

Keep writing Dustin - suhail
http://sufficientlyadvanced.net/keep-writing-dustin

======
nadam
From dustin's article:

"Reasonable people would probably not spend the time to read a book about the
history of flatware, buy twenty sets, and test the feeling of each metal
utensil against their teeth. That sounds completely insane. But who cares
about reasonable people?"

Out of curiositiy: how much money 20 sets of designer flaware cost? Because if
it is something around the price I suspect, then dustin's original article is
very close to saying: 'I am rich, and you should be too'. You know where I
live ... I've just sold some of the used clothes of my 1 year old child to a
middle-class woman... Even buying designer stuff is about money, not to
mention buying 20 sets just to try out...

Fortunatelly there are obscure hobbies for unreasonable people which do not
take money. (Like learning set theory just for the fun (or insight) of it.)

tl;dr: dustin's original article is a triviality:

1\. if you have enough money 2\. you have enough time 3\. your obsession is
buying very well designed things

then go for it.

But it is a triviality that most people lack (1.) even if they do not lack
(2.) and (3.) (And because of lacking (1.) many people lack (2.) and maybe
even partially (3.) (having bigger problems, they do not think about these
things that much))

------
hayksaakian
It seems like this author misses the point too. At first it seems like he was
trying to reshape the original posts' message into a sort of 'live the best
way possible' message, but instead he turns his focus back onto material
goods.

"This isn’t materialism, it’s a deep consideration for the non-materialistic
things that depend on the material. A lamp for reading or helping. A flatware
set for eating. A backpack for hiking. A towel for traveling. These are all
intellectual and spiritual pursuits that are also important."

Eating is not about flatware, neither is hiking about backpacks, nor traveling
about towels. Obsessing over the best backpack takes away time you could be
spending actually hiking.

~~~
ocirion
You need a backpack to hike. You could hike without one but that would involve
carrying everything in your hands. Backpacks are the evolution of ergonomic
design to make carrying items on long journeys comfortable.

You need a towel if you travel. You could drip dry after each shower or decide
not to at all but that introduces another set of hygenic and time-wasting
problems.

You need utensils to eat. You could use your hands, again not paying attention
to hygiene, or you could be civilized and use a knife and fork.

Researching and buying the best ensures you should only buy once. It's
appreciating that someone, or group of people, have spent months, even years
paying attention to every detail in designing something that serves an
important purpose.

~~~
hayksaakian
All of these things potentially improve your experience. Despite not using the
best designed tools for any particular job, I personally remember experiences
for who I was with or what we did, not with with which brand of x or type of
y.

~~~
ocirion
But that's what Dustin is saying. If you're using the right tool or the right
equipment, you won't focus on it. You won't worry about something breaking.
You'll get to enjoy the experience. These quality 'things' don't improve the
experience, they prevent other factors (such as a poor quality backpack
breaking) ruining the experience.

------
cantlin
This does not share an interpretation with the "empty madness" retort - they
may as well be talking about totally different posts.

Doshi writes "the takeaway for me is: find the best possible things you deeply
depend on in life." Clearly, mapgrep instead read the post as a celebration of
materialism. The meanness of the language may have been unjustifiable, but the
point made was not irrelevant. There _is_ an argument around how we prioritise
people versus things, and some will fall so far on the people side that a
preoccupation with things seems almost offensive. pg asserting that the
popularity of the post was "the decline of HN embodied" seemed to me equally
wrong. I (a lowly newcomer) thoroughly enjoy a top-voted post that strongly
contrasts the submission, especially when the pair serve to draw attention to
a dichotomy.

Edit: On reflection, the most interesting thing about the two texts might be
that they actually seem to _share_ a frustration with materialism. Where the
author of the vitriolic response wants the notion of design quality entirely
out of the equation, dcurtis liberates himself by settling it one object at a
time. I see examples of both in my own life: choosing _the_ watch or _the_
sneakers and buying them over and over, so that I never again need to think
seriously and qualitatively about watches or sneakers. And, in moments of
design obsession, waking as if from a trance thinking "When was the last time
I called my mum?"

------
maccman
Interesting that engineers spend an inordinate amount of time researching the
best hardware and software, yet can't understand someone who extends that
search into the material world. A search for perfection is admirable in my
opinion.

------
swah
Like Dustin is going to stop writing because random folk criticized him on the
internet... (I side w/ random folk in this one though)

------
nickporter
Who's Dustin? Link anyone?

~~~
denzil_correa
Here's the link to Dustin's previous article and a link to a discussion which
took HN ablaze. - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755470>

