn't provide much protection in
| case of a drop, obviously. But the added grippiness makes
| drops much less likely!
|
| I have occasionally bought broccoli that I didn't need just
| so I could get another rubber band, after my previous one
| broke. They typically last 2 months or so.
|
| 1: https://imgur.com/a/E2yO6XX
| cinntaile wrote:
| I don't think I have seen rubber bands that thick in ages.
| It surprises me they don't use the tiny ones?
| gnicholas wrote:
| Even asparagus will often come in thick rubber bands.
| Leeks too.
| johnchristopher wrote:
| > It doesn't provide much protection in case of a drop,
| obviously. But the added grippiness makes drops much less
| likely!
|
| I found popsockets and ring holders a better option in that
| regard https://image.gsmpunt.nl/blog/image/image_3.png
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _popsockets_
|
| Oh so _this_ is what those weird phone attachments are
| called. Thanks!
| gnicholas wrote:
| How do those interact with the MagSafe charging are on
| the back of the iPhone?
| johnchristopher wrote:
| No idea, I haven't had an iPhone in ages. They have
| magsafe versions though https://www.popsockets.com/en-
| us/more/magsafe so I suppose it's compatible ?
| xyzzy123 wrote:
| This is my favourite kind of minimalism.
| gooseyman wrote:
| I relate to this so much.
|
| I love bring the extra screw up from the basement I saved 4
| years ago knowing this moment would one day come where I need
| it. Now is it on the bottom of the red or the blue folgers
| coffee can.
|
| That said - tools and home improvement objects are allowed in
| the maximum as long as they fit in the basement workshop,
| that's my only rule.
| fiznool wrote:
| My box of wires in the attic is often the butt of my wife's
| jokes, but every once in a while I find that satellite coax
| connector I've been saving, or the scart cable that is the
| only thing standing between old vhs tapes and nostalgia.
| 0xr0kk3r wrote:
| "rather than getting the $70 replacement part"
|
| Appliance repair usually starts at a $100 house-call fee and
| goes up from there. It is cheaper to buy a new dishwasher than
| get it repaired.
| irrational wrote:
| Unless you repair it yourself. I've done things like
| replacing the bearings and a cracked spider arm in our
| clothes washer. Not only was it cheap to do so, I also
| learned a lot about how a washer is put together by
| dismantling one down almost all the way. Same with replacing
| the heating element in the dryer.
| jemmyw wrote:
| Living in a country that is a smaller market really sucks
| on this front because I either cannot get the parts, or
| they cost more to ship here than the cost of the part
| itself. Last time I got something for my coffee machine
| that the manufacturer refused to sell it cost $80 to ship
| it here from a parts warehouse.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| The person is talking about buying the part and installing it
| themselves, not paying someone to come repair it for them.
| Thorrez wrote:
| When I moved into my apartment, the racks in the dishwasher
| were badly rusted. I told the management.
|
| They replaced the entire dishwasher. They said they couldn't
| get a replacement rack.
| justusthane wrote:
| We bought a house recently and the racks in the (old)
| dishwasher are rusted. I thought it would be cheap to
| replace them. $400 for new top and bottom racks. $425 for a
| new dishwasher. I am gobsmacked.
| throw0101b wrote:
| > _They replaced the entire dishwasher. They said they
| couldn 't get a replacement rack._
|
| What are the margins on replacement racks?
|
| Someone would have to pay for warehousing, stock tracking,
| employees for packing/shipping, then add shipping costs.
| Why would anyone offer them?
| briHass wrote:
| This problem is multiplied by the fact that most consumer
| goods have subtle differences in design between brands
| and even model lines within the brand. If there were only
| 2 or 3 different, standardized dishwasher racks for all
| models, stocking those few would be cost effective.
|
| As someone that owns a number of small-engine powered
| devices, I'm always amazed at how easy/cheap it is to
| find parts. Most small engines are either one of a couple
| Briggs and Stratton models, or a knockoff of same. Even
| across models, B&S usually did a pretty good job of
| reusing common parts. When you need a part, you can cross
| reference various part numbers to find either the OEM
| part or dozens of cheap Chinese copies.
| bombcar wrote:
| Small engine devices also often utilize belts so you can
| replace the whole engine with various different ones and
| only have to line up and size the proper belt.
| bombcar wrote:
| You often can get the part, but it's expensive and with
| shipping and hassle you might as well but a new dishwasher.
|
| Especially as a landlord, spend $200-400 to replace the
| racks or buy a new for $500 and pretty much guarantee no
| calls on that item for five years.
| pers0n wrote:
| I've noticed some minimalists go to the extremes of limiting
| items based on numbers. In a way it's a bit of a luxury.
|
| Many people keep items or leftover stuff (one time use tools or
| extra glue, etc) because it saves money and time from having to
| drive to the store or order it online again incase they need it
| again. Those just incase items build up but they can end up being
| handy.
|
| As someone that's moved every year for like 6 yrs in a row, I
| sell about 95% stuff I don't use but I still have a lot of things
| just in case that take up little space in junk drawer, etc. I
| think focusing on what you like and enjoy is better. Putting a
| hard round number on items is too much of a mental waste of time
| duxup wrote:
| The few hard core minimalists I've met are single, get paid
| well enough to buy whatever they wish... and their parents are
| all holding their old stuff at home.
|
| All extra luxuries that enable them to live minimalist type
| lifestyles, but it's not quite the whole story.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| I think its a bit different. When you can buy whatever you
| want, you realize stuff doesn't really improve your life.
| ip26 wrote:
| However, not having to drive to Home Depot every single
| time you need a screwdriver does. As does having more than
| one bowl.
| mildchalupa wrote:
| That's the spirit. Everything is a single use item if you
| are rich enough.
| duxup wrote:
| You also can discard things easier... knowing they can be
| had at will later.
| [deleted]
| jasonkester wrote:
| I'm a bit of a recovering minimalist, though it was never really
| a choice to become one.
|
| I spent the better part of 15 years living out of a small
| backpack, travelling ~9 months a year then flying home to work
| short software contracts and save up for the next trip. As a
| consequence, I got used to not having very many things. One pair
| of pants, one pair of shorts, that sort of thing. I think my
| policy was something like "If I haven't used this thing in the
| last 3 days, I don't really need it along".
|
| At one point, I revisited my storage locker, filled to the roof
| with everything I had owned in my 20s, and couldn't really find
| anything that I wanted to take out of it. "This isn't the shirt I
| wear", and "I already have enough socks" (meaning four socks: 2
| on my feet and another pair for when I wash these.) I ended up
| just letting the storage company auction it all off.
|
| It was really weird buying a house and starting to fill it with
| things. I bought a couch and a TV. I got my old guitar back from
| the friend I'd lent it to 20 years earlier, then eventually
| bought a second one and a bass to go with it. It's actually kinda
| nice to have a few possessions.
|
| The attitude is still there though. At one point I had to buy
| five iPhones in a single day as test machines for a job, and it
| was all I could do to physically force myself to click the buy
| button. It was like fighting every natural impulse in my body to
| overcome my aversion to consumerism.
|
| I guess it has left me in a healthy spot in regard to "stuff
| ownership."
| icoder wrote:
| I find the thought of minimalism interesting, and we don't buy
| endless crap and try to get rid of things every now and then,
| but then again, if it's Christmas we've got a few boxes with
| decorations, if I go camping we've got our
| tent/mats/fridge/etc, when I go snowboarding I have clothes and
| my own board. Also I have hobbies that require stuff. And so
| on. I don't want to give up on these activities and I don't
| want to make them into a nightmare collecting/arranging
| everything each time.
|
| And on top of that, now we have a kid ;)
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| This is the Sam Vimes Boots Theory[0].
|
| I think it's a good idea, but not always feasible.
|
| Also, the absolute top-of-the-line may not be reasonable, when a
| "near-the-top" product would be just as useful.
|
| I own a lot of stuff that doesn't really catch anyone's
| attention, but cost a fair bit. Examples are Junghans and Oceanus
| watches (I prefer the Oceanus, which cost half as much as the
| Junghans, but I now wear neither, as I have an Apple Watch, which
| costs less than either of them).
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory#:~:text=The%20Sam....
| t0bia_s wrote:
| This is the way.
|
| I love repairing stuffs and feel little bit nervous if using
| something that I know is not repairable or dont understand, how
| it works.
|
| Of course quality over quantity is more sustainable. Corporations
| needs to understand this. Trying to be more green or diverse wont
| help with overproduction of cheap, non quality stuffs. If market
| offers new stuff cheaper that fixing existing one, something is
| realy wrong. And I guess we can feel it right now.
| asimpletune wrote:
| Part of this too is the cultural infrastructure available to you.
| I have moved from the USA to Europe, and one thing I found
| surprising that's normal here was access to artisans at
| reasonable prices, sometimes even lower than the mass-consumer
| price in the USA.
|
| As an example, I needed to take some basketball shoes down a
| size. If you look up insoles on Amazon, they're about $20 (which
| is insane). On the other hand where I live there was a cobbler
| that did the work for less.
| seydor wrote:
| Nice, now please do the same thing about your phone.
|
| Oh you can't? Right because tech is actively trying to make you
| ditch your old phone. My last phone was great but can't fix the
| screen and the new model is worse, because they now want you to
| buy their earphones, and their watch, and soon their goggles.
| weregiraffe wrote:
| I used my last smartphone for 6 years, was completely satisfied
| and would have been using it still if I hadn't finally dropped
| it fatally into a stream.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Unfortunately, plastic cards are out these days, replaced by NFC,
| except in some technologically backward countries like US of
| America. These wallets also can't carry cash and are too thick
| and heavy. I use tyvec wallets for cash, they last ~two years but
| are really thin and weightless.
| charlie0 wrote:
| I like the concept, but this reeks of native advertising.
| Ryoung27 wrote:
| Agreed, it just comes off as really odd. They don't want random
| stuff, but now they all of a sudden have two random wallets
| that they are grateful to have. While they "luckily" have a
| blog where they can thank the random stranger they sent their
| old leather to, who happened to take their time to handcraft
| them new objects out of it. It just seems too coincidental, and
| I don't believe that would ever happen to someone without
| advertising potential.
| [deleted]
| Tade0 wrote:
| I'm afraid I'm not the target audience, so I can't say anything
| about this piece.
|
| But I've seen actual minimalists and they're nothing like an
| urbanite living in an all-white studio apartment.
|
| They're tightly-knit circles of friends livig in small towns who
| go way back and therefore can trust each other with their
| property and, of course, save money in the process because none
| of them does it just for minimalism's sake.
|
| Bottom line is if you want both minimalism and individualism,
| you're gonna spend a lot of money on services rendered by
| strangers.
| mberning wrote:
| In a way I admire committed minimalists. But I often wonder what
| their long term lifestyle is like. Surely many of them are single
| (or they only count the items which are solely theirs). They
| surely rent at a higher rate than own property. They surely own
| vehicles at a lower rate. And so on. I just get this picture of a
| person in an urban area, living alone in a studio apartment,
| dependent upon everyone else for basically everything.
| dublinben wrote:
| I'm fond of the conspiracy theory that the rise of minimalism
| is actually propaganda to placate Millennials who can't afford
| the same level of material comfort as their parents and other
| earlier generations enjoyed.
| Thorrez wrote:
| My grandma grew up in the US without even indoor plumbing.
| She had to use an outhouse. She's still alive today.
| mo_42 wrote:
| Millennial here and half-baked minimalist here.
|
| At least it's not true for me. For all my life I've been
| drowned in objects. My parents are still telling that I had
| so many toys.
|
| Minimalism is a way for becoming aware of the objects around
| me. Not so much about the pure number of objects.
|
| Since, I started thinking about what should be part of my
| life and also letting go of things I don't really need, my
| savings rate has skyrocketed. Also, many things I own have
| much higher quality than my parents or grandparents.
|
| I guess minimalism is a counter-movement to super-cheap
| consumerism.
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| Precisely. We are constantly bombarded by messages to buy
| buy buy. Fill that hole in your life with plastic crap that
| will _surely_ be the thing you were missing that finally
| makes you happy. And when that doesn 't work, well, just
| buy some more!
|
| The trick they pulled is telling us all that inconvenience
| is bad and needs to be eliminated, but what I've come to
| see is that life happens in inconveniences, and consumerism
| tells us we should trade our life for their junk.
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Or a conscious choice to live an alternative lifestyle to
| their parents. Seeing an unattainable future and choosing a
| separate path.
| tnel77 wrote:
| Same with having children. "I don't even want kids. They are
| needy, expensive, and tie you down."
|
| All true, but having kids was never a choice for you given
| your financial situation so let's not pretend you had a say
| in the matter.
| Gigachad wrote:
| It's always a choice. People in 3rd world countries are
| having 5 kids in a mud hut without doctors.
|
| It might not be a choice to have kids, and a new car while
| also going to the cafe every day. But having kids is always
| an option.
| xyzelement wrote:
| I agree with you but I don't think it's a financial thing
| but a psychological/maturity thing.
|
| People have kids at all income levels. For every one who
| claims they can't afford kids - someone is raising a family
| on that same income.
| est31 wrote:
| Yes but one of the most common desires is that you want
| your children to have a better childhood and life than
| yourself. Some people don't care or don't explicitly make
| the choice to get children, they just get them. But some
| people won't get children if they can't provide an
| environment that is at least as good as the one their
| parents provided to them.
| OccamsMirror wrote:
| People need to learn that material possessions are way
| less important than emotional environment. For most of
| us, being better parents is about how we parent. Not what
| we can afford.
| dalyons wrote:
| Childcare, education, housing (often tied together) and
| health care. Those are the big 4 expenses that are
| killing fertility rates, and only one is somewhat
| material.
| Thorrez wrote:
| OTOH, if you're poor, it might be best to save every item in
| case it becomes useful later, whereas a rich minimalist can
| afford to give away or sell for cheap everything not needed
| right now, knowing that replacements can be bought when
| necessary.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| What if its just Millennials discovering it own their own as
| a result of their reduced standard of living? The powers that
| be would want maximum consumption and minimalism goes against
| that no?
|
| Same probably goes for "vanlife". It is millennials just
| realizing they cant afford a home ever and so they improvise
| with what they can resource.
| mantas wrote:
| Consumption is not just buying things. And even in buying
| things, many so-called minimalists still buy a lot, maybe
| less in tonnage, but GDP-wise they still spend a lot of
| money.
|
| Of course, there are zen style minimalists. But many seem
| to be in it for aesthetic.
| Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote:
| Where have you been? TPTB are desperately trying to make
| you poorer by banning cars, banning air travel, banning
| meat, and inflating the fuck out of our money.
| roncesvalles wrote:
| To me, minimalism seems like a natural reaction to the
| transient lifestyles that people live now. A generation or
| two ago, many would grow up and settle down in the same town
| or county with 4 years of college being the most time that
| one spent outside their hometown. If you have a permanent
| home, it's easier to invest in filling it with stuff.
|
| Today I hesitate to buy anything that I can't pack in a
| suitcase or wouldn't feel comfortable throwing away or
| donating to Goodwill in ~2 years.
| pers0n wrote:
| Most of the gung-ho minimalists are upper middle class or
| rich, they may have only a sofa and coffee table and a lamp
| in their $6000 a month apartment but those 3 items cost
| over $10,000.
| dublinben wrote:
| Americans are actually less mobile than they used to be.
| Young people even more so.
|
| https://www.trulia.com/research/why-millennials-move/
| carlosjobim wrote:
| The massive carbon emissions campaigning seems to be this.
| Since generations of young and hard working people are being
| so heavily exploited that they can't afford things, blast out
| the message that they are saving the world from being doomed
| by not having a vehicle, not traveling, not having land, not
| eating quality food, and most importantly: not having
| children so that they aren't interrupted in their duties of
| paying taxes and profits.
|
| It is completely free to convince people they are saving the
| planet by living less than others.
| LunaSea wrote:
| You can add tiny houses and van life to the list.
| emodendroket wrote:
| To be honest it's not like the guy in a suburban home is self-
| reliant either; it's just easier to kid yourself. But I do
| agree that a picture-perfect minimalist lifestyle will face
| some challenge if you live with others, especially kids.
| kandel wrote:
| Yeah it's great. You can pack up and leave whenever. Why get
| tied down?
| sliken wrote:
| Dunno, seems like we might be past peak materialism. Do people
| really need 2000 ft^2 with a 2 car garage just packed with
| crap. So much so that they often buy things because they can't
| find what they own. Even renting storage units on top of a full
| size house is surprisingly common.
|
| China closets, album collections, file cabinents, many book
| cases packed, shelves of games/cartriges/cdroms, many different
| kinds of sports equipment not used for a decade, dead
| appliances, 3 toolboxes filled with crappy tools, drawers
| filled with disposable pens, large closets packed with clothes
| not worn in a decade etc. Every trash day with overflowing
| garbage cans from all the disposable stuff.
|
| Buying decent shoes, tools, a decent pen, a decent razor, and
| decent wallet can last decades. Even more disposable things
| like cars, computers, stereos/electronics can last a decade or
| more, but often have a somewhat higher cost up front/but
| cheaper to own per year. In general if it's made in plastic my
| first conclusion is that it's not worth it. Don't eat out of
| plastic, drink out of it, don't use a plastic keychain, even
| cans these days are plastic lined. Don't even touch it if you
| can avoid it.
|
| Yes this kind of attitude is possible even with wife, kids, and
| a dog. If it's not been used in the last year considering
| upcycling, donating, giving it away, or pitching it.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| 200 sq ft sounds great, just don't fill it with crap.
| 0zemp3c wrote:
| [flagged]
| hrdwdmrbl wrote:
| Yeah that is kind of me. I like it though
| hotpotamus wrote:
| Steve Jobs was known for living in such a way that I don't
| think was entirely a put on. He did own vehicles but refused to
| put license plates on them apparently for aesthetic reasons.
| Ironically, it seems like having a lot of wealth helps with the
| minimalist thing.
| sliken wrote:
| Heh, don't think that fits. I heard he figured out the
| related california law that you had 1-3 months before you'd
| get a legal penalty for not putting a new plate on the car.
| So he worked it out with the car dealer to swap cars every
| 1-3 months, so he could park whenever he wanted and never get
| a ticket.
| TrevorFSmith wrote:
| My tiny workshop contains a greater number of hand tools than the
| number of items this guy owns. I suspect that the person who made
| the fancy shoes worked in a larger workshop. Not everyone types
| for a living.
| Havoc wrote:
| There is a balance there too though. e.g. I was looking at
| multimeters. Much googling later I determined that the Fluke
| brand ones are the best and "last for life" type buy.
|
| Nearly spent 200+ on one 2nd hand via ebay auction. After a while
| sanity prevailed and I got an amazon brand one for a 1/4. Does
| the job too and I use it so seldomly (soldering DIY sht) that I'm
| glad I didn't spend more.
| pahae wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| duxup wrote:
| I have trouble keeping up with the minimalist type lifestyles. I
| don't necessarily buy into many of their numbers (in this article
| we count things... except when we don't), and I have trouble with
| the "buy it for life" type groups too.
|
| The latter groups surface goals I like but I find a lot of times
| they're just interested in paying more for what are effectively
| pseudo luxury brands or strange ideas that because it is made of
| metal it will last longer.... but little in the way of anyone
| actually using the items much.
|
| It's frustrating as I like the gist of the ideas but the folks
| practicing that I find on the internet seem off / miss the target
| IMO.
| replygirl wrote:
| Buying plastic and MDF everything because the minimalists are
| in the pocket of Big Steel.
| kandel wrote:
| My gramps will once a while gather a bunch of stuff in the
| house and throw it out. He always has great fun doing it he
| loves it lol.
| tgtweak wrote:
| Spoken as someone living alone
| kccqzy wrote:
| I find that wallets are easy to buy once. The last wallet I
| bought was from 2016, made from leather, able to holding quite a
| few bit of cash and cards while maintaining slimness. I can't
| foresee needing another wallet until it broke, but it still
| hasn't broken from daily use since 2016.
| seydor wrote:
| phone flip cases are great wallets. + less things to worry
| about
| martyvis wrote:
| I have bought a number of pairs of pliers over the years. Some
| are quite serviceable but the worst were the adjustable
| multigrips (also sometimes called water pump pliers). They pinch
| as they slipped out of the grooves - just horrible. And then I
| was watching a youtuber describing 10 tools to throw out. One was
| cheap multigrips, but he showed a wonderful replacement - Knipex
| Cobras. I bought two of them in different sizes.They are just
| wonderfully engineered - German of course - they literally can't
| slip , properly adjustable to maintain parallel jaws, they even
| demonstrate you standing on the handles under load. I ended up
| buying their electrical pliers and side cutters as well. All
| heirloom quality.
| morsch wrote:
| I bought a pair of Knipex pliers after reading a similar
| comment. Turns out I don't need pliers.
| fabiofumarola wrote:
| A dear friend of mine always said "if you buy quality you cry
| only one time!"
| fiznool wrote:
| Try having kids. The amount of crap you will end up with, like it
| or not, will make you rethink your position in the world, and
| your house's storage capabilities.
| sufficer wrote:
| Thought the saying was buy it nice or buy it twice
| nimish wrote:
| "Buy once cry once"
| SantalBlush wrote:
| I've also heard "I'm too poor to be cheap."
| mildchalupa wrote:
| Honestly it's a fair point. For me it's I don't have enough
| time to be cheap.
| bradenb wrote:
| This is the one I always use. Especially popular in the
| overlanding world which is fitting because everything is so
| overpriced.
| nicbou wrote:
| I'd rather risk it once and splurge the second time if that
| item felt important. I have plenty of cheap tools that last.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| From reading the comments it seems that a lot of people are more
| interested in organizing their stuff than in enjoying their stuff
| whether they are minimalist or not.
| sagarkamat wrote:
| My relationship to stuff is at a weird point. I've watched a bit
| too many documentaries about impact of overproduction on our
| world to a level where I tend to over analyze and over scrutinize
| every purchase, probably to unhealthy levels. I tend to use
| objects i have to the point they become unusable, trying to get
| their full worth.
|
| But at the same time, I've realized that buying the best of
| everything every time is not the best way to go. Sometimes your
| taste changes but the object still is in a great condition with
| no other takers. So you're stuck with something you don't like
| anymore.
|
| A good compromise seems to be buying the cheap version of
| everything the first time around. That way if you don't use it as
| much, you haven't spent a lot of money on it. And if you do it
| use it, the cheap stuff will wear out sooner and you can replace
| it with better made stuff.
| nicbou wrote:
| Buy used. You pay less and nothing gets produced.
|
| I have the same obsession as you and this is how I reconcile
| with it. If I'm not ready to meet someone across town I
| probably don't need it.
| Gigachad wrote:
| Buying used has become a huge pain. The platforms are
| absolutely full of scammers and time wasters, the items are
| either overpriced or immediately purchased by flippers, and
| they often aren't very accessible without owning a car.
|
| I prefer to just buy new, where I can have stuff delivered,
| and then use it until it's completely worn out or obsolete.
| v-erne wrote:
| Depnends on the item I suppose - half of my small board
| game collection (100+ titles) is used games bought from
| local eBay equivalent. And almost all of them were in
| perfect condition but half the price.
| nicbou wrote:
| Same! I paid 5-10EUR each and slowly acquired most of the
| Spiel des Jahres winners.
|
| You can often find near-new Apple products and great
| tools at a steep discount too.
| nicbou wrote:
| In Germany (eBay) Kleinanzeigen works rather well. People
| are still people, but at least the platform is good.
| paradite wrote:
| Quite similar to this post which appears on HN often:
|
| https://dcurt.is/the-best
| emodendroket wrote:
| I vacillate on this a lot. On one hand, yes, it's nice to have
| well-designed items that last decades or a lifetime. And
| obviously we're awash in disposable goods at great environmental
| cost. On the other, who hasn't been burned by buying a garment
| "for life" that no longer fits, no longer appeals to us, or
| otherwise gets rendered unusable? Or buying a beautiful, premium
| tool that only sees one or two uses? Or having an item that by
| all rights should have been disposable last for years of regular
| use?
| aardvarkr wrote:
| For the tool conundrum, I've found that the best course of
| action is to buy the cheapest option (within reason) to start
| with. If you don't use it, no sweat, it was cheap. On the other
| hand, if you use it soo much that it breaks it you outgrow it
| then you get to buy the best version of that tool. At that
| point you know what you like and don't like, as well as what's
| worth paying extra for, so you end up with the perfect tool for
| you.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| A better idea might just be to ask a neighbor to borrow their
| tool. Or subscribe to a tool library which may be near you.
| peteradio wrote:
| This is a decent strategy and well-trotted in every buy-once
| thread but I'll offer my advice as someone who has been on
| this tool purchasing train for a few decades now. If you know
| the precision you require you can buy the tool you actually
| need. As an example if you are doing some leveling work over
| a 20ft by 20ft area you can figure out how well it can be
| done with an 8ft water level including disaster scenarios
| where you fuck it up and then you can consider a self-
| leveling laser and weight up your choices properly. Following
| the advice to get the cheapest tool will likely lead you into
| disaster scenarios because you end up with the entirely wrong
| class of tool.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Yes, this is a commonly recommended strategy. But you do run
| the risk of being stuck with an unsatisfying but functional
| tool you feel guilty getting rid of, and even in the best
| case, who feels good about having bought a lousy tool that
| breaks?
|
| I tend to go with a bit of a sliding scale based on factors
| like "how often do I expect to use it?" and "how afraid am I
| of it injuring me?"
| nbernard wrote:
| On the other hand, you risk considering a whole tool class as
| not very useful, when actually it is just that the one you
| own is crap...
| gpspake wrote:
| I like the idea of cataloging all my possessions. It seems like a
| nice way to put that particular necessity of life (owning things)
| in a box that can be neatly put away when you don't want to think
| about it and quantify/measure it in a way that lets you manage it
| (I don't want to own 200 things, etc). It also seems like it
| would be helpful for legal situations like a manifest for a house
| fire or a will.
| senkora wrote:
| This is something I like about backpacking / camping. I make a
| mini-list of everything I bring with me, consider each item,
| and then know exactly what I have as I set off. Doing it for
| all my possessions is probably too hard.
| bombcar wrote:
| You can also catalog when you use something - many things we
| own are once a month or year items - and some can be replaced
| with a rental or hiring out.
| nextos wrote:
| I've done this, and it's very liberating. Basically, all things
| I own, including consumables, fit inside a small Org file. It's
| less than 100 items. I went this route because I wanted to
| emphasize some good habits, and de-emphasize things that I
| considered less valuable.
|
| The process I went through was basically thinking about my core
| habits, mapping said habits to some objects, and then thinking
| about extra objects to support those habits. After that, I
| slowly started purchasing what I needed. Timing was great,
| because I sync'd that with moving countries. I spent some
| effort thinking about quality of individual purchases, and I
| ended up with a very minimal home, which is also great for
| maintenance.
| bombela wrote:
| Something I am curious about. Does this list would include
| tools and all the thousands of parts and pieces one
| accumulates over the year when hobbying around?
| mo_42 wrote:
| I have an inventory.yml. It's not complete yet but every
| now and then I extend it. I put everything there and
| belongs together in a meaningful way. For example, AirPods.
| I don't list each one and the case but just AirPods. I also
| note when I bought it and what it costs.
| nextos wrote:
| I relocated and I no longer have any hobbies that involve
| tools.
|
| For a different lifestyle, this list would be much longer
| and that is fine.
|
| There is nothing special about having just 100 items.
| nvy wrote:
| >There is nothing special about having just 100 items.
|
| Depending on where you are located geographically there
| may very well be something special.
|
| I live in the PNW and I bet if I counted all my forks,
| spoons, coffee cups, pots and pans, etc., I'd have more
| than 100 items right there, to say nothing about my tool
| chest. Between my home office and my wife's purse I
| probably have 100 pens and pencils around the house.
|
| To own a grand total of 100 items would be extremely
| spartan for just about anyone around here.
| nextos wrote:
| I meant it's nothing to brag about. I agree that in many
| situations, it'd be inconvenient to own so few items as
| it'd leave you unprepared for e.g. emergencies.
|
| But if you are renting a condo downtown, as it was my
| case, you may want to trim down your possessions as much
| as possible.
|
| Nonetheless, I think people tend to own too much stuff
| and this prevents focusing on what actually matters, it's
| a bit like with bloated software.
| nvy wrote:
| >Nonetheless, I think people tend to own too much stuff
| and this prevents focusing on what actually matters
|
| On this I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's very easy
| to accumulate cruft that one "might need later". I have a
| whole toolbox full of that shit. I might actually need a
| bunch of random capacitors, who knows?
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| My minimal backpack camping checklist has 25-50 items on
| it, and that's with counting "first aid kit" as one
| thing, "tent pegs" as one thing, not counting clothing
| I'm wearing, "food" as 1 item, etc.
|
| There is no way that an adult has 100 things inside an
| entire flat they eat, work, leisure, and sleep in. I
| assume that they mean 100 valuable things that they
| wouldn't want to just lose.
| ip26 wrote:
| You never know, some people go to extremes. One fork, one
| toothbrush, one sleeping bag, one laptop, one credit
| card, done. Toothbrush doubles as a shower brush and
| credit card is used to scrape off water instead of a
| towel.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Lol.
|
| Of course, the shower isn't yours so it doesn't count.
| Using this, we can get rid of the sleeping bag and just
| roll up the carpet in the rented flat and sleep in that.
|
| What else can we cut?
| codpiece wrote:
| Toothpaste. We have soap/shampoo.
| rpcope1 wrote:
| It's funny this came up. I ended up writing a small webapp
| that runs locally and allows me to catalog my tools, parts
| and other important odds and ends in a SQLite database (and
| attach datasheets and other information I've picked up
| along the way). I'm almost certainly the opposite of a
| minimalist, but going through and actually documenting what
| I have, where I put it, and sometimes what it was intended
| for, has been incredibly useful, especially being able to
| use full text search to quickly look up things.
| throwmeaway1212 wrote:
| related useful post about insurance and keeping track of your
| possessions
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Tennessee/comments/fdju8r/cookevill...
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| My Hack: For insurance don't try and catalog everything in a
| spreadsheet or such; you're prematurely optimizing for a rare
| event that hopefully will never happen, you'll miss stuff or
| forget important details and it's impossible to keep it up to
| date.
|
| Once a year walk through every room in your house with a
| video camera, openning all drawers and closets and record it
| all. Drop your 20-plus gigs of high-dev video somewhere (I
| use AWS glacier for pennies a month) and then IF you ever
| need to, you can painfully go through it and catalog
| everything.
| nerdchum wrote:
| I think a lot of times this philosophy is just rich people
| justifying paying a lot for high status items.
|
| a pair of Crocs is 50 bucks and that's one of the highest quality
| pairs of shoes you'll buy for the price. you could buy 10 pairs
| of Crocs for a $500 pair of Alden's so even if the crocs only
| lasted a year, it would take a decade to recoup the investment on
| the Alden's.
|
| but the crocs don't have the same status that Alan Edmonds or
| Alden or Fiorentini does.
|
| Same thing with the G-Shock watch versus a Rolex.
|
| If you really want quality look at what middle class people are
| doing. Crocs, Kirkland, G-Shock, Corolla etc.
|
| All this stuff is top quality but rich people wouldn't be caught
| dead in them.
|
| Another thing rich people like to do is repurposing something
| completely trivial. This dude probably paid as much or close to
| shipping the shoes than a new wallet would have cost.
|
| This guy gets a feeling of satisfaction that they're making the
| world a better place by repurposing their shoes. Then they go to
| their job where they earn a lot of money defending companies who
| gave a small town cancer or a massive oil spill or wholesale
| invasion of privacy.
| Swizec wrote:
| > Corolla etc.
|
| Fun way to think about it (borrowed from James May): A Toyota
| Corolla is _higher quality_ than a Rolls Royce. Because Toyota
| makes 10,000,000 vehicles per year. Rolls makes only 6,000.
| Meaning Toyota is better at making cars just by virtue of
| having 4 orders of magnitude more practice.
| CPLX wrote:
| Except that's not true. So...
| vGPU wrote:
| RR is made by BMW these days. So it's almost certain to be
| awful.
| CPLX wrote:
| BMWs are also higher quality than Corollas.
| hansvm wrote:
| They have more features, but they break down a ton more
| often. By all means, if you want ventilated seats then
| you can get a higher end BMW, but that's a different
| metric from quality.
| CPLX wrote:
| No they don't. BMW is consistently in the top 5 rankings
| for reliability.
|
| They're just better cars, made to more exacting standards
| with higher quality materials and better engineering and
| features.
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| > BMW is consistently in the top 5 rankings for
| reliability.
|
| And Toyota consistently ranks higher.
|
| https://www.drive.com.au/news/most-reliable-and-least-
| reliab...
| CPLX wrote:
| Yes so a Corolla is a lower quality car with comparable
| or slightly higher reliability stats.
|
| Unless you think the word quality is just fully
| synonymous with reliability (in which case a paper
| airplane beats an F-18) then my point stands.
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| I don't know that 72% to 65% is comparable or slightly
| higher. That seems like a gap to me. And the fact that
| BMW ranked 10th last year isn't great.
|
| Quality is famously subjective, that's why you'll never
| see it ranked in a way that everyone can agree on the way
| you can with reliability which is actually measurable.
|
| But reliability is one of the markers that most people
| would use to judge quality. And we generally expect
| aircraft to go where we want them to without catastrophic
| failure, so I would think that an F18 is more reliable
| than a paper plane.
| CPLX wrote:
| The reliability rankings are determined by surveying
| people and asking them the frequency of repairs.
|
| Assuming my paper airplane never goes into the shop it's
| going to outrank the F-18.
|
| Ain't a better plane though.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| You can get ventilated seats on Hondas and Hyundais. You
| don't need to pay high-end BMW money.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| The original formulation of this theory (in Car and Driver
| iirc) was that it's harder to make a water pump for a
| Chevrolet than a Mercedes, because you had to meet a tight
| cost objective for the Chevrolet.
|
| In practice, it just meant Chevy often cheaped out on the
| water pump and you got water pump failures after the warranty
| expired.
| lumb63 wrote:
| This isn't a totally fair comparison. When people buy shoes,
| their criteria isn't normally as low as "covers my feet". They
| have a specific style they want, a specific material, and will
| shop amongst shoes that fit that description. Crocs and dress
| shoes are not interchangeable to a lot of people.
|
| A better comparison is to look at, for instance, Johnston and
| Murphy vs. Alden. Then you get a more fair comparison. For
| instance, one has welted soles and so they can be replaced
| without changing out the upper. Those soles are leather and
| provide excellent comfort. One uses full grain leather uppers,
| one does not. Everyone doesn't need those, but if you're
| someone who is wearing dress shoes to the office every day, it
| may be worth the benefit. You also don't have to worry about
| replacing the shoe every year (though you do have to maintain
| it).
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| My criteria is maybe less fancy than other people. Covers my
| feet + isn't embarrassing + durable + potential arch support
| + cheap.
|
| I've never found shoes that meet all those criteria. I've
| actually never found any shoes, ever, that were even durable
| or had usable arch support. So cheap + not embarrassing is
| pretty much the bar to cross
|
| But I learned recently that crocks have amazing arch support!
| nerdchum wrote:
| Fair warning. I have not found Crocs to be particularly
| arch supportive. there may be a specific model though that
| I'm not aware of that. has added arch support.
| ronyeh wrote:
| What kind of arch support do you need? I've found that
| superfeet insoles work great for my flat feet. I buy them
| whenever they're on sale.
|
| They also make my cheap slip on shoes last much longer.
| schwartzworld wrote:
| Hiking shoes are usually pretty durable and supportive.
| [deleted]
| nerdchum wrote:
| Agree. Theres alot of factors involved in buying anything.
|
| So we need to stop acting like we have great wisdom for
| "Paying more for quality" when in reality status and fashion
| had as much to do with the purchase as well.
| CPLX wrote:
| Pretty on the nose.
|
| I think even more accurate is that quality/longevity and price
| are almost completely decoupled.
|
| Spending more doesn't guarantee higher quality it mostly gets
| you exceptional graphic design and deftly nested packaging that
| makes you feel good when you open it.
|
| But it's not like all the cheap stuff is better. A Rolex is an
| incredible engineering marvel and is in fact very high quality
| and durable. So are Festool tools, and so on.
|
| But like so is G-shock and a random and difficult to pin down
| subset of Harbor Freight.
|
| The broader point is that none of this really makes a fucking
| difference most of the discussion is just people preening about
| their choices instead of admitting it's mostly a roll of the
| dice.
|
| And the old stuff wasn't "better" it was just different. When I
| was a kid in the 70's and 80's garages were full of shoddy junk
| from the 50's and 60's. That stuff is just all gone right now.
| sanderjd wrote:
| The area in which this drives me the craziest is furniture. I
| have _no idea_ how to find high quality durable furniture.
| Price signals definitely aren 't it, but I have no idea what
| signals I can look for, or where to go to find them.
| nerdchum wrote:
| Furniture is INSANE!
|
| Ive never felt like I was in a more skeezy situation than
| mattress shopping.
| frutiger wrote:
| Design Within Reach, Herman Miller, Room & Board, Blu Dot,
| ...
| sanderjd wrote:
| Thanks this is really helpful. But how do I know what is
| or isn't junk at these retailers? None of the ones on
| this list have a showroom near me. And what goes in the
| ... ?
| ticviking wrote:
| You have to learn enough about how they are built and then
| haunt local consignment shops for good finds.
|
| It's taken my wife and I years to slowly get pieces that
| will last the rest of our life.
| sanderjd wrote:
| I have two young children, I don't have time to "haunt"
| anything. But before we had kids we tried this with
| consignment stores, would spend like a year looking for
| some simple piece of furniture, and end up with junk
| anyway.
| vGPU wrote:
| In general: pick the heaviest ones.
| msla wrote:
| > A Rolex is an incredible engineering marvel and is in fact
| very high quality and durable.
|
| But it's fundamentally worse at being a timepiece than a
| digital watch synchronized to an NTP time server.
| badpun wrote:
| It's a Rube Goldberg machine.
| Our_Benefactors wrote:
| This is a completely different device than a mechanical
| watch. Nobody cross shops GPS watches with a Rolex. Maybe a
| grand Seiko.
| CPLX wrote:
| Not after a nuclear war.
| nerdchum wrote:
| Yeah completely agree that price is decoupled from quality
| nowadays and it's pretty random.
|
| Price seems to be based a lot more on marketing and brand
| saturation than quality. And quality brands get bought up all
| the time and the new company will coast on the brand while
| outsourcing manufacturing to the lowest bidder.
|
| And you can't trust reviews with affiliate marketing around.
|
| So pretty much the only thing to do to identify quality is to
| experiment or share info with people you trust.
|
| I've wasted a ton of money on shitty products on the way to
| identifying quality products.
|
| I'm not even railing against status. I bought a pair of Alan
| Edmonds specifically for job interviews to signal status but
| I wear LL Bean shoes and Crocs the rest of the time.
|
| Also, there's other factors besides just durability and
| status. There's aesthetics, variable utility, ease of
| replacement, warranty availability, price, etc.
|
| I hate shopping so I think alot about this haha
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| In the world of fashion perhaps. In the world of tools,
| absolutely not.
| nerdchum wrote:
| In human society its arguable that fashion is a tool of
| communication. At least thats how I have to justify it to
| myself because I hate being forced to participate in it
| but we all are constantly being judged on how we look.
| silverlake wrote:
| From the documentary Idiocracy: Idiocracy director Mike Judge
| revealed that they went with Crocs both because they were cheap
| and that "no one would ever wear them." To the surprise of
| Judge and Idiocracy's wardrobe department, by the time the film
| came out after a delay, Crocs were all over the place."
|
| In fact you could save more money by wrapping your feet in used
| burlap sacks. Just need to be creative.
| LargeDiggerNick wrote:
| Right because Hollywood is great to look to for advice on how
| to buy low cost high quality items....
| klyrs wrote:
| Idiocracy is _exceptionally_ prophetic. And we 've _still_
| got people seriously evaluating if GPT can be better than
| your doctor.
| [deleted]
| benmanns wrote:
| $50/$500 is a 10%/year yield, which is hard come by in any
| guaranteed investment. The Crocs will likely have no retained
| value, while the $500 shoes may be worth something after 10
| years.
|
| However, that ignores the cost of maintaining a nice pair of
| shoes (both money and time) as one needs to clean, polish, and
| resole every so often.
|
| You might want shoes in two or three colors/styles, which would
| make the Crocs last 2-3x longer, same for the other shoes, but
| are you really going to want the same expensive shoes in 30
| years?
|
| I think the higher end stuff that retains value and requires
| less maintenance might be a better example, like if someone is
| good at buying watches they could get a Rolex that appreciates
| in value and ends up costing them nothing vs a series of
| cheaper watches. Or compare to a $500 Apple Watch you replace
| every couple years. I don't wear watches, though, and I'm not
| good at buying or selling them.
|
| Really, I think there are some expensive, durable goods that
| last longer and are cheaper you might think, but still more
| expensive once you take into account the maintenance and time
| value of money. But nice stuff is nice to have, and it's
| helpful that you don't have to replace it so often.
| mathgeek wrote:
| > The Crocs will likely have no retained value, while the
| $500 shoes may be worth something after 10 years.
|
| This is the core of the "secret" to wearing high quality
| shoes at a low cost. Buy good used shoes and get them resoled
| as necessary. E.g. https://www.reddit.com/r/malefashionadvice
| /comments/1jhp8o/a...
| nerdchum wrote:
| I did that for a while. Resoling is $150 or more which is
| more than a normal pair of shoes costs.
| nerdchum wrote:
| Oh completely agree. My beef is with this smug patronizing
| attitude rich people have like theyre wise for buying
| expensive things that will last longer and the rest of us
| peons should learn from these wise sages. When thats not the
| case at all. You want to learn how to buy quality things look
| at a middle class family of four wearing big old granny
| Kirkland panties and driving a Subaru.
|
| Their overhead on purchases is low AND their returns are
| high.
| [deleted]
| chrismcb wrote:
| Crocs aren't shoes. I understand what you are trying to say.
| But that was a lousy comparison. Even if you consider Crocs
| shoes, you typically won't wear them the same place you will
| wear Aldens.
| sanderjd wrote:
| The way I would put the Crocs thing is that they are not
| versatile. Maybe you could live a whole life with a pair of
| Crocs and a pair of well made leather shoes. But in that
| situation a minimalism extremist might ask: what are the Crocs
| for? You can wear the leather shoes around the house but you
| can't wear the Crocs to a wedding.
|
| But I think your point is generally true, though I'm not
| convinced it is very responsive to this specific article. I
| didn't get much preachiness from this article, but maybe it was
| there, or maybe you are familiar with this person's other
| writing, I dunno.
|
| My take is that "minimalism" is indeed often a status game as
| you say, but that it also has good insights for the rest of us
| who aren't interested in those games, but do feel this sense of
| having too much junk cluttering up our lives.
|
| I'm far from a "true" minimalist, but reading stuff like this
| over the years has totally impacted my thinking. When thinking
| about buying things now, I do think about whether I could spend
| a little more for something I'll be able to use a lot more. Or
| even ignoring price differences either way, I just evaluate
| things from this perspective of durability. And I think that's
| good.
| mym1990 wrote:
| I would say _rich people who want to signal status_ would not
| get caught with those. But there are plenty of rich folks who
| want to fly under the radar, your millionaire next door types.
| lghh wrote:
| For the shoes example, there's also value in reducing waste. 10
| pairs of rubber Crocs that you throw out every year create much
| more waste than 1 pair of 500 dollar leather boots that can be
| repaired and are much more environmentally friendly when they
| are eventually disposed of.
|
| 100% agree about the Corolla though.
| waboremo wrote:
| I'm not so sure about this comparison even. There are
| multiple factors at play that you're just assuming, that the
| $500 leather boots are going to be worn for 10 years to be
| equivalent to the crocs, but I'm not sure that's the norm.
| Excluding those who have the means easily for $500 leather
| boots, who likely will just buy more of them to rotate (thus
| creating waste). Surely someone who spends $500 on leather
| boots is also going to care about their status, and therefore
| might get them repaired far more often.
|
| These repairs, while likely less wasteful than full-on
| recycling, have costs attributed to them. It costs to produce
| the goods required to repair. These goods often aren't super
| sustainable products either. With these factors in mind, is
| the comparison equal? Can we absolutely stand by the idea
| that paying for $500 leather boots will be better for the
| environment and you for 10 years?
|
| Which is why when making these comparisons we should really
| get into the nitty gritty details, otherwise we're just
| handwaving a bunch of things and making assumptions to
| justify our position. By doing so, we'll be able to make
| better choices with proper information rather than shifting
| the burden of environmental impact elsewhere (to a repair
| shop or shoe makers, etc).
|
| Note, this is not a defense of crocs vs leather boots. The
| product categories are just throwaway examples.
| Cyph0n wrote:
| Right, because reducing waste is what people buying $500
| shoes are worried about.
| KerrAvon wrote:
| Corolla is a terrible example. It's not a nice car to
| actually drive compared to almost any other. In that price
| range: Subaru and Honda will be as reliable and much better
| cars.
| LargeDiggerNick wrote:
| False. Corollas are one of the best cars ever made.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Waste disposal is usually a flat rate though, so it doesn't
| really matter how much waste you produce in financial terms.
| comfypotato wrote:
| Crocs are not utilitarian (no structure or support for physical
| activity) and they aren't appropriate in the wider spectrum a
| nice pair of shoes are.
|
| I settled on some classic Vans after a deep internet dive
| signaled that they're the most popular among homeless people
| for being durable and comfortable without being too expensive.
| They look fine, and I have a lot of freedom regarding when to
| replace them. I'm very happy with the decision actually. As an
| added benefit, they're a welcome donation to the homeless if I
| don't completely wear them out (which is basically impossible).
|
| $500 sounds about right to me for the leather equivalent of the
| Vans. By the time you've accounted for durability and comfort
| without sacrificing appearances (and done it such that they can
| be attractively resoled) you'll spend around that much.
|
| I don't have a wardrobe to match leather shoes, but the logic
| holds here if I did. You don't have to be rich to daily drive a
| single pair of nice shoes, and the author's tone didn't strike
| me as snobbish or smug.
|
| It's just a different attitude. Lots of more expensive clothing
| gets you added features, better style, and better comfort than
| Kirkland. Expensive athleisure brands like Lululemon and Alo,
| for example, have pockets in better places and are more
| attractive than their Kirkland equivalents. The directly
| equivalent spending on the two makes for a smaller wardrobe
| that gets worn more often. If you have a ChatGPT Plus
| subscription, have a quick discussion with it about fashion.
| Its training is not among content from the rich but rather the
| internet at large, and even it will tell you that fewer nicer
| fashion choices make a better wardrobe than more less expensive
| pieces.
| ericpauley wrote:
| Completely agree. People love to tout the boots theory but the
| reality is that the people who claim this are often far beyond
| the point of optimal cost. Mass manufacturing inherently allows
| for better value to be delivered at greater scale, which tends
| to occur at the lower end of the price range. Beyond a certain
| point you're paying for prestige rather than lifespan.
|
| I've had the same wallet for 10 years. It cost me $16 and was
| made from recycled leather scraps (thanks, Phil's wallets!). I
| plan to use it at least another 10 years. Will the $115 wallet
| pushed in this article really last 7x longer than my scrap
| wallet? I doubt it.
| bthrn wrote:
| It really depends what you mean by "optimal cost" and "better
| value". For example, if you want something that's handcrafted
| rather than made in a factory on the other side of the world,
| you have to pay for the skills and labor that go into that.
| Depending on what it is, it might not last longer - but could
| be a better value in other respects than simply cost. Not
| everything has to be about making widgets for the lowest
| amount of money possible.
| ericpauley wrote:
| Of course. If you change the requirements the decision
| space shifts too. With respect to the boots theorem optimal
| cost is specifically focused on long-term concrete utility
| per dollar. Fwiw I'd ( _very loosely_ ) classify the points
| you're bringing under "prestige".
| bthrn wrote:
| > Fwiw I'd (very loosely) classify the points you're
| bringing under "prestige".
|
| If I'd like my clothes made and sourced ethically, or if
| I want to support a local business that makes leather
| goods rather than buying mass-produced ones from
| somewhere else -- I wouldn't say those scenarios are
| motivated by prestige, but by valuing people and the work
| they do. It's a bit unfortunate that some things like
| that are considered a luxury these days.
| Veen wrote:
| But "buying for quality" and "buying for status" are different,
| and I don't think rich people conflate the two (or the people
| here). The person buying Louis Vuitton luggage (or whatever
| rich people buy these days) knows they are buying it for status
| among their similarly wealthy friends. Although, you also get
| counter-signaling among "old money" types, where it's seen as
| declasse to try too hard; they wouldn't be seen dead with
| something as vulgar as Louis Vuitton luggage.
|
| However, I don't think this conversation is about them.
|
| The smart middle class family buys the best they can afford
| given their budget, but the less-smart family buys the cheapest
| 'Buy well, buy once' encourages the first approach.
| tajd wrote:
| Sometimes I buy something cheap and then if I use it enough to
| break it I end up investing in a decent one. Another perspective
| on incremental delivery.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| I'm not a fan of buying it once. I prefer buying on feedback.
|
| Here's my daily wardrobe:
|
| - an oversized plain black T shirt, - a pair of jeans, - a belt,
| - black socks, - and a pair of boxer briefs.
|
| I wear these almost every day. Every single one of these items is
| cheap enough to buy in bulk whenever I want them. So: If I ever
| walk into my closet and find myself missing any one of these
| items due to them all being in the laundry, I immediately
|
| 1. Take out my phone and 2. Order another pack of them on Amazon.
|
| The beauty of this feedback loop is that I very quickly converge
| on the point where my buffer matches my flow, where my natural
| cadence of laundry-doing never leaves me without one of these
| five essentials. It works regardless of whether I do laundry once
| a week or once a month, so long as I make sure to do _all_ of it.
| Worst case scenario, I have a few shirts
| /pants/boxers/socks/belts that mostly lie around unused, until of
| course I eventually have to throw out old
| shirts/pants/boxers/socks/belts because they were used heavily
| enough to wear down.
| KronisLV wrote:
| > Every single one of these items is cheap enough to buy in
| bulk whenever I want them.
|
| I apply something like this to most of my purchases. If I am
| buying a new phone or some computer hardware, I want to be able
| to fit another replacement for what I'm about to buy into
| whatever my budget is. The same goes for clothes, tools for the
| garden like a tiller or a chainsaw or whatever.
|
| And you know what? It's a decent approach: I have a used Ryzen
| 5 1600 in my computer now (upgraded from Ryzen 3 1200), as well
| as an RX 570 (and a spare RX 580 for similar price, bought
| recently as new old stock), because under that reasoning that's
| all I can afford, yet it's all that I realistically need. Some
| spare HDDs (those die more than most other hardware) and a mobo
| and everything in the shelf next to it. If any one of those
| parts die like they have in the past, I don't have to cry about
| how expensive replacing everything will be, nor wait for
| shipping, just spend 30 minutes swapping out parts.
|
| As for longevity of various items: I don't quite buy it. Sure,
| there are also people with Stihl chainsaws that have lasted
| them decades, but why would I spend 5-10x more money, when I
| can get a new Chinese chainsaw for about 100 EUR that will be
| enough for all of my casual usage needs around the farm? And
| once it inevitably stops being useful, I can get a completely
| new one without a worn engine, while still having some spare
| parts for repairs. I can think of very few items where I'd want
| the latest or greatest, even my daily driver phone isn't top of
| the line and only stands out because of IP 68 and being shock
| proof (up to a degree, dropped it out of my pocket and on
| concrete while doing pull ups, didn't even crack the screen).
|
| Perhaps the only exception to this is something like services:
| dental care and other healthcare procedures, no reason to go
| cheap on either of those, but then again, I live in Europe so
| that's not a very contested subject for me due to the overall
| affordability. Still pondering these thoughts in regards to
| food, but store brand food is generally both affordable and
| reasonably healthy over here.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| Ha, moved from the US to Finland 2 years ago myself, we could
| be twins down to the phone. The deciding factor for me
| picking up a ruggedized Nokia XR20 was because I said to
| myself "all I do on this think is Anki, Spotify and social
| media, so I might as well get an indestructible one if I have
| to get a new one at all."
| ajnin wrote:
| Strange article. It is about an unrepairable pair of shoes that
| need to be recycled but its title is "Buy well, buy once". Not
| really the case, then ?
|
| Then he mentions that he has only 192 "worldly possessions". I'd
| like to see the actual list, because if it is accurate he mustn't
| have many forks or boxes of food in his cupboards. So he probably
| lives in a big city, eats out very often, takes public
| transportation, and basically relies on external services for
| things he does not have. Which is a kind of lifestyle that has a
| lot of externalities and does not really have a minimalist impact
| on society as a whole, so it feels less appealing to me.
|
| I'm rather in the opposite camp, if I have some fixing to do in
| my house, rather than call a plumber for example I'll buy the
| tools, learn by watching youtube videos of experts, and do it
| myself. Not because of a philosophical view of the world but
| because I like to learn skills and be self-reliant. My
| possessions also last a long time because I'm often able to
| repair them.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > Then he mentions that he has only 192 "worldly possessions".
| I'd like to see the actual list,
|
| Author didn't even seem to read the LA Times link he linked.
| I've personally got close to 5000 staples in a drawer. And I'm
| sure the author has some similar huge amount of an object. He's
| undoubtedly not counting his shoelaces as separate objects,
| where it seems likely the authors of the research on items in a
| household are.
|
| From the LA Times piece:
|
| > The average U.S. household has 300,000 things, from _paper
| clips_
|
| emphasis, mine. A box of paper clips is considered multiple
| items.
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| That seems like a pretty bad statistic. No source online,
| possibly just an oft-repeated estimate from "professional
| organizer Regina Lark". There are only 100 paperclips in a
| box of paperclips, so that's not a major source of items.
| This statistic requires 150 items for every square foot in a
| 2000-square-foot house. Not even things like my laundry
| basket or spice rack manage that.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > or spice rack
|
| I see you aren't counting the individual granules.
| klyrs wrote:
| Cue Monty Python; "Every Sperm is Sacred"
| mailund wrote:
| > So he probably lives in a big city, eats out very often,
| takes public transportation, and basically relies on external
| services for things he does not have. Which is a kind of
| lifestyle that has a lot of externalities and does not really
| have a minimalist impact on society as a whole,
|
| Not sure how living in a big city and taking public transit has
| more negative externalities than the alternatives, care to
| expand?
| abnry wrote:
| He didn't say they are negative, he said they are
| externalities. I've come to the same conclusion that
| minimalism is only supportable by other people not being
| minimalists. That's not necessarily a judgment on whether it
| is good or bad, but a statement of fact.
| mailund wrote:
| Maybe I can clarify, I felt there was an argument that
| living in a big city and using shared services (e.g. public
| transit) had a bigger impact than other alternatives. I was
| wondering what those alternatives that would be.
|
| I also feel it was implied that this impact was negative -
| or else it wouldn't be an argument against the post - but
| that's besides the point.
| [deleted]
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _I even keep a record of all my worldly possessions in a visual
| catalogue spreadsheet on Airtable. 192 items at my last count._
|
| > _I don 't count hoodies, t-shirts, socks or usb cables but I
| really don't own many. I count a pair of shoes in a box as 1
| item._
|
| Huh? Either you're counting things or you're not. Saying you own
| 192 items except for the 800 (?) you're not counting doesn't make
| a lot of sense. Why are shoes an item but socks aren't?
|
| 192 makes no sense to me. I've probably got 192 items in my
| kitchen alone, just from wanting to be able to cook and serve a
| meal for 4 people because it's nice to eat with friends. A fork
| is a worldly possession, after all.
| bombcar wrote:
| I have two items because I count my house as one and my car as
| the other.
| hanniabu wrote:
| You also have keys to each so that's at least 4 items, and
| then your clothes and computer, i'm sure you have soap and
| toothbrush and toothpaste, and hopefully you have toilet
| paper and a bed, and having a bed means you likely have a
| pillow, pillow cover, sheet, blanket, and mattress, etc
| bombcar wrote:
| I count all those as parts of the above!
|
| (Counting owned items can get entirely silly).
| Ryoung27 wrote:
| I don't own anything at all, but my wife sure does have a
| lot of stuff I use often that she never uses, and happen
| to be in a men's large.
| devilbunny wrote:
| G. Gordon Liddy of Watergate fame once said something on
| his radio show along the lines of "well, as a convicted
| felon, I'm not allowed to own firearms. However, _Mrs._
| Liddy has a large collection that she occasionally allows
| me to use under her supervision. "
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| If you would like to reduce the number of possessions you own
| by 50% you could park your car in the garage. You're welcome.
| rootsudo wrote:
| >192 makes no sense to me. I've probably got 192 items in my
| kitchen alone, just from wanting to be able to cook and serve a
| meal for 4 people because it's nice to eat with friends. A fork
| is a worldly possession, after all.
|
| You're assuming people are the same as you - I follow the same
| but I live out of suitcases and can travel at a moments notice
| for the best flights and pick up an airbnb somewhere.
|
| But this is the life I want - literally 95% of my things fit in
| 2 suit cases, a third is my bike and a bike is a bike thought
| if you want to get really technical you can count the wheels,
| the brakes, the brake rotors, the frame, chain, groupset, etc
| as different but together it's a bike (and a bike bag!) but I
| do count the clothes/water bottles, etc.
|
| It's also so cool because you can use pivot tables to group
| items into necessary or not - so if you want to wing just a one
| backpack 25-40l trip, you know what to grab and also the
| rolling cost of items associated too - and for more fun,
| deprecation, purchase cost, etc.
|
| I enjoy it, but thats the spirit, a pair of socks = 1 or do you
| have 12 socks?
| mazugrin2 wrote:
| Can't people who live out of chests of drawers and closets
| also "travel at a moments [sic] notice for the best flights"?
| rootsudo wrote:
| Suitcase, chest, drawers, yes - it's just the thinking and
| not having "possessions."
|
| The bigger takeaway is learning what keeps you grounded or
| anchored. Nothing is wrong with that - can be family, can
| be cars, can be real estate/houses, can be business, etc.
|
| The idea is you inventory your life and see what is the
| most minimal you need (haha, MVP basically.) and go from
| there.
|
| You can do it for spending, you can do it for consumption
| via money, diet - eating/consumption/purchasing,etc.
|
| It's fun, I enjoy keeping an inventory list, knowing what I
| have where and for larger valued items, e.g. $500+ I can
| put in last time usage so if I don't need it, I sell it -
| lower value items giveaway/free.
|
| For me, I've live in the PNW too - and it's quite fun to
| just have a suitcase/duffel bag, and just camp out in my
| car or drive somewhere new and do that - or like I said
| above, hop on a flight and have everything I need for the
| duration of my stay.
|
| I get it can sound boring or non-exciting to many people,
| but once you get into it - it really is fascinating. What
| things do you need for everyday life?
|
| Up in the air had a great segment about it,
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsRP9EUrXjo I haven't read
| the book, but I should - I've been seeing it quite a bit.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| Is the idea that you're renting apartments and counting the
| pots and pans, toilet brush etc as not being yours because
| you leave them with the house?
|
| So my bath mat is "mine" because I own the house and had to
| buy it myself, but yours isn't because it's rented?
|
| Because if we can cut that out then yeah, now I own far fewer
| things. It seems like a weird distinction to make.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| I make a distinction between things I have sentimental
| attachment to, important or expensive to replace vs things
| that are not.
|
| I wouldn't count all my dinner plates and cutlery as
| "possessions" as such, but I'd count my good knives.
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| Those are "prized possessions". Possession means
| property. If you own it, and would have to pack it up and
| take it with you when you moved, it's a possession.
| mildchalupa wrote:
| Well you see I have a mortgage and if I walked away they
| would take everything within the house thus I don't own
| anything other than the clothing on my back.
|
| Same with the cars.
| rootsudo wrote:
| It can be - if you do a STR/Airbnb/Hotel, the pots and pans
| should come with the place and they're not yours. Many
| hotels do include the above, especially mid to higher end
| ones.
|
| If you're renting on a standard long term lease - not short
| term rental, and it isn't furnished with them, yes they're
| yours because you _bought_ them.
|
| It's up to you what you want to "count", but toiletries are
| like petty cash. Pots/Pans can have realistic value, and
| the rabbit hole for them goes deep from cheap iron,
| stainless steel, ikea standard purchase, etc.
|
| The idea is to take a break, catalog what you have and go
| from there. You can catalog 1000+ items and just get rid of
| ten but then you know "oh just ten items were fluff" vs not
| knowing or getting rid of 200.
|
| The idea is the exercise.
| cortesoft wrote:
| So if I rent everything, I can live my exact same
| lifestyle but be called a minimalist?
| TheDong wrote:
| Minimalist is just a self-identified label, so you're
| welcome to call yourself a minimalist if you feel that it
| fits.
|
| You don't have to look for some technical workaround to
| some exact definition here, and pedantically arguing
| about descriptive terms can get tiring real quick.
|
| Maybe you're not trying to be pedantic and are coming
| from a place of curiosity, and I do apologize for my tone
| if that's the case. It is coming off as sounding a little
| "debate-bro" though.
| valleyer wrote:
| And, really, don't we all rent everything?
| quicklime wrote:
| Most people buy everything, even their homes, using
| rented money!
| rootsudo wrote:
| You don't own it - its furniture, comes with the house -
| it's the lifestyle itself. While you technically seem
| correct on it, you're missing the point.
| ip26 wrote:
| _wanting to be able to cook and serve a meal for 4 people
| because it 's nice to eat with friends_
|
| Don't be silly, having three friends is hardly minimalist. Have
| you ever considered how friends weigh you down? One is more
| than enough, and frankly even that might be too many.
| sockaddr wrote:
| Yeah and he'd have to list his friends on his airtable
| bringing him dangerously close to that problematic 200
| figure.
| weregiraffe wrote:
| Living is hardly minimalist.
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| This is not a joke for me. The same impulse that says I don't
| want to maintain a lawn or bed frame makes me count the
| benefit of a friend against the cost of committing time every
| few weeks, time I could be using for whatever I want. Some of
| us feel really burdened by commitments. We feel about each
| outlay the way a normal person only feels when they get right
| to their limit and have to cut back.
| nocoiner wrote:
| He's gotta be ready to walk out in 30 seconds flat when he
| spots the heat round the corner.
| [deleted]
| timeon wrote:
| Do they count the spreadsheet itself? It does not have physical
| weight but mental one certainly.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Although the idea sounds intriguing, it doesn't really make a lot
| of sense in modern world.
|
| To "buy well", one has to understand every merchandise he is to
| make a purchase, but who has the capacity to do the research? And
| how do you do the research?
|
| For example, how do you know that two fridges, one $800 and one
| $2000, which one will last longer? Modern capitalism distorts
| price-quality equation so you cannot simply pick the more
| expensive ones.
|
| It really makes sense to just pick a brand you heard of, take a
| middle priced model, or what ever fits your need and go with it.
| And never places too much hope on it. Expect that home appliance
| will break in 5-7 years.
|
| Our fathers and grandfathers had the luxury of living in a
| different world. We don't. I guess the only saying that makes
| sense is: don't buy screwdrivers from dollar shops.
| cookie_monsta wrote:
| I don't think there are any universal roles. I would use a
| screwdriver maybe once or twice a year. Dollar shop ones seem
| fine for that
| edgarvaldes wrote:
| Unrelated, but anyone know a good desktop program for home
| inventory? No webapp, no mobile app.
| sundvor wrote:
| Amen. Not exactly a minimalist thing this, but more about
| sourcing quality to "buy once": Rotel multi channel sound system
| (amp and pre amp) from 1997 here, still going strong with one
| repair five-ten years in, along with Infinity Kappa speakers from
| the same time - their surrounds replaced once, a decade ago.
|
| Amazing sound, I love how it feels.
|
| Where it loses most is connectivity. Amps use DB25 cables both
| between each other and for input, so the audio cable I've got
| hooked up to the HTPC's Xonar Deluxe with RCAs out is a very
| special one indeed - I'm amazed I found it at all, all those
| years ago (DB25-RCA). All audio has to go through the HTPC, for
| that reason, so the Samsung 65" QLED from 6-7 years ago is just a
| dumb display (not a bad thing!).
|
| For longevity I rarely if ever power the equipment down; it's
| gotten a bit finicky to start the preamp after a power outage,
| but for now it's still coming back.
|
| I'll attempt to have it repaired prior to getting a replacement
| if it ever fails.
|
| Oh and the Win10 HTPC is a decade old at the core too, but I've
| updated it with a modern case, cooling and storage - works
| fantastic with a wireless Logitech keyboard.
|
| Speakerbits in Melbourne who did my surrounds (they had all
| disintegrated) has ceased to exist now, but they did a stellar
| job - guy said the speakers had appreciated since my purchase, as
| decent mid range speakers just didn't exist anymore, it was
| either low end (rubbish) or the extreme high end.
| rpearl wrote:
| I respect using that stuff for a while (my amp is about 12
| years old but I'm upgrading this year).
|
| Stick with what you have if it sounds good to you, but I do
| feel the need to point out two things: There have been
| significant improvements in room correction DSP algorithms
| particularly in the last decade. You don't need to ditch your
| amp to add these, there are DSP boxes you can put in the preamp
| stage. These _will_ improve sound quality considerably.
| Audyssey, Dirac, and Anthem ARC are common names; there are
| others.
|
| And there are a huge abundance of speakers in the mid range
| $200-$600 that are absolutely fantastic; it's a pretty wide
| market segment. There's plenty of old options too, but... it's
| not hard to find a new set of speakers capable of great sound
| at a decent price these days. I don't know what exactly
| Speakerbits was implying, but it's not true now.
| sundvor wrote:
| Thanks for those tips, great to know! I hadn't thought of
| maybe upgrading the pre-amp only (one with a room processor
| built in, for simplicity?), that's actually something that
| would make sense especially for connectivity also.
|
| I haven't really been following hi-fi products over the last
| couple of decades, due to wanting to "settle", but it
| wouldn't surprise me if things have improved since January
| 2010 (checked the date they were repaired) - or maybe the
| technician just had a particular affinity for the Kappa 6.2is
| (4x same plus their centre speaker).
| 0zemp3c wrote:
| [flagged]
| jrflowers wrote:
| I enjoyed this article about the minimalist man getting two
| minimally useful extra wallets.
| replygirl wrote:
| Mostly single-stitched and with unfinished edges to boot
| mberning wrote:
| Therein is the kernel of every hoarder pathology, which is
| ironic.
|
| "This is too <whatever> to get rid of!"
|
| Wrong. Throw it away and don't replace it.
| notatoad wrote:
| or if throwing it away makes you feel bad, give it away.
|
| either it finds its way to somebody who will value it, or
| somebody will throw it out for you. either way is a win.
| balaji1 wrote:
| Giving things away definitely is a win. Good Will seems to
| be a quick solution for this - is it a good place to give
| things away? Hope the things find a second life.
| mberning wrote:
| I disagree. It's another pathological behavior. In many of
| these cases you are taking your problem, something you have
| no use for, and turning it into someone else's problem. My
| wife and sister in law are terrible about this. Rather than
| just getting rid of things they go to a relative to sit
| around for years or decades, out of sight, before finally
| making their way to the trash. I absolutely hate it when
| the sister in law shows up with a new box of "priceless
| treasures" for us to deal with.
| nebula8804 wrote:
| Giving it away has now haunted me. Father passed away two
| years ago and a bunch of computing equipment he bought for
| me had been donated years before he had passed when it was
| worth very little. Now in this post covid era all of those
| things are 'vintage' and super expensive. I have tracked
| down some of the original equipment through the people I
| originally gave it to but it has not really been possible
| to get those things back. Yes I was a mild hoarder aspiring
| minimalist before but now I have become a full on hoarder.
| I desperately do extreme organizing in places like my
| basement to be able to contain so much of the stuff I have.
| I don't really know how to reconcile this fear of losing
| something for good.
|
| A fellow hacker at VCF once mentioned to me that this
| obsession that many geeks have should graduate into letting
| go of items because down the road you can always buy
| another one if it scratches your itch again. He made a good
| point.
| Fr0styMatt88 wrote:
| I'm going through my own journey with this at the moment,
| the thing I keep telling myself is that "this item will
| have a better life somewhere else" and "my house isn't a
| landfill". It's tough though.
|
| Plus selling stuff is a full-time job really and it's
| annoying AF if it's not your day job. So I guess the
| question is - are you going to ever sell it? If not, then
| it doesn't really matter if it's expensive, it's just
| taking up space.
| ghaff wrote:
| I've gotten rid of a lot of stuff I've accumulated over
| the years--including most computer-related hardware and
| software I don't use. One thing I find hard is that you
| know you have stuff that someone would be delighted to
| get for cheap/free. But it really isn't worth my time to
| try to make that connection. And a lot of it is niche
| enough that I doubt I'd find takers at a yard sale out in
| the country.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Keeping things isn't free, especially at scale. And it's
| not just about the space, as you've noticed organising
| and keeping track both of what you have and where to find
| it is a lot of hassle. Only for 95% of things decreasing
| in value over time, with no reliable way to identify the
| 5% worth keeping.
|
| Your income/purchasing power definitely plays a role here
| too. Hoarding is more worth it if you don't have an
| efficient way to covert time into money.
| nicbou wrote:
| I used to be interested in minimalism, but I realised that they
| just obsess over objects in a different way.
|
| I wanted to save money, avoid maintenance and reduce my mental
| load. I found people who keep spreadsheets of their stuff and
| debate whether it's okay to own tools or multiple coffee cups.
| ta988 wrote:
| That sound pathological, why would you do that to yourself
| throwaway74513 wrote:
| > I used to be interested in minimalism, but I realised that
| they just obsess over objects in a different way.
|
| This is really interesting, particularly since you use the
| word "obsess". I meet all of the criteria for OCPD (obsessive
| compulsive personality disorder -- NOT the same thing as
| OCD), except for "unwilling to throw out broken or worthless
| objects, even if they have no sentimental value". In fact,
| I'm quite the opposite because I try to be as minimalist as I
| can and am constantly throwing away or donating objects that
| I don't need or that don't meet my quality standards.
|
| I always thought it was strange that I don't match this one
| specific symptom of OCPD, but then I started thinking some
| more, and I realized that I do obsess over objects in a way
| but not by hoarding them. If I want to order nail clippers
| for example, I have to spend hours online researching the
| best pair of nail clippers. I am currently wiring my house
| for networking, and everything has to be of the highest
| quality using data center components. Even rented a Fluke
| network tester. Closet needs repairs? Now I'm learning about
| drywall and level 5 skim coats. It's a nightmare because I
| can't do anything in a way that I consider half-assing it --
| I feel compelled to either do nothing at all or go into an
| extreme level of detail with it.
|
| This constantly causes relationship and work problems, but to
| a lesser degree than I suppose hoarding stuff would.
| opello wrote:
| Hm, I find aspects of myself in this description that seem
| like they should be troubling.
|
| Nail Clipper: Green Bell G-1008
|
| The frustration of needing to build expertise in things you
| want to not do shabbily is particularly familiar.
| Especially with home repair tasks that contractors end up
| doing but not doing well ... I've learned far more about
| roofing, flashing techniques, the guidelines for handling,
| installing, and storing prefinished siding that were
| nowhere near followed by contractors ... than I would have
| expected or even truly wanted. It really emphasizes the
| "ignorance is bliss" mindset which is a hard pill for me to
| swallow.
| metadat wrote:
| In case you haven't already, please consult a professional.
| Do yourself the favor, you're worth it.
|
| Edit: @asddubs: thanks for taking the time to share your
| thoughts, though you never know what reality faces the
| person on the other end of a link, which is why I still
| try. Sometimes you might be surprised. And thank you for
| helping get my karma back to an even number, all is well
| again. Your friendly friend, MD.
| asddubs wrote:
| I didn't downvote you if that's what you mean. Sorry if
| my post seemed rude, but I think the other side of the
| coin is that it can be a little grating to talk about
| yourself without requesting help or indicating that
| you're not already getting it and be offered extremely
| obvious advice, so I think your post just rubbed me wrong
| a little.
| [deleted]
| asddubs wrote:
| seems like a useless piece of advice to give to someone
| with that level of awareness about it.
| sanderjd wrote:
| This will probably rub you even wronger, but your
| defensive response here makes me think the advice was
| more useful than you think.
| asddubs wrote:
| Except I'm not the same person the advice was given to
| [deleted]
| mrweasel wrote:
| > reduce my mental load
|
| That's has become my goal for new purchases. For some items
| that means getting higher quality that will last longer, for
| others it's get the cheapest that will work and replace it if
| it breaks. It does lead to weird purchases like higher
| quality charger cables, but cheaper a cheap TV.
| emodendroket wrote:
| It sounds kind of woo, but I tried the Konmari method and it
| really was helpful without being overly prescriptive. It
| definitely felt good to get rid of a lot of that stuff.
| Though there are a couple that I'd probably take back if I
| could do it over.
| nicbou wrote:
| It's a great technique, but I'd rather focus on reducing
| purchases instead of getting rid of purchased stuff. The
| environmental damage is already done, unless it finds a
| second user.
|
| I like that Konmari can also apply to obligations and how
| you allocate your time. Thats the premise of a book: the
| life-changing magic of not giving a f**.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Part of the promise of the book is that going through the
| process once will change how you shop as you develop your
| sense for which things you really want to have around.
| ksec wrote:
| It was suppose to be like _Simple_ , but not Simpler. But
| modern minimalism went to an extreme.
| 2-718-281-828 wrote:
| well, i think it is mostly a form of self-therapy where you
| project a mental stressor onto something you can touch, see
| and deal with. then you try to manipulate that stressor and
| heal your trauma by manipulating that object or set of
| objects - or maybe an animal, a spouse or your child. of
| course that won't work.
| hotpotamus wrote:
| I think Dieter Rams captured it best with the phrase, "less
| but better". It's more or less the ethos I try to (and seldom
| do) achieve.
| joshcanhelp wrote:
| Thank you for this, it put into words my uneasiness with this
| practice. Our household definitely has too much stuff and we
| always seem to be at battle with it but minimalism just feels
| like a mirror image problem.
| safety1st wrote:
| > Replacing broken or worn items often feels like a
| nightmare of upheaval and system change
|
| It seems like if this is where someone's application of
| minimalism lands them, they have missed the point.
|
| On that note I went from owning one pair of shoes last year
| to three. It was a great non-minimalist decision. My shoes
| now take three times longer to wear out, and now I'm always
| wearing shoes that are more useful or more fashionable for
| the situation (or both) than what I used to wear.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| Whenever I try to do this, I inevitably settle on wearing
| one of the three 100% of the time. How do you manage it?
| oefnak wrote:
| Buy identical shoes in different colours.
| safety1st wrote:
| I go by function. A pair of everyday shoes for regular
| days, a pair of cross-trainers for gym days, and an
| expensive pair of boots for days when I get dressed up.
| tharkun__ wrote:
| Im finding out that the way I was brought up is not
| universal. I was always taught that you have to alternate
| shoes every day to make them last longer, because feet
| sweat too. That's why expensive dress shoes have shoe
| trees (not just to hold the shape better).
|
| So two pairs of shoes for the office so they always have
| a full day to dry out etc. Now with WFH that sort of goes
| out the window as I don't wear shoes for as long any
| more.
| spacemadness wrote:
| As soon as I read they store every item they own in a
| database, that seemed like unhealthy obsessive-compulsive
| behavior to me. Using technology to shame yourself does not
| seem like a path toward happiness. I wasn't sure why I want
| to take advice from someone that has that level of anxiety
| around owning things.
| patrec wrote:
| One also has to admire Whitstable man's marketing genius if
| he's able to live of his $100 "wallets" (which mostly amount to
| two badly sewn together pieces of leather). This article feels
| a bit too on the nose though. But he probably knows his
| audience.
| emodendroket wrote:
| They're really more like card holders, but I looked up that
| term and found they've now been rebranded as "minimalist
| wallets." Hey, even minimalism can be commoditized and sold.
| All that is solid melts into air after all.
| ghaff wrote:
| A lot fewer people regularly use business cards and a lot
| more people rarely use cash or need to carry a lot of cards
| with them given they can store info on their phone. I carry
| one made by Saddleback and it's perfect for me.
| justnotworthit wrote:
| I don't think "buy well" is the proper response to "the things
| you own own you". The warning is about fetishization, not
| directly about "amount".
| Kiro wrote:
| > You are either in your bed or in your shoes, so it pays to
| invest in both.
|
| Do you wear shoes inside?
| JansjoFromIkea wrote:
| As someone who rents the main thing I've gained from this
| philosophy is that it's way better to buy high quality used and
| resell for close to the same price than to pay cheaper and
| struggle to get rid of for free.
|
| Not sure how well the durability arguments with new products will
| hold up over decades like a 60s Braun product may have
| olddustytrail wrote:
| There's a UK company called "Buy Me Once"
| https://uk.buymeonce.com/ specialises in this. I've bought some
| stuff from them and it was always good.
| fuzztester wrote:
| There's a Hindi proverb I heard as a kid from adult friends and
| relatives:
|
| Mehngaa roye ek baar, sastaa roye sattar baar
|
| Meaning, literally:
|
| Expensive, cry once; cheap, cry seventy times.
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| This article, and people posting in this thread are saying that
| they own 100 or 200 things.
|
| I can't believe this at all.
|
| My utility room, which basically just has stuff like cleaning
| products and rags/cloths etc, has more than 200 items in it. It's
| all useful, we're talking things like bleach, deodorant, shampoo,
| handwash, etc.
|
| My house probably has 50 or more pieces of art on the walls and
| then another 50 pieces of furniture. My computery odds and ends
| bin easily has more than 200 items in it.
|
| Either you guys are all just-moved-out kids, single and living in
| a single room, or we're defining "thing" differently. Which is
| it?
| thfuran wrote:
| No kidding. If you own 100 items, a made bed is like 10% of
| your belongings. That's nonsense.
| Noumenon72 wrote:
| > This article, and people posting in this thread are saying
| that they own 100 or 200 things.
|
| > I can't believe this at all.
|
| > Either you guys are all just-moved-out kids, single and
| living in a single room, or we're defining "thing" differently.
|
| I feel like the assumption in this is that people who are
| single and living in a single room are not "people", and
| shouldn't be posting about how much they own? My utility room
| contains a washer, a dryer, one bottle of Tide, and a paper bag
| for dryer lint. I'm not posting "people say they have 2000
| square feet in their home, I can't believe this. Either you
| guys live in houses, or we're defining 'feet' differently".
| pacifika wrote:
| I think your house must be a bit bigger than most people, based
| on 50 pieces of art, compared to a minimalist living in a
| rented 2 bedroom apartment
| throwaway22032 wrote:
| It sounds like the entire distinction is just renting vs
| owning to be honest, which makes it all a bit more boring.
|
| My house is a fairly normal sized house, there are millions
| of it in the UK.
| lifeformed wrote:
| Everything else is in their parents' basement.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| I used to travel for extended times, and I actually counted the
| items in my backpack. It was about 70 items (if you count a
| money wad as one item and each sock pair as one item). That's
| all I needed.
|
| Of course, much more items are accumulating while staying
| stationary. Easily approaches 1000, and I'm not a hoarder type.
| If some item has not been used for 1 year, out to the garbage
| it goes.
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| To be fair, I don't think it really makes sense to count
| consumable items like the bleach, deodorant, shampoo, handwash,
| etc. examples you gave. I wouldn't expect him to count the milk
| in his fridge or the olive oil in his pantry, either. Point
| being that just the natural day-to-day use of that stuff uses
| it up.
|
| But yeah, I agree with the general point.
| timeon wrote:
| > I don't think it really makes sense to count consumable
| items
|
| On the other hand if I count something it is more likely to
| be consumable item, so I have track of what is missing. Why
| bother with other stuff? That sounds like opposite of
| minimalism.
| rootsudo wrote:
| "Either you guys are all just-moved-out kids, single and living
| in a single room, or we're defining "thing" differently. Which
| is it?"
|
| It's just a different lifestyle, there are obvious exceptions
| to it - but I was there once with a house and countless things
| - most of them I forgot I had and such.
|
| The idea is to do inventory and then catalog and see what you
| _need_ and don 't need. But no, I can say with assurance my
| life right now is basically two suitcases, by choice - and
| airbnbs/hotels. 20 lb of clothes/about 80 pieces total.
|
| Misc electronic stuff takes a ton of space, spare usb -
| chargers, usb cables, etc - having spares for spares.
| [deleted]
| FalconSensei wrote:
| exactly. If you just count cutlery, dishes, pans, cleaning
| products, chargers, cables, etc... it goes up way too fast.
| csiegert wrote:
| You'd think if you pay more you get quality. I paid 280EUR for
| the Microsoft Surface Headset 2 when they came out. After a year
| and a half, the plastic head band cracked in half. The part of
| the device that is stressed whenever I put the headset on or take
| it off was cheap plastic and just broke with regular use. 280EUR
| down the drain because some MBA or stupid designer said hey let's
| use cheap plastic.
| 0x53 wrote:
| I would love to be a minimalist. Unfortunately I have a wife who
| is the opposite of that and a woodworking hobby.
| 2muchcoffeeman wrote:
| Hobbies are a great reason to accumulate stuff though. You
| can't get good at stuff if you have nothing or need to hire
| gear all the time.
| s5300 wrote:
| Things I have bought well and once:
|
| Vitamix 5300 - going strong after 13 years of near daily usage, 4
| family blenders from department stores failed/poor quality
| blending before this
|
| Zojirushi Rice Cooker - also close to 13 years, usage of a few
| times a week
|
| Breville Burr Grinder - decade or a bit older, frequently used
|
| Sonicare Toothbrush - $150ish or so model, probably 8 years of
| near twice daily usage. Presume I'll have to change the battery
| sooner or later, but fine aside from that.
|
| Being from poverty, I don't think anybody in my family prior to
| me had ever spent nearly this much money on singular appliances.
| Having made the money spent on them on my own in my early teens,
| I consider it money very well spent - they've been with me in the
| Midwest, to the East Coast, and the West Coast (and through more
| than a few TSA baggage scans with people maybe wondering why is a
| young male flying with this kitchen equipment)
| cactusplant7374 wrote:
| I was disappointed to learn Vitamix and Instant Pot aren't dual
| voltage compatible. Can't use them in Europe.
|
| So basically only low wattage stuff is 120 and 220 volts.
| diffeomorphism wrote:
| You can get both in 220V versions though.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| Mi Zojirushi/Micom rice cooker is good, but the battery is
| essentially not user-replacable. I just set the clock any time
| I'm going to use the timer; it's a real letdown in something
| that otherwise has lasted me over a decade.
| quesera wrote:
| If you own a screwdriver and a soldering iron, some solder
| braid and some solder, the battery becomes replaceable!
|
| This is my objection to minimalism (not that you're
| advocating, but ObOnTopic): Tools and materials are
| _capability_ , which seems senseless to minimize!
| 22c wrote:
| Sadly, my Diamond Sonicare toothbrush failed after just over 2
| years. I spent several weeks back and forth with Philips.
| Initially they offered me 10% off buying a new one, which I was
| not happy with having spent so much on a top of the line model.
| I asked about the possibility of repair, they forwarded me the
| details of several local certified Philips repairers who, when
| I rang, all said they only really repair TVs or large consumer
| electronics devices and have no idea where to even start with
| repairing an electric toothbrush.
|
| I contacted Philips again and explained that nobody is able to
| repair it, they again offered me 10% off a new one (which I'd
| have to buy through the official web store, which is already
| more expensive than a retail store) which I declined, they sent
| me details of a repair shop in a completely different state. I
| rang that repair shop and explained in detail the entire story,
| they were empathetic but also said they have no idea how they'd
| repair a toothbrush or even why Philips would suggest I send it
| there.
|
| I'd say you got lucky with your Sonicare, and based on the
| runaround they gave me, poor customer service and poor
| serviceability, I would not recommend anyone buy an expensive
| Sonicare unless they're made of money and don't care about the
| possibility of having to replace it within a few years.
| stormdennis wrote:
| Sometimes buying well means buying cheap. I buy cheap DIY tools.
| They're good enough for me as a hobbyist. But if I were a
| professional they be a bad buy. For one, with constant use,
| they'd wear out too quickly. Secondly while I can do accurate
| cuts on my PS100 tablesaw, for example, each cut requires more
| setting up time, than on a quality saw with an accurate fence.
| Panushkin wrote:
| Yeah i still drive my 86 plymouth horizon. Gets me to work on 60
| bucks for the month.Bloody thing will outlast me if i have
| anything to say about it.Plus it has a good radio 8)
| eep_social wrote:
| They had me with the title but the content reads like an elder-
| millennial whose conversational voice got inescapably stuck in
| memes and referral links.
| nocoiner wrote:
| I loved the faux naivete. "I can't believe I'm getting a
| ~surprise~ package in the mail from the guy who recycles
| leather just two weeks after I sent him a passel of recycled
| leather totally out of the goodness of my heart!"
| pwpw wrote:
| An observation I have made of my grandparents, who certainly had
| a bit of money, is everything they own is high quality and has
| lasted them years.
|
| My grandfather still has his Hickey Freeman suits and sports
| coats tailored and repaired by a local menswear shop. Their
| Dualit toaster still works while I have personally gone through
| many Cuisinart toasters. Their technics AV components still work
| with their high quality speakers. Their Sony Trinitron TVs still
| work. Their pots and pans from their wedding are still in active
| use. Their Pyrex continues to store leftovers decades on. I am
| currently using the Minolta film camera and lens that my
| grandfather bought in the 80s for traveling around the world
| with.
|
| When I go to their home, I am always in awe of the high quality
| objects that still function perfectly fine and can all be passed
| down. When I look at many of the things my parents own and most
| of the things I own, I see less and less of that. Our clothes are
| cheaper. Our pans less resilient. Our technology is less
| repairable.
|
| Buying well certainly leads to a longer lifespan for objects.
| However, I find that's becoming tougher and tougher to find these
| days.
| edpichler wrote:
| We all feel the same. The reason is the
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence
| alecst wrote:
| My grandparents grew up during the depression. They buy
| everything on sale, including food. They have olive oil in
| their cabinets that's from 2009 (it survived a move.) My
| grampa, in his own words, loves buying "junk" and "crap" and
| holding into it forever. They probably spend most of their
| money on gifts, dining out, cruises, and trading stocks. I love
| them so much. But I fear the day I have to accept their hand-
| me-downs. I'll probably end up with the oil.
| csunbird wrote:
| As my father said: We are too poor to buy cheap stuff.
| antongribok wrote:
| My father said: We're not rich enough to by cheap things.
|
| I wonder if the original saying has been translated multiple
| times before getting to English.
| ConroyBumpus wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boots_theory
| onion2k wrote:
| _Our clothes are cheaper..._
|
| There's a useful function in limited lifespan - things are much
| easier to update and upgrade. My tastes have changed a lot over
| the past 20 years. If my clothes lasted longer I'd have a
| wardrobe full of things I don't like now and wouldn't wear. If
| my TV lasted 20 years I'd still have an old, inefficient SD CRT
| box in the corner, or I'd have passed it on to someone else and
| maybe they'd have scrapped a functioning item now.
|
| It's less true for basic things like toasters and pots and
| pans, but I suspect the lower quality is partly due to being
| cheaper to make and therefore more accessible. If everything is
| made well and costs more then wealthy people have things that
| last and poor people don't have things. Cheaper things balances
| that inequality a little.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| It's not useful that the thing happens to be broken at the
| point of time where you don't like it anymore anyway. If it
| wasn't broken and you didn't like it anymore, you could pass
| it on to someone else.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Poor people go to Goodwill or the Salvation Army store for
| high-quality, inexpensive items. Or they used to when high-
| quality items were in greater abundance.
|
| It's not that much more difficult to periodically clean out
| your wardrobe and donate it compared to throwing it in the
| trash.
| pjerem wrote:
| > My tastes have changed a lot over the past 20 years. If my
| TV lasted 20 years I'd still have an old, inefficient SD CRT
| box in the corner
|
| Societal context is important here.
|
| Did your taste really changed on itself or did the constant
| marketing pressure changed your taste for clothes and your
| expectations for what is an acceptable TV ?
|
| I mean : of course, I'm a tech enthusiast : I love big modern
| OLED screens, I love 4K movies and beautiful video games. I'm
| truly amazed by what we can do.
|
| But, does all of this makes me truly happier than when I
| played with my Nintendo 64 on a cheap CRT screen ? I don't
| think so. The pleasure I feel playing video games alone and
| with my friends never changed with technology evolution.
|
| And it's just an example that can apply to mostly everything.
| We just change things because we are encouraged to by
| marketers. Sometimes things are more robust or more efficient
| and that's really worth changing, but that's pretty uncommon.
| Retric wrote:
| I really don't notice much difference between 4k and 1080
| or even 720 as long as it's minimally compressed data. High
| compression ratios is IMO is a huge driver for 4k because
| you can hide a multitude of artifacts once individual
| pixels aren't as noticeable, but rarely do you compare
| identical bandwidth streams at 1080 and 4k.
|
| That's IMO what's driving a lot of technological
| advancement. It's not necessarily about needing progress as
| it is separating yourself from the profit maximization
| processes which makes most things worse over time. Tiny
| companies don't have inherent advantages when it comes to
| say food, but they don't have the expertise to perfectly
| maximize shelf life while keeping the food reasonably
| palatable.
|
| That same maximization causes Windows and smart TV's to
| include so much advertising because it's maximizing their
| profits at the expense of the product. But you don't see
| that in new categories like AR headsets.
| joshspankit wrote:
| I have direct experience that supports your point:
|
| There's a local TV/internet provider who rolled out a new
| system of TV boxes. They compete with the big giant who
| had "4K" at the time. This provider sent out a signal
| that was 720P natively but it looked way better due to
| the rock-solid bitrate that was planned from the
| beginning. It was so noticeable that sports on the big
| giant's boxes were a smeary blurry mess by comparison.
| And yet, the majority of bigger-spending customers still
| got pulled in by the "4k" marketing.
| bombcar wrote:
| I wish we had standardized on advertising bitrate instead
| of resolution.
| mdorazio wrote:
| This sounds to me like a combination of survivorship bias and
| cost preference.
|
| You see the resilient things at your grandparents' house
| because those are the only things that have survived. All the
| poor quality things they purchased over the years are gone by
| now. Also, you and your parents probably favor lower-cost items
| (as do most people these days) over longevity. This may simply
| not have been possible in your grandparents' time, pre-
| globalization. It's still very possible to get high-quality and
| long-lasting goods (the buyitforlife subreddit is a good
| starting point), but you're going to pay a lot more for them
| than most people are willing to in comparison to the "replace
| it when it breaks" mass-produced-in-China goods.
| mattmanser wrote:
| I personally don't favour cheap over longevity, and I don't
| really believe most consumer do either.
|
| The problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to
| discern if something will last.
|
| An expensive product, from what was a trusted brand, can be
| just as short lived as a cheap one these days. Cost does not
| always reflect quality.
|
| And brands that build long-lived products struggle as they
| don't have the repeat customers of products that are good,
| but contain forced obsolescence features.
|
| It's a hidden cost to consumers that is often hard to figure
| out without extensive research.
| wellanyway wrote:
| Exactly. Marshall Major headphones I bought some tears ago
| looked and were priced in a way I thought would guarantee
| decade of service at least. They fell apart in half a year
| revealing multiple fundamental design flaws.
| [deleted]
| adhesive_wombat wrote:
| > And brands that build long-lived products struggle as
| they don't have the repeat customers of products that are
| good
|
| I know of a company that was a national leader in a certain
| kind of industrial equipment. Now that the industry isn't
| expanding in this country, the market is saturated and they
| can't sell anything because what they sold decades ago was
| designed for excellence and just won't die. Nearly all
| business now is occasional servicing of their old
| equipment.
| peteradio wrote:
| They should be able to increase the margin of their
| meager sales at the least, with a history like that.
| noisy_boy wrote:
| Well, if their brand is that strong, that itself allows
| them to start making something else - you know, "from the
| makers of <stuff_that_just_wouldn't_die>"; won't need
| much brand building and convincing because people are
| still eating the pudding containing the proof.
| pwpw wrote:
| I definitely agree with you. I would also add that I believe
| there's an element of the period of time in which they had
| the money to purchase their goods. Many goods had been
| iterated upon and become the best versions while having been
| around long enough to make an informed decision on high
| quality products.
|
| Today, we have been in a period of rapid change as technology
| advances. My grandparents bought the best of the analog
| world. Their CRT TVs were the peak of consumer sets. The
| world switched to LCDs when I was looking to buy a TV, which
| took a long time to catch up to the height of CRTs (not until
| OLED in my opinion). Their film cameras took exceptional
| pictures. Only recently have most consumer DSLRs begun to
| achieve the same level of quality. Their cars had battle-
| tested V6 engines while the cars I looked at had newer,
| unproven inline 4 engines that came with carbon build up
| issues.
|
| So a mix of survivorship bias and cost preference but also
| the current state of the market. Fortunately for me, I have
| been able to purchase a nice PVM to play my old video game
| consoles on, have made use of my grandfather's film camera
| and can develop the film at a local studio, and am able to
| buy a used car with a proven V6 engine since they are still
| available in the market. When buying products that will
| hopefully last, I first look to what my grandparents own as a
| starting point. Often, purchasing older goods let me take
| advantage of those points you mentioned.
|
| For a current product on the market that is pretty great, I
| have been pleased with a Moccamaster coffee maker.
| galacticdessert wrote:
| Small and efficient ICE engines are as proved a technology
| as it gets. If you end up buying a V6 engine now it is not
| because of how good or reliable the engine is, it is either
| nostalgia or status symbol. So, please don't and be more
| mindful of your emissions.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _My grandfather still has his Hickey Freeman suits and sports
| coats tailored and repaired by a local menswear shop._
|
| Do you think people are getting new suits because they are
| "worn out", or perhaps because they're no longer in style?
|
| > _Their technics AV components still work with their high
| quality speakers._
|
| I'll bet modern engineered speakers will beat those high
| quality speakers, at a fraction of the price. That's modernity.
| photonerd wrote:
| Eh, speaker tech--outside of miniaturization--seems to be the
| one area that feels pretty static.
|
| Mainly because the market did large speakers is so much
| smaller now. Feels like the price/quality trade off is about
| the same as it was 40 years ago.
|
| The speakers that are "a fraction of the price" now are
| there, but they're really terrible Chinese-made junk for the
| most part.
| bob1029 wrote:
| > I'll bet modern engineered speakers will beat those high
| quality speakers, at a fraction of the price.
|
| You'd be surprised how shitty most "modern" speakers are.
|
| Size is still king. Doesn't matter how fast your fancy
| microcontrollers are. The big-ass cabinets from the 80s and
| 90s still sound incredible when you put them next to the
| typical experience you'd find on the shelves of Target or
| Best Buy.
| ghaff wrote:
| Yeah, I'd probably ditch the big stereo system if I were
| starting over from scratch at this point. But that would be
| in the interests of downsizing, not because I have any
| illusions that a soundbar is as good as my surround sound
| setup with large speakers and a subwoofer.
| hakfoo wrote:
| The one argument I can see for modern speakers is
| materials: theoretically we can have better materials
| science-- better foams and rubbers for the gaskets and
| such, better insulating batting.
|
| However, it is frustrating that I can't get modern speakers
| anything like my parents' three-ways with a 12 or 15 inch
| woofer without finding some esoteric offering.
| bob1029 wrote:
| > However, it is frustrating that I can't get modern
| speakers anything like my parents' three-ways with a 12
| or 15 inch woofer without finding some esoteric offering.
|
| You can get "modern" builds of the very same loudspeakers
| right now with major brands like Klipsch -
| https://www.klipsch.com/heritage-premium-audio The AK6 is
| still considered by many to be the best loudspeaker you
| can ever own.
| bombcar wrote:
| Correct. The only downside on some of those large speakers
| is the paper cones can get brittle and break, but when
| properly repaired they sound great.
|
| Often the woofer on the speaker is larger than a modern 5.1
| subwoofer.
| wrp wrote:
| My very-elderly parents have a house full of stuff, from
| appliances to towels, that they bought as a young couple on a
| tight budget. They were always the type to buy the cheapest
| thing that would do the job. Even that stuff, though, would
| last practically indefinitely if you didn't abuse it. Except
| for some cameras, all the old items I can think of there were
| made in USA. My own view on this is that manufacturers didn't
| necessarily have more integrity, they just hadn't yet figured
| out how to make things more cheaply.
| leipert wrote:
| My grandma always says: "We are too poor to buy twice".
| pygar wrote:
| personally I "buy mid-range, and replace when it breaks". Not
| obsessing over your possessions is freeing.
| rdoherty wrote:
| Reminds me of https://buymeonce.com/ . If this kind of thing
| interests you, check it out.
| irrational wrote:
| > I struggle to understand how or why there are 300,000 items in
| the average American home
|
| It would be interesting to count everything in our home. The
| author says they don't count clothing, but I wonder if the
| article includes clothing. I probably have 10,000
| screws/bolts/nuts/washers/nails/etc. in the bins in my garage. Do
| I count all those separately? We have thousands of books. The
| kitchen has lots of dishes, silverware, pots, pans, trays, etc.
| Do we count all the food items separately? I have a 5 gallon
| bucket of all purpose flour, a 5 gallon bucket of wheat flour,
| bags of bread flour, a separate canister of flour on the
| countertop... do I count all of those separately? I start to
| think of all the things in the shed, in the garage, in closets,
| and bedrooms. 300,000 probably isn't far off.
| subjectsigma wrote:
| I might have over 100 physical paper books. I know I have well
| over 100 computer parts and accessories (including cables,
| adapters, extra hard drives, USB drives, game controllers,
| webcams, old CPU fans, PCIe cards, etc)
|
| I don't think I'm making it to less than 500 items total. Maybe
| not even less than 1K.
|
| I also don't see anything wrong with that.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-10 23:02 UTC)