Comment by rjf72 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by rjf72 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

To take things from a different perspective, I find people judging what others ought consider acceptable to be inexplicable.

I find people buying $200 sneakers that offer no significant performance improvement over much cheaper alternatives to be 'inexplicable.' I find people buying $1000 phones when a $200 phone would perform literally 100% of a purchaser's tasks to 100% acceptability, to be 'inexplicable'. I even find people buying new cars 'inexplicable' given their hyper-depreciation - meaning a lightly used car is generally a vastly better value.

Of course I put 'inexplicable' in single quotes because these things are all completely explicable. Personal choice is a right of every person in a free society, and people have different views and values. And my examples understate the relevance of this as this choice is far more significant, and frequently personal, when it comes to what people consume than whatever stuff people buy for image crafting.

I’m with you all the way, so long as externalities are priced in.

This is getting closer to a solution but it assumes that damage is totally reversible given money. If you punch me and break my nose, I can sue you for 'damages' (loss of earnings, medical expenses etc) and in the eyes of civil law everything is OK - but really it would be much better if it hadn't happened in the first place! We recognise that by placing a blanket criminal ban on assault, and in the future I think we're going to have to accept that a lot more for negative-externality actions.

> We recognise that by placing a blanket criminal ban on assault, and in the future I think we're going to have to accept that a lot more for negative-externality actions.

But we don't. Rather, we make the price of engaging in that activity extremely high. What would be closest to what you are advocating would be something like summary execution for all cases of homicide and rape, and no civilized country does that.

As somebody who just bought an almost-assuredly overpriced cellphone (Pixel 3), I can say that in my case it's because -- despite being a professional software developer -- I can't tell which $200 phone would actually serve my purpose.

While I know that laptop and desktop systems have reached the point where pretty much anything will serve -- my laptop is over five years old and works for what I need -- I haven't found that phones have topped out yet. There is a massive array of features, including durability and battery life, where there is at least some potential to get more by paying more, and where I might actually use that.

I could possibly learn more by reading reviews and trying to read in between the lines, but as somebody who tries to upgrade rarely, I was content to pay more and hope that I'm actually getting what I need. And then try not to do it again for several years.

I fully admit to ignorance -- and that's your answer. I don't work with many cell phones; mostly, just mine. So you might well be able to recommend me an acceptable $200 substitute. But I bet somebody here would disagree, and I wouldn't know who to believe.

That's my experience. I can't tell you if it generalizes. (I can say that I waited until I got it for half price, which removes some of the sting.)

Personal choice is a right but uselessly destroying the environment we share is not your right.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com