
The Worst - ldayley
http://www.thoughtcrime.org/blog/the-worst/
======
zacharyvoase
It's really quite something when an author manages to put down in words a
thought or a feeling you were hitherto incapable of expressing. Bravo.

The dichotomy of best/worst — or, as I often think of it, acceptable versus
available — is a tricky one, and it's not one which I feel I've yet solved.
But I can certainly see how areas of my life tend towards the latter.

Take my dotfiles, for example. I spent ages writing a vimrc which sets up key
bindings _just so_ , the way I like them. Then one day I have to SSH onto a
remote server and make a hotfix, and I start vimming files and get instantly
confused when my muscle memory betrays me. I tried out Dvorak for a while, but
then every time I had to help someone with their computer, or go to a client
site, I was struggling to adjust to the 'normal' QWERTY layout. Eventually I
realized it was better to learn the vim defaults like a pro, and then extend
them without overriding them.

We can get very comfortable in environments we create for ourselves, expending
huge quantities of energy to build a nest suited just for us. But Stoicism
teaches us that fate is a lot more powerful than our nesting activities. One
day a flood comes tearing through your house, or your hard drive fails, or you
miss a credit card payment, and if you've wired your brain to only be happy in
the environment you created, you are going to have a breakdown. In my
childhood alone, I was evicted twice, moved countries several times, and had
times when we were very well-off and times when we couldn't afford food. These
things happen to all of us.

Nevertheless, in the Poisson distribution of cataclysms, before disruptive
events, the Best approach may render you far more productive than the Worst. I
consider this penalty to be my insurance policy; others have a different risk
tolerance.

Just my $0.02.

~~~
Schwolop
Your point about key bindings is very prescient.

At my work, our book club is (re)reading The Pragmatic Programmer. There's a
section which advocates picking _one_ text editor, mastering its arcane
secrets, customizing it until it's perfect, and never using anything else. All
my colleagues happily agreed with this, and I couldn't quite express why I
didn't.

Then I did a bit of pair programming with a few different people. In every
case there was a significant learning curve just to follow what the driver was
doing in their comfortable editing environment, and in the most customized
cases, it was nigh impossible for me to drive at all.

So we relocated to my desk instead. I have a standard qwerty keyboard with
vim, emacs, and textmate - all completely un-customized and ready to go. I
couldn't care less which editor we use as I've learnt the bare minimum to be
proficient in all of them. And importantly, so have my colleagues. Sure they
grumble at not having their own autocompleting magic, but we can get our work
done at a good enough rate, and either of us can drive.

(My previous work took this one (enterprise management style) step further and
forced everyone to use the exact same model laptop, operating system, and
editor. As a youngster I hated this required conformity. As a cynical old
bastard I can see the logic...)

I definitely sit in the middle of the two camps. Not 'The Best', not 'The
Worst'; just 'The Satisficing'.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing>

~~~
djacobs
I don't agree that in pair programming you should succumb to your pair or take
a least-common denominator philosophy. When I pair, I always use a
(customized) Vi, swapping between two editors if my pair's is different. I'm
intimately familiar with mine (and he with his), so we're much faster this way
(and happier, to boot).

------
crazygringo
I think the authors of "The Best" and "The Worst" are both right.

In fact, pretty much everything I own is either "the best" or "the worst" --
no middle ground. I identify the very few things that really make a difference
to me (my laptop, my stereo, my kitchen pots & pans & knives, my jeans) and
buy the absolute best I can afford. And I identify the things I don't really
care about (the rug, the chairs, most kitchen utensils, my T-shirts, my toilet
brush, my bike) and buy the absolute cheapest -- disposable, really.

So the real point is -- avoid the middle ground, which is muddled/confused
life priorities. Do your best to figure out what actually matters and what
actually doesn't, and spend accordingly.

~~~
xianshou
Well, well, Mr. Galt: "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right
and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil."

Much as absolutism makes for simple priorities, applying these general
principles out of any context is going to make you wrong no matter what you
choose. As in game theory, where mixed strategies often defeat any individual
strategy, the best, the worst, and the middle all encounter their uses in
different spheres.

Personal possessions? I'm fine with the best or the worst, but not always. For
instance, I could buy one of the world's most powerful supercomputers if I
were rich enough, but I'm fine with my MacBook Air.

Also, try political or religious thought. I typically prefer a moderate
liberal or conservative to a fire-spitting Tea Partier or an ardent communist.
I also prefer secular humanism to, say, fundamentalist Bible-bashing or
virulent atheism.

I propose a different criterion: the right philosophy for the right context.

~~~
davidhollander
> _I could buy one of the world's most powerful supercomputers if I were rich
> enough, but I'm fine with my MacBook Air._

A world class supercomputer isn't the same category of good as a MacBook Air.
Most laptop owners would feel worse off in some aspects of the trade, as they
would no longer have a portable computer to travel with.

If a Macbook Air nets you the most personal utility from a portable computer,
as opposed to a 2003 Thinkpad, your ownership could be used to support rather
than negate the "best or worst" heuristic.

A better example to support your position would be if you owned the 2011 model
instead of the 2012 model of the same laptop. You could declare ownership of
the newer models always nets you greater utility, but that upgrading every
year isn't worth the opportunity cost, and that it would be silly to find "the
worst" laptop to downgrade to every-time you decide to forego an upgrade.

~~~
xianshou
True, I gave a suboptimal example, in that the Air may actually be the best
tool for the job. However, as you said, we can easily adjust the example so
that it demonstrates a suboptimal possession with diminishing returns on
improvement. For instance, take my iPhone 4S. I could buy a 5 because it is
"the best," and a solid improvement on my 4S, but I have no pressing need for
it. While I would benefit from a usage perspective from upgrading, I can still
place plenty of implicit trust (Dustin's term) in the 4S for the ways in which
I value it. By not upgrading, I can take pride in the suitability of my
choices to my needs, rather than in the shininess of my devices.

Of course, that doesn't cover the pressure of choice detailed above by the
"satisficers". To paraphrase Dan Gilbert (Stumbling on Happiness), adding more
perfect options makes maximizers more stressed and less happy about what they
do choose. Again, I prefer to place implicit trust in the quality of my
selection process - its capacity to find me something good enough - rather
than always in the quality of what I own. That latter threshold changes with
the circumstances.

------
awakeasleep
The dichotomy between Moxie and Dustin's posts illustrates an interesting
split in the 'hacker' world.

Wheras Hacker and Startup seemed to represent the use of unconventional tools
to achieve a unexpected results (often) in unpleasant or tedious
circumstances, those connotations have become mixed with the sense glamor
usually reserved for celebrities.

Now, the ostensibly boring (or at least detail-ridden, interesting only to
those directly involved) practice of starting a business has taken a sort of
crazy sheen, with list stories [1] written by starry eyed marketers praising
the romance of the fast paced, powerful, and interesting startup industry
shaping the public's view.

And Hackers, once conceptualized as loners fiddling with inscrutable
technicalities, are now expected to attain material success and internet
celebrity. After all, if you're a real hacker you should be pulling in at
least $150k. (Though you'll have to spend some of that on a load balancer to
handle your blog traffic.)

Dustin and Moxie seem to represent the two sides of this spectrum. Dustin,
maybe hot off the aquihire of a desirable web property, looking for how to
best direct his affluence. Moxie, pondering the important parts of the system
he operates in, chooses to forgo what he considers symbolic representations of
success with undeserved merit. It's as easy to imagine the dreadlocked
Marlinspike talking to stallman (who is eating from his foot) as it is to
imagine Curtis speaking to a crowd of socialites in a bell-aire hotel lobby.

At least for me.

A weird example I ran across, it struck me for its resemblance to a Cosmo
article. [1] [http://tech.co/the-top-10-tech-cocktail-stories-of-the-
week-...](http://tech.co/the-top-10-tech-cocktail-stories-of-the-
week-6-2012-11)

~~~
tptacek
Was Dustin Curtis or some company of his acquired, or is this just innuendo?

~~~
Domenic_S
I'd also like to know the answer. I can't figure out what the guy actually
_does_.

~~~
tptacek
Besides running a blog network and designing websites?

~~~
Domenic_S
Svbtle is new; I'm unaware of any sites other than his own that he's designed.
What am I missing?

~~~
tptacek
I have no idea who you are either, but my presumption isn't that you've done
so little in your career that I'd wonder why I was reading your thoughts.

~~~
Domenic_S
Take it easy. Dustin holds a lot of credibility around here, and I'm curious
as to the source of it. I have no presumption one way or the other, and it
isn't out of line to ask what a highly-regarded designer has designed.

~~~
tptacek
I answered your question upthread.

~~~
Domenic_S
Are you referring to "A blog network and designing websites"?

Dustin had his rep before Svbtle. In the quest for determining the source of
his design rep, I'm not sure Svbtle counts.

As far as 'designing websites' goes, all I know of is his old blog (the AA
redesign mockup). I can't find a portfolio or tweet or dribbble or github
or... anything really showcasing even one thing he's designed for someone
other than himself. Can you?

~~~
tptacek
It's the notion that things "count" or "don't count" that is eliciting the
snippy responses from me. We are not here to sit in judgement of Dustin
Curtis. No, I don't think I'll build a case against your obviously implied
argument that he's done nothing of note.

I find the idea that Curtis is accorded a lot of respect on HN amusing,
because most of what he's accorded are comments like yours.

~~~
Domenic_S
You're not getting it. This was my general train of thought:

-Dustin said he just got back from a few months in Asia. What'd he do for money? Maybe he's a startup geek and lives lean.

-Hmm, further down he says he bought flatware at $50/5pc, and everything he's purchased is of like quality. Kind of contradicts the 'living lean' thought, so scratch that.

And that got me to thinking of all the bits and pieces I've picked up about DC
that I can't reconcile:

-He claims to live in SF _and_ NYC. OK, maybe he's got some big projects? If so, I can't find any evidence.

-He claims to be "a designer", and also claims to "advise early-stage startups on design". Where did he learn these skills, and what startups has he advised? There are no forthcoming answers.

-He seems to have no trouble onboarding writers for Svbtle. He could be paying them, but with what funding? Further, his reputation pre-Svbtle is what enabled Svbtle in the first place; where did that come from?

In sum, the guy is an enigma to me. His stuff gets frontpaged all the time
here, and so I (pretty naturally) assumed someone knew something about him...
but it seems like nobody does. It's an odd thing because technology circles
are so notoriously meritocratic.

You think I'm being flip about Dustin, but I'm really not. I actually agree
with most things he writes, and found the AA articles to be very fascinating
(and pertinent -- at the time I was going through my own version of the same
thing). If all he's done (imagine finger quotes around 'all') is a markdown
logo and a kudos button and Svbtle, that's fine. I'm not judging. But he
illicits such strong reactions -- your replies are a great example -- that I
feel like I'm missing something, that there's some great Secret of Dustin
Curtis and I'm missing it.

~~~
tptacek
I stand corrected.

~~~
jaggederest
Mensch of you.

------
imgabe
Thank you. That article about "The Best" bothered me in a way I couldn't
completely verbalize. Beyond a certain threshold, the quality of objects just
simply doesn't matter.

The example of flatware was particularly annoying, because, really, in what
way does a fork ever actually "fail"? Have you ever had food halfway to your
mouth when the fork just suddenly collapses or something? As a tool, flatware
is completely superfluous. Just ask the billion some odd people who eat with
their hands.

Anyway, maybe some people enjoy the process of endlessly researching and
hunting around for "the best" of something. If you do, more power to you.
Personally, I think when you look back at the end of your life you're going to
remember the meals you ate and the people you ate them with more than the
utensils you used.

~~~
konstruktor
I am actually watching a set of cutlery gradually failing. My company
relocated, and after spending lots of money on excellent desks and office
chairs, facility management bought the cheapest cutlery they could get. After
less than half a year, more and more of the cutlery is getting rusty. It looks
gross (is it just rust or dirt?) and makes me wonder: If the quality is so
bad, can I trust it to actually be reasonably "pure" stainless steel, or am I
getting my daily dose of heavy metals. Also, the drinking glasses are
corroding.

~~~
graue
Wow. I on the other hand have drinking glasses, plates and cutlery I bought
from a thrift store for like $20 for the whole set and it's been holding up
fine for years. Maybe the lesson here is it's better to buy a decent product
for cheap used, than to buy a new product that was cheap from day one.

~~~
moultano
Thrift stores are great ways to find durable products. If they weren't durable
they wouldn't end up in a thrift store in a state anyone would want to buy.

------
m0nastic
If forced to decide between Dustin's reality and Moxie's, I think I'd chose
Dustin's. A world made up of overly-reviewed, pretentious gadgets slightly
edges out a utilitarian, post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown where people
scavenge through wreckage looking for makeshift utensils and clothing. I
picture oil drum fires.

Thankfully, I am not limited by those choices. I can continue to do what I
already do, which is decide the level of attention that things require of me,
optimize the ones I choose to, and not spend inordinate amounts of time
fretting about the others.

~~~
tptacek
When you say "utilitarian, post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown where people
scavenge through wreckage looking for makeshift utensils and clothing", you
mean Wal Mart, right?

~~~
m0nastic
Don't be ridiculous, the post-apocalyptic, hellscape Bartertown will still
provide health benefits for it's employees; they're not monsters.

------
MattRogish
"Any reasonable person wouldn’t feel liberated by a $50 fork, but constrained
by it. One wouldn’t be able to help but worry: is it being cared for
correctly, is my friend going to mess it up when absentmindedly tapping the
table with it, is it going to get dropped or stepped on if a dance party
erupts in the kitchen? After all, it is the perfect fork, what if something
happened to it to make it… not perfect?"

This is why, whenever I get something new and "perfect", I damage it in some
slight way (nothing that hurts the functionality or will ultimately destroy
the product). Every car I've owned gets a nick in the paint to remind me that
it's just a "thing" and not to take it too seriously.

~~~
apike
Indeed. I don't intentionally damage new things, but people are often
surprised that I don't agonize over keeping my phone, car, or laptop looking
brand new. The idea of a scratched Honda sort bothers people, but idea of a
scratched Audi makes people crazy. Why waste your energy worrying about this?

A Audi with some scratches is a very nice car, and an iPhone with some
scratches is a very nice phone.

~~~
Domenic_S
> [the] idea of a scratched Audi makes people crazy. Why waste your energy
> worrying about this?

Because other people worry about it when buying a used Audi. And the obscene
cost to repair auto paint. A carelessly placed shopping cart or thoughtless
lean against the car in riveted jeans can cause thousands of dollars of
damage.

~~~
apike
I fon't think resale value is why most worry about it, but ptobably some. If
scratches decrease resale value so much, it seems those in the market for a
luxury car should seek out a scratched one.

~~~
Domenic_S
There's the rub -- dent/paint repair costs dealerships next to nothing. They
often have a guy on staff to do it. So dealerships won't sell scratched/dinged
luxury cars, they'll repair them for pennies and mark them up.

------
rthomas6
Could it be possible that there is a spectrum of choices which represent a
trade-off between cost and quality? What if both authors took an already
understood and practiced idea in our culture and took it to an absurd extreme?
Every person will desire different quality for different items. Even Dustin
Curtis doesn't get "the best" of all of his items. He says that he does, but
if you keep reading, what he really means is getting "the best for him."
_That's what everyone does._

People just pay for as high of a quality as is justified to them by the price.
Assuming perfect knowledge, that's theoretically what all consumers do.
Different people desire different quality for different items, and have
different amounts of money.

I love listening to music at work, so I did a lot of research and got a nice
pair of $150 headphones with a $30 headphone amp. They're wonderful. Well,
well worth the purchase price to me. Could I have paid $1500 dollars and
gotten a higher quality set of headphones? Sure. But who the fuck would spend
$1500 on headphones? It just wasn't justifiable to me. Some people will buy
the $1500 headphones. Some people will buy the $15 headphones. None of these
people are following some abstract philosophy. They're just regular consumers
in a capitalist society, buying what makes the most sense for them.

~~~
mistermann
> I love listening to music at work, so I did a lot of research and got a nice
> pair of $150 headphones with a $30 headphone amp.

I was looking into this very same thing yesterday, I'd be very interested in
knowing what you decided on for the headphones and amp, or even particularly
useful websites for research. (And does an amp make a _big_ difference in your
opinion?)

I was looking at a bit of a lower price point, around ~$80 or so in case you
happened to accidentally soak up some information about that price point while
you were at it, but I'm not really financially constrained at all so if you
truly do get _noticeably_ better performance a bit higher up I wouldn't mind
spending the money. (Aesthetics are also rather important to me, for no
particularly good reason since I'd never leave the house with them.)

~~~
rthomas6
I got the Audio Technica ATH-M50s headphones with a Fiio E11 amp. I don't
think the amp makes a _huge_ difference, but it does make some difference. For
a lot of my research, I read reviews and opinions on head-fi.org and its
forums. I picked the ATH-M50s because they seemed to have comparable sound
quality of headphones in the ~$300-$400 range, but were reasonably priced.
With the amp, they also have a good amount of bass. With and without the amp,
they sound very clear, especially high up. This is the first "good" set of
headphones that I have owned, so my ability to compare is limited, but I think
they sound a lot better than the Bose noise-cancelling ones, and those sound
pretty good to me.

~~~
mistermann
Yes, from the research I did the M50's were maybe the most mentioned
model....I was just having a bit of trouble pulling the trigger on the $150
price tag.

I have a feeling I'm going to end up with the Koss Pro DJ100, they're supposed
to be pretty fantastic for ~$50.

------
tptacek
One guy likes a set of dinnerware. One guy doesn't care about dinnerware.
Religious war ensues.

~~~
thaumaturgy
...and everyone focuses on the dinnerware when really they were just examples
held up in each author's actual point. A completely absurd amount of time and
words have now been spent discussing a message that apparently nobody actually
comprehended.

~~~
tptacek
Two households, both alike in strength of opinion over spoons.

~~~
thaumaturgy
You're in a mood. This thread finally break you?

~~~
tptacek
Where be these enemies? Spoonians! Antispoonians!

See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,

That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.

~~~
thaumaturgy
For some of us it is performance, for others, patronage. They are two sides of
the same spoon, or, let us say, being as there are so many of us, the same
side of two spoons.

------
marknutter
I recently got into road biking and had to a road bike which can get quite
expensive. I wasn't sure I would really stick with the sport in the long term
so I bought a bike on the cheap end off bikesdirect.com. I have no doubt were
a seasoned road biker to try my bike they would be frustrated by the overall
quality of the ride. Because I'm a newbie, however, I have never ridden
anything of better quality to compare it to, so it feels awesome to me. The
point is, sometimes it's easy to forget that the worst products in a given
category are still high quality, and that the premiums you pay for more
expensive products give you diminishing returns. You end up having to trick
your brain into believing the more expensive product is giving you increased
value proportionate to the extra cost.

------
ryanwhitney
After years of having cheap, shitty can openers that made it a pain to do the
task, I spent 20 minutes looking it up and bought _the best_ that I could find
on Amazon. While I may never figure out how to service it if something happens
to it (the thought!), it has worked pretty well so far. Cans are opened with
little to no effort. It stays out of the way, it does exactly the task it was
designed for, and it does it well.

~~~
ssharp
I think you're just hitting on a case where cheaper stuff is substantially
less useful than more expensive stuff. One of the issues with "The Best" was
how poor of an example flatware is at doing that.

Also, cost and utility are a sliding scale. There isn't "the best" and "the
worst" and nothing in between. In fact, it's usually the stuff in the middle
that makes the best trade offs between cost and functionality.

~~~
Sumaso
I thought the point of the article was that regardless of the cost of the
item, you should try and get the best object you could possibly get.

I find it amusing that the article actually attacked the cost of the object
not the utility. There seemed to be some sort of fear of the money lost if
that object failed them. Moxie seems to think that if he spent 50 dollars on a
single set of utensils he would be seemingly enslaved by them.

The original post was not about being enslaved by your possessions it was
about not having to worry about them fulfilling their function. I could buy a
cheap set of stainless steel utensils and watch them tarnish as well as
leaving a metallic taste in my mouth (hypothetical utensils). Sure they may
have saved me money, but was it worth it?

I can buy the worst car, be late to my meeting and lose my job. I can buy the
worst computer and not only be frustrated by my computing experience but also
question how long it will be until I need to replace it.

You never ever want to buy the worst, you /may/ not always want to buy the
best

~~~
ssharp
Thee "best" and "worst" are subjective. You need to define criteria for what
makes something the best. In Dustin's case maybe it was the total blend of
style and function. But for many people, that isn't what makes it the best.
The best may be the one that has intricate designs and costs a huge amount of
money to manufacture. The rarity, design, and expense makes it the best.

~~~
dquigley
I agree, because some may think the best is a tool that does as much as
possible, and others may think the best is a tool perfectly suited for a
particular task. Some people swear by multi-tools and swiss army knives, but
other people hate them.

------
cjensen
The author of this linked article has made an error: he assumes dcurtis'
flatware is inordinately expensive. It is not; traditional flatware really is
absurdly expensive.

Much of the author's article is based on this assumption. I'd suggest he
familiarize himself with "wedding gift"-style flatware. Then do a rewrite
because I think there is a good argument still to be had.

~~~
kryptiskt
If you include the time he spent researching flatware in the bill it would be
probably hard to find anything more expensive south of diamond-encrusted
things for oligarchs without taste.

~~~
pooriaazimi
And he spends an hour or so every day eating stuff with those. Every single
day (presumably). If you divide the $500 those flatwares have cost him over
that time period (a few thousand days, an hour each day), it turns out it's
cost him about 10 cents _per hour_. And yet, he (again, presumably) has been
enjoying it immensely. If you can be happier by spending 10 cents ( _per hour_
), why not?

I'm not a fan of expensive clothes, but buying an expensive _utility_ that you
use everyday (chair, mouse, keyboard, shoe, fork) makes a lot of sense to me.

~~~
debacle
It costs me less than ten cents per hour to power my entire house.

You can do anything with simple math and look like an economist, but the
reality is that the guy bought a $10 fork.

~~~
geekstrada
That literally made me chuckle out loud. Thank you.

------
debacle
I, like many others, see a lot of self-serving "founder" spam on HN and at
this point it's not worth commenting on. Except for a few grossly abhorrent
pock marks, it's easier to let the posts have their time on HN - if not,
something else will fill the void.

------
gbog
Since I read "The Best" I wanted to write exactly this answer. Thanks.

I'd have added a cultural point of view: This debate is likely typically
American, and Americans may have a problem with their owning stuff. I'd bet it
is a perverse fascination on physical things, maybe induced by some TV/Movie
propaganda.

For instance, I remember fairly well an American friend I had 5 years ago. We
discussed one night long on "consumerism" and how bad it was. Then, the /next/
day, this nice clever guy bought an extremely expensive backpack filled with
useless gadgets (an incorporated lighter, a water bag with a pipe so you can
drink without taking a bottle out of the pocket, etc. etc.), showing it to me
with tears in his eyes: it was so awesome a thing for a kiker like him!

I couldn't help remembering the "other kind of" hickers I crossed in Nepal:
those Nepalese, they /walk/ from Snow mountains to India back and forth
looking for work, and their "backpack" is an empty tissue thing with 2 rupees
and one toothbrush inside, and they wear plastic slippers, and they sleep
outside every day.

So what? So, "the Best" philosophy is both producing sometime very nice little
pieces of perfection, like the iPod, and I understand why a professional
designer would bend on this side. But I fear it is also pernicient and overall
negative for normal people and the hole society, because it generates waste,
frustration, greed, and so on...

Disc: I live in China, where the Best/Worst dialectic exists, but is obviously
drawn along very different lines.

------
geofft
This reminds me strongly of the arguments between the "Worse is Better" and
"Do The Right Thing" philosophies. Buying ridiculously cheap forks so you can
treat them like they're disposable is a perfect example to me of someone
living out "Worse is Better".

<http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html>

------
Breefield
This reminded me of my father. Expensive things only complicated his
interactions with other people, because of our ability to potentially break or
abuse the object.

There is a sweet spot in-between the highest quality, and poor craftsmanship.
As well as between expensive and cheap. I like to operate somewhere in the
middle.

~~~
wazoox
So you are an Aristotelian of sorts.

------
stephengillie
Each of my forks cost 25c. Each of my knives and spoons too. They work great.

Buy the cheapest. Use it and learn your use case. If you ever need another,
you'll know which quality of tool is the right one.

------
tlrobinson
_"But to me, “simplify” is about removing clutter"_

...

 _"Partisans of the worst will get 15 sets of cutlery (out of a bucket that’s
an overflowing fucking sea of cutlery)"_

A massive bucket of cutlery sounds like clutter to me.

I don't think Dustin was arguing you should spend so much money on cutlery
that you worry about it getting damaged/stolen, but rather the act of thinking
about what you're buying will prevent you from buying low quality and
unnecessary things.

~~~
guelo
I understood the bucket to have been located at a thrift store where he fished
out the 15 sets that he bought.

------
zafka
While I do like the look of the perfect spoons, I am an advocate of owning the
worst. Actually I make my own bowls and plates, so while they are "perfect",
it is okay to smash them, as I can always make another. When folks come over
for a meal, they can pick the color and shape of their plates and bowls. And
yes, my "silver" does come from the second hand store. Eventually I would like
to cast my own utensils too....ah, too many hobbies, not enough time.

------
CKKim
Whenever these posts come up I question to myself whether an ideology for
"stuff" is actually required, desirable, or helpful at all. They are usually
thoroughly entertaining and informative, but I always leave feeling it's been
therapy for the writer, a defense of their preferences whipped up into a
reassuring formal-looking philosophy.

Like much writing, the damage is in the contextual assumptions imposed on the
reader before the article even begins. Once you've started reading and
focusing on the details of the piece, it's too late - you've unwittingly
accepted the assumptions and are playing by the author's rules. In these
cases, one such assumption is that an overarching, complete and consistent
methodology can be applied to personal property in the first place (and that
certainly if there's a good one then it can be knocked out in a few hours on a
blog post...).

This is part of a larger pattern I'm falling into of scrutinously questioning
the motives behind articles posted on personal blogs. I could be going in the
wrong direction entirely but it seems very often to be validation-seeking
behaviour, whether by submitting one's views for the approval of others, or
simply that writing it all down gives it some mental gravitas to assuage
personal doubts that the individual might be "doing it wrong". It certainly
appears consistent with the range of submissions to Hacker News related to
personal improvement (or, "lifehacking", as the internet seems to be running
with these days).

Why did these authors write these two pieces? It's very difficult to analyse!
If "for validation" seems a little condescending...well, I'd prefer it to the
standard interpretation: "The Best" is unsubtle status-signaling, "The Worst"
is equally unsubtle counter-signaling.

------
npsimons
First and foremost, I'd like to point out that the "The Best" article seemed
to be roundly attacked here on HN, with critics and defenders alike chiming
in; that might be a better indicator of why it stayed on the front page for so
long.

Second, I'd like to point out that this article seems to be completely missing
some of the points made, namely, when you invest in good tools you can rely
on, you stop thinking about them because they just work, and you are therefore
liberated to worry about more important things. Sure, you shouldn't let the
things you own end up owning you, but if you have ever had something you rely
on fail (and if you are working in technology, you have), you can appreciate
doing research to make sure it doesn't happen again. Is this a waste of time?
No. Is it stupid? No. Can it be taken too far? Yes. But it can also be taken
too far in the other direction. The unexamined life isn't worth living.

BTW, partisans of the worst wouldn't get metal cutlery, they'd buy plastic and
throw it out when they were done, thereby creating waste and showing how
actually thinking about what you buy and whether it will last or not is a good
idea.

------
klawed
And then somewhere in between are the partisans of "good enough" When I'm
eating food I like to get as close to "The best" as I can reasonably afford
(I'll spend $50 on a steak but I won't fly to Japan just to get some fresh
Kobe). On most other things, "Good Engough" is a good enough. And when I buy a
car, I ask myself if I'll care if the bumper get's scratched - if the answer's
yes, I look for a different car.

~~~
npsimons
Sometimes, it's worth it to splurge. If nothing else, think of it as investing
in an experience rather than a thing, and treat yourself to a tasting menu
with wine pairings at least once in your life. Take your time, smell, taste
and _feel_ every bite and every sip, and savor the moments. If you have a
significant other, definitely take them.

I say try at least once, because in my experience my first one was the best
(Chez TJ in Mountain View, CA). It's also bloody expensive (I usually don't do
it more than once a year, and none of the other ones have been as expensive as
Chez TJ). But sometimes just trying the expensive stuff (even if it's a test
drive, a rental, or an experience) is worth it just to let you know what it's
like, and if it's worth it to you. Or to let you know if it's just overpriced.

------
cllns
I hope Moxie starts posting more frequently, especially if they're these these
HN-popular posts, though I'd be interested in his security stuff too.

------
PilateDeGuerre
Moxie,

I read your "Money Machine"[1] in print and loved it. After becoming aware of
your security work and browsing your website, I discovered you are the author.
Small world.

My partner and I often fall asleep together listening to "Letters of
Insurgents". Thank you for that!

[1] <http://www.thoughtcrime.org/stories/money-machine/>

------
robocat
Dustin's "best" philosophy: * depends upon a search for an expert designer *
follows a "waterfall" process (large up front costs, infexible result) *
trusts that the expert has made good decisions for you

Moxie's is a hackers approach: * A/B testing * learn what matters as you go *
customise * exploration and innovation

Both strategies have different costs and benefits.

------
pelle
As some one who's only "best purchases" have included portable items like a
good chef knife, MacBook Airs, iPhones etc over the last 10 years I agree with
this whole heartedly. I've been able to live and work in 8 different
countries. Experience amazing things and work with fantastic people. It frees
you from all kinds of things to not have that $5000 TV, $1000 monitor and
$5000 sofa.

It was big step (with a lot of fear) for me recently to buy a $180 24" monitor
and a $800 Aeron chair as it implicitly makes my life less portable. I have
noticed how these purchases have changed my thought patterns. Now before
thinking about the future I'm actually thinking what to do with the Aeron. The
funny think is that I'll hardly think twice about spending $800 on a flight.

------
raganwald
I'm a hypocrite. Coffee, anyone?

<http://raganwald.posterous.com/coffee-anyone>

~~~
guyzero
I don't think you have to apply the same philosophy to absolutely everything
in life. You can buy cheap cutlery and have nicely designed, expensive plates.
As a matter of fact, a lot of people have two sets of dishes - a "best" and a
"worst" because there's a time for each.

------
lubujackson
The "best"'s problem is that there is no clear "best" of almost anything.
(Especially that silverware.) I think the point, though, is that buying
highly-rated things tends to pay off in ways you might not be aware of, such
as avoiding silverware with toxic chemicals. So let's say to buy "better"
stuff.

The "worst"'s problem is he is only really concerned about the cost.
Ultimately, I think this is a shift many people have as they get older and
more settled - they want to buy a chair that lasts, silverware that is nice,
etc. When you're 19 and moving every other year it doesn't really make sense.

------
eshvk
> Dustin Curtis also suggests that as a partisan of the best, he is taking on
> the hardship of truly understanding a domain in order to identify the best
> consumer good within that domain.

Really? I am sure Dustin can speak for himself but I would have thought it
obvious that is impossible to objectively assert that something is the best
and that when you say that something is "the best", you are implicitly solving
a matching problem given your constraints.

In general, I am not convinced by your case as to why getting something that
you personally think is the best is so bad. Sure, there might be some people
who would worry about the best getting damaged or whatever. Then again, I
would argue that your matching algorithm should choose something that doesn't
get damaged so easily. E.g. One of the best investments I made was in getting
a pair of Shure in-ear headphones. They weren't the most expensive I could
have got but they were five times as expensive as the skull candy crap that I
get. Guess what though? They have lasted me 5 times as long. Sure, there has
been some change in the way I handle earphones but still there are many days
where I close my laptop and remove my earphones and leave the entire setup on
my bed and go to sleep.

Having said this, I get the idea that the cognitive load created by having to
make decisions about what to buy can be annoying at times. I have been putting
off the decision of buying a bike because there is so much research to do.

------
smoyer
I'm not sure either of these positions (the best or the worst) is really
important. But it's absolutely important to be satisfied with your life,
including what you "have". Just for the record, my favorite piece of flatware
is a titanium spork from ThinkGeek.

And there's a lot more to owning "stuff" than anyone generally thinks about.
So as I age, I'm actually finding that I want less stuff, but that the
reliability of that stuff is important. The "opportunity cost" (paid for by
time that you can't get back) can be high enough that it's hard to justify.

So ... things that simply "cost too much". Number one is TV/cable/satellite.
It sucks time away faster than you could ever imagine. I haven't completely
given it up, but I watch far less than the national average (and usually it's
more about spending time with my kids). What else do you have that isn't
really worth it? (my boat probably qualifies but I can't give THAT up).

I also see an issue with quality today. So much is designed to be thrown away,
but I love to cobble pieces together enough to keep things working. Many
devices in my house run on "Frankencords". An old computer power supply is a
great source of +5V if you splice the barrel jack from a dead wall-wort to it.
One of my favorite past-times is to fix things that other people have decided
were junk ... just to say that I can.

I guess this is a long-winded way of warning everyone that you really can't
buy happiness ... you have to find it within yourself.

------
fudged71
I just bought a car for $1. The previous owner was frustrated by all the
things that it wasn't great at. For a first car, I love the character of it,
and learning how to fix, maintain, and control this beast. Like the article
says, it gives me more experience and knowledge in this space, rather than
reading textbook and articles about it.

In contrast, I love using LaTeX, even though it's a pain in the ass, because I
know it's probably the best quality typesetting out there, and that people
have spent decades perfecting it.

------
enraged_camel
Look, I don't know why two extremities are battling it out like this when the
reasonable and rational answer lies somewhere in the middle.

I care deeply about an item if it relates to a hobby. As a geek, I research
every part of a computer I am building thoroughly. I read reviews, compare
specs and prices, run it by friends on tech message boards for opinions, etc.
When the time comes to play Skyrim on uber settings on the machine I built, I
get more enjoyment out of it, and feel satisfied in knowing that the
components in it won't melt.

Same mindset applies to my other hobbies. I always try to get the best and
most reliable matches when I go cross-country backpacking, because if a storm
comes and I need to light a fire, I want to make sure the matches won't fail
me. Last month I bought a new set of tires for my commuter bike, and I did
actually get the most tires because for the types of trips I make, it matters.

In contrast, I don't give a crap about things that don't relate to hobbies. I
moved to a new apartment recently and was in need of a new trash bin. I went
to the nearest Walmart (conveniently located across the across the street) and
purchased the cheapest one that had a lid. Had I done more research, I might
have gone with a metal one that had a mechanism for securing the trash bag in
place, but I don't care. Here's why: _a trash can is not something I want to
be proud of._

------
RyanMcGreal
This piece works well as a study in the absurdity of Dustin Curtis's thesis.
That said, I can't help but observe myself leaning to The Best in some areas
and The Worst in others.

For example, our cutlery drawer is full of decent, generic Ikea cutlery -
except for a few random pieces that we have accumulated over the years,
including an oddball fork and a couple of oddball spoons. I find myself
actively avoiding using those oddball pieces because I don't like how they
feel in my hand or my mouth. To that extent, I can appreciate just how much
hedonic benefit comes from using cutlery that feels "right".

On the other hand, my bicycle is well over 20 years old and looks like a piece
of garbage. In fact, it was actually retrieved from the garbage several years
ago by a friend, who passed it on to me when he heard that my bike had just
died. It's heavy and ugly, but these are features, not bugs: the heaviness
means I get a better workout riding it, and the ugliness means it's less
likely to be stolen when I park it downtown.

In short, both approaches to choosing consumer durables have their uses, and
it's silly to elevate either to the level of a philosophy of living.

\----

See also: <http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html>

------
charlieok
As different as these two attitudes are, I'll stick up for Dustin Curtis by
pointing out one thing he expressed in his post: the pleasure of owning a
_small_ number of things.

If I keep a small number of possessions, and their total value is a small
fraction of the money I have in savings, I don't need to be too concerned
about preserving them. I can easily replace anything that is damaged, lost or
stolen, so these occurrences don't have to be a huge source of stress.

I like the idea of being able to go through everything I have and organize,
clean and maintain all of it, say, once a week. If that's too much of a
burden, that's a sign that I have too many things. Thinking in these terms
also makes it very easy to give away things to lighten this load.

This thinking is partly informed by my experience maintaining software.
Running and writing software means constantly keeping it up to date. New
standards and new versions of dependencies are constantly being published, and
security flaws are constantly being found, as Moxie Marlinspike certainly
knows. Code needs to be updated to keep up with these things in order to be
considered well-maintained or secure. Minimizing that burden gives you a
better chance of keeping the quality high.

------
konstruktor
Most things that you can buy used are already so much better than the worst
product you can buy new, but at a similar price. If you make the effort to
bring something to the thrift store, donate it or put it on ebay, it shows
that you believe it to be too good to throw away. This is usually stuff that
has already seen some use (e.g. clothing that has been washed a few times) and
is still OK, as opposed to shitty stuff you buy that breaks soon.

------
NarTh
These are the ways you guys choose to buy your stuff. Cool. Still, I dislike
ideas that you should 'always' do something, always buy best, always buy
worst.

I'll take time, care (and my limited funds ;) ) to research and buy what's
best if I think research will be fun. Or interesting. Or useful in the future.
Or the item is somehow important to me (and the spoon sure as hell is not).
Otherwise - first thing that seems to be good enough should do just fine.

------
weisser
I put on the song "Wing$" by Macklemore
(<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAg3uMlNyHA>) right before I started reading
"The Worst" completely by coincidence but the similarities in subject matter
are striking:

"We are what we wear, we wear what we are

But see I look inside the mirror and think Phil Knight tricked us all

Will I stand for change, or stay in my box

These Nikes help me define me, but I'm trying to take mine, off"

------
RenierZA
Here is the discussion for The Best:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4755470>

------
dwb
The right answer I'd bet, is, as it so often is, "yes and no." Both this and
"The Best" are extreme points of view, and extremes never strike me as
particularly realistic. There's a happy medium for pretty much everything.

I've never found too much trouble in judging how much research and care I need
to put into any given purchase. How often will I use it? How long do I want it
to last for? Is it likely to break? How much will I care if it does break?
There's a limit to this of course, I don't go to Curtis' lengths. Not enough
hours in the day. I have put a reasonable amount of care into buying a good
laptop, desk, piano, headphones etc though. These are important to me. The
list isn't particularly long.

For just any old thing (including, I would say, cutlery), I have a rule-of-
thumb that's served me well: never buy the cheapest, always the second-
cheapest. The cheapest of any particular thing so often has had an incredible
number of corners cut, but the next one up is usually just fine.

------
ricardobeat
> both ideas and material possessions should be tools that serve us, rather
> than things we live in service to

I think dustin and moxie are talking about different things. For me, the
philosophy behind "The best" is exactly that: you _don't need_ to worry that
your friends will step on your cutlery, because it's strong enough to not get
damaged. You don't worry about replacing it because of rust or wear, etc etc
(enough with cutlery).

By going for "the worst" you end up with a lot of crap that you don't really
use or care about. It's what almost everybody does. The opposite means buying
only what you need; the best == expensive, so you'll buy _less_.

The author also dismisses the environmental effect of this mentality; millions
of people buying buckets of 50-cent crap every couple months equals a fuckload
of plastic waste. This is preaching consumerism, and I'm surprised by how many
people fall for it.

~~~
lilsunnybee
Who is using plastic? Not spending obscene amounts of money on things does not
mean buying disposable.

------
petercooper
_Any reasonable person wouldn’t feel liberated by a $50 fork, but constrained
by it. One wouldn’t be able to help but worry: is it being cared for
correctly, is my friend going to mess it up when absentmindedly tapping the
table with it, is it going to get dropped or stepped on if a dance party
erupts in the kitchen? After all, it is the perfect fork, what if something
happened to it to make it not perfect?_

The flaw here is assuming getting "the best" also means it has to remain
"perfect."

I tend to err towards the higher quality and (usually) more expensive side in
my long term purchases but have no qualms about treating them as I would
anything else. My 2 week old retina MBP has a funky dent in it now, for
example. It's still a great notebook! And so would a $50 dinner set remain an
excellent dinner set, even if someone did chip or tarnish it.

------
desireco42
I somehow missed this post of his, but you are spot on and rightfully
disgusted with both his post and HN reaction to it.

Stuff doesn't make you more free, it enslaves you. The stuff you have, more
you need to care about it. Thoreau would be horrified :) ( Said he writing on
macbook air, simbol of cult of stuff)

------
binarymax
I'm surprised nobody here has yet mentioned Fight Club...

    
    
          "The things you own, end up owning you"

~~~
ontheotherhand
Or Erich Fromm, or Marc Aurel... etc., etc.... learn from the best or stfu,
seriously. Both blogs should be shot.

------
nyargh
I loved this. I admit I did not read Dustin's article, but it sounds like it
could have been any one of thousands of fawning techno-fetishist blog posts
made over the years.

I think an interesting thing that Moxie touches on tangentially, is that life
does not go as planned; things break. Everything breaks, in fact. Learning to
recover from failure is often more important (and personally rewarding) than
learning to use the tool in the first place. You may choose to get better
tools, but given time and use, these too will eventually fail.

Operating with the understanding that everything fails, allows us to be more
flexible and pragmatic in our decisions and planning. Assuming that something
will never fail only ensures that a disaster will eventually happen, and that
you will be unequipped to handle it.

~~~
marmot1101
Dustin's article was worth a read. It was as enlightening to his perspective
as this article was to it's author.

Everything fails, but poorly made things fail in less predictable manners.

Really this is a false dichotomy. Anyone who always buys the best everything
or the worst everything is missing a whole lot of nuance.

------
adambard
Perhaps one ought to compromise on a "minimum viable fork."

------
marmot1101
One of my favorite song lyrics of all times:

"I've been losing lots of keys lately, I don't know what that means But maybe
I've been better off with things that can't be locked at all"

I'm a happier person when I am using things that I don't worry about breaking
or being stolen than I am taking care of nice things.

------
rsanheim
It's the classis "Worse is Better" debate, lived out via consumer objects
instead of lisp and c.

Paging Richard Garbriel to Hacker News...

<http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html>

------
joss82
Reminds me of Fight Club's Palaniuk "sofa citation":

You buy furniture. You tell yourself, this is the last sofa I will ever need
in my life. Buy the sofa, then for a couple years you're satisfied that no
matter what goes wrong, at least you've got your sofa issue handled. Then the
right set of dishes. Then the perfect bed. The drapes. The rug. Then you're
trapped in your lovely nest, and the things you used to own, now they own you.
~Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club, Chapter 5

------
by_Seeing
As my friend Phelan put it: "The Best" and "The Worst" are both fascinating
reads, although, in my opinion the authors completely missed the point. Here
is my three-sentence rebuttal.

The point is not to place one’s possessions upon pedestals, only to bring them
down for special occasions. In the same respect, appreciating something is not
synonymous with being owned by it.

The point is to respect one's possessions, because they are the tools that
enrich your life.

------
engtech
Why do I get the feeling that dcurtis' friends are going to endlessly chide
him whenever they go out for dinner?

I wish one of my friends would write an anecdotal story like that.

------
LanceJones
Can "the best" (or worst, for that matter) even exist without the element of
subjectivity? In other words, is there a fixed set of quantifiable and
objective measures for anything one purchases? Across how many attributes
could you rate a set of kitchen utensils? I get "the fastest runner in the
world" or the "top-ranked college basketball team in 2012" -- but the words
"best" and "worst" rely on a person's [subjective] opinion.

------
jaggederest
I like Ikea tables, dishes, and flatware because I can smash them into tiny
bits and chuckle while I work, but they serve their purpose as well as any
ten-times-as-expensive model of the same thing.

I think there's a threshold effect relative to the longevity and expense of
material goods. It's better to buy durable goods with quality, but it's silly
to buy consumables with the same strictures because they inevitably will be
consumed.

------
ThomPete
I think this can best be illustrated with drinking wine.

Some people have to have the perfect Amarone at precisely 21 degrees celsius
in exactly those specific glasses in order to feel it's a good wine
experience.

Other people, while they appreciate the same as the first group of people, can
still enjoy a powerful wine a little to cold in whatever glass and still feel
it's a great experience.

Quality of life really is about what you want it to be.

------
jayferd
Forks and knives might not be the best examples here, but buying "the best"
(as in the most likely to last the longest, has a generous warranty, and is
relatively simple to repair) is often sound financial planning. It tends to be
a more expensive outlay at the beginning, but it sure beats the disposable
"planned-obsolescence" stuff we're usually suckered into buying.

------
vavarachen
Moxie,

Check out "Paradox Of Choice" by Barry Schwartz. It deals with this very
subject but defines the two groups as "maximizers" and "satisficers".

Here is a good overview by the author at TED:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_ch...](http://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_on_the_paradox_of_choice.html)

ISBN-13: 978-0060005696

V

------
mseebach
It seems that Dustin Curtis and Moxie Marlinspike between them has re-invented
"trading up": [http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-
up-...](http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/12/08/acting-dead-trading-up-and-
leaving-the-middle-class/)

~~~
1_player
Thank you, that is a really interesting article, and appropriate for this
period of my life.

------
personlurking
I see a difference between having the worst flatware but the best laptop (I've
used Apple for over 20 years and I'm perfectly content with it). By buying a
reliable brand that I have experience with, I save a bunch of time.

All in all, I agree with the OP's article.

------
nerdo
There's a new subreddit for this "Best" thing:
<http://www.reddit.com/r/buyitforlife>

------
yaix
Some people just need expensive stuff to feel good, others don't. Whatever.
Don't question the other's way of living and just be happy with your's.

------
owenjones
Why is everyone telling me how I should live and what I should buy or not buy
in order to maximize my happiness?

~~~
homosaur
You're a consumer, fella, better get used to it.

------
willholloway
To me the worst set of cutlery is not from the thrift store but a set made of
lead.

------
Wingman4l7
And the winner for The Most Ambiguous Title of the Year Award is...

------
blackman
sounds like they are both optimising for _value_

~~~
WettowelReactor
Yes if you re-frame the whole discussion as pay for value then the concept of
best or worst is irrelevant. What additional value does expensive cutlery
provide over the bargain bin equivalent? Surly durability and use are
comparable so it comes down to a subjective valuation of aesthetics. At the
same token springing for quality stainless steel cookware can provide a
lifetime of service vs. the cheap stuff.

------
anish_m
Ah, what a fking wonderful nice philosophy. We should show the world that
humans matter more than things.

------
tripzilch
They may disagree, but they're trying to convey the same message. And both of
them are IMO way too extreme about it.

What both Curtis and Moxie seem to want is to not have to think or worry about
their possessions after they bought them. You can do this by buying "the best"
so you won't have to worry about breaking[1], or you can do this by buying the
(cheap) "worst", so you won't have to worry about breaking. If you get "the
best", you'll have the added benefit of them being extremely pleasant to use,
but a second hand fork eats just fine, too.

And IMO, they're both "consumerism", though someone may correct me if the
following is not exactly consumerism, but something else:

> Partisans of the worst will get 15 sets of cutlery (out of a bucket that’s
> an overflowing fucking sea of cutlery) for fifty cents at the neighborhood
> thrift shop, and as a result, won’t have the slightest reservation if five
> of their housemates simultaneously decide to start a band that uses nothing
> but spoons for instruments. Partisans of the worst won’t give a shit if
> someone drops a dish while people are hanging out in the kitchen. They can
> push their crappy bicycle to the limit without worrying if it gets scratched
> — without even being too concerned about it getting stolen.

Ugh. This is absolute _bullshit_. I used to feel this way, up to my first few
years of college, but then I grew up.

If how much you paid for an object is the biggest factor in how much you care
whether it breaks or not, isn't that consumerism too? At the very least it's
disrespectful. At least Curtis cares about the things he owns.

See it's fine if you buy cheap dishes because you like to throw the type of
parties where things sometimes break. In fact it'd be stupid to get expensive
AND fragile dishes. But that's a whole different POV than when you buy dishes
_because_ you can just break them, Moxie makes it sound like he already
stopped caring about such items the moment he bought them.

(also, it's nice to own some plates that share the same design. You can't
really cook up a beautiful meal and then serve it up on heterogeneous plates--
but that's a matter of taste)

You can also get plastic camping dishes. They may be ugly but they will not
break. Same for cups. You'll have ugly plastic things in your cupboard drawers
FOREVER!

And the few people I know that will say to get the most shitty bike possible
so they won't care if it gets stolen, I usually want to slap in the face when
I ask them where they would acquire such a bike. Invariably on the street, for
10 euros, from a junkie. Not saying the author would do that, but a real
second hand bike costs at least 10x that much, which is more than I would not
care about getting stolen.

He does address this later in the essay, but I think he still misses the
point:

> Some amongst the best will resort to a resources perspective and say that in
> this increasingly disposable world, it’s refreshingly responsible for those
> of the best to be making quality long-term buying decisions. But we’re a
> long way away from a shortage of second-hand forks in the global north —
> let’s take care of those first.

Because that still sounds to me like he treats cheap second-hand forks as
_disposable_. And makes a mockery of the "Green" in the title of that section,
we're also a long way from a shortage of plastic shopping backs.

Now most forks don't break easily. They just become increasingly shitty.
Especially the half metal / half plastic ones that will come apart a bit but
are still perfectly serviceable as a fork. Those ones are the absolute worst.
I bet even most thrift stores throw them away.

Sorry if this post might just seem overly critical at Moxie, I have similar
(yet opposite) problems with Curtis' post.

[1] as far as I can judge from the pics, nothing short of a disc grinder would
damage those expensive spoons.

------
drivebyacct2
Halfway through reading this I closed it with two conclusions:

1\. Thank God I didn't read "The Best".

2\. Why the hell am I reading this.

I don't have the energy to have such a trite opinion, let alone read a
thousand words about it from someone else. I hate these pithy comments but
this stuff feels like "Hacker Drama", not "Hacker News".

~~~
Narretz
Now you made me wonder why I read almost the whole omment thread, additionally
to two posts that both didn't really make a lot of sense to me.

------
venomsnake
I would never give up my keyboard with cherry blues. But if I happen to be in
a situation where my "best keyboard" is unavailable I will hack with whatever
idiotic input device I manage to get.

Same is with the ceramic knife, and everything else. I like the best, but I
never allow myself the illusion that it is irreplaceable.

------
frozenport
A large portion of the HN readership are DIRTY HIPSTERS whose support of well
defined, but gimmicky ideas often leaves me at a loss for words. Much as the
fork example from the article.

------
baconhigh
THIS.

SO MUCH THIS. fuck yes.

------
trotsky
preach on brother marlinspike!

------
mcnkldzyn
Glad I had a chance to read this today.

