Decades ago, an old friend told me "I became a coffee expert, I learned everything there is to learn about beans, the ways to prepare them, the chemistry that goes into it, and now I can only enjoy a cup of coffee prepared by the most expensive machines from the most expensive beans. The shit part is that I enjoy it just as much as I enjoyed my shitty supermarket coffee back when I didn't know anything about coffee."
That advice has stuck with me, and I try to have the least taste I can. I use $20 headphones and a $200 TV because I can't tell what "good" is, and I enjoy music and movies as much as my friends with $600 headphones and $3k TVs do.
I never enjoyed shitty coffee. I never enjoyed shitty chocolate or chocolate flavored things like cakes.
Until I was 30-something I thought I just didn't like coffee or chocolate.
Then one day I had actually proper coffee, and I discovered that good coffee isn't just some imperceptably theoretically better version of regular coffee that snobs are basically just faking being sophisticated for show. They are two entirely different things.
Same even more so for chocolate. 99% of chocolate products you come into contact with are garbage. Actual chocolate is like an entirely different product. It's not a better version of the usual thing. I ate it and thought "Oh. Ok THIS must be why chocolate ever became this huge thing in the first place. Hundreds of years ago before all the industrial process and market forces produced all the "chocolate" I ever tasted in my life, what they had was this, actual chocolate. Of course they loved it."
To restate the point, I was never happy with the regular version in the first place. I assumed "I don't like coffee" or chocolate, the same way I don't like cigarettes. Turns out I love them both.
And it's possible to continue to enjoy the results of having discovered and grown some taste in some area indefinitely without diminishing returns or anything like that. I'm not much of a sweets person so I still don't buy a lot of chocolate or chocolate things like cookies etc, but we have a Trade subscription and get a new and different bag from some random indipendant roaster every 2 or 3 weeks and it's great. I don't love every single bag but I at least find them all interesting and I do love the overall high level of quality basically all the time. I'm not now overall poorer for having discovered good coffee. Life is better. And what else is there?
I only ask because specifically for chocolate and coffee, I would consider the US baseline to be exceedingly average, even terrible. Even "okay" chocolate and coffee from other countries better known for food will blow it out of the water.
The US does do excellent coffee, and excellent chocolate, but you have to seek it out. In a country like Italy or Australia the default, okay stuff is better. If an Australian couldn't tell the difference between good and great coffee I'd see why.
This is definitely the main issue in the US. People are always clamoring for the cheapest thing that's good enough. The US has some of the best coffees, chocolates, beers, food, and more in the world. I mean, if you wanna make money, you sell to Americans.
But they're all artisanal products that few access. The baseline Starbucks, Hershey's, Budweiser, TGI Fridays, etc. are all... so bad.
Hershey's standard milk chocolate bothers me (and many others) because of the spoiled milk/butyric acid smell, which is due to their original manufacturing process.
However, some people in the US enjoy Hershey's, are not sensitive to the smell, and want the chocolate they grew up with (they might also like the acidic/tangy taste.)
But certain varieties of Hershey chocolate (Symphony, Special Dark) do not bother me as much.
Some of the American chocolate for high volume candy bars is very waxy and not very chocolatey.
For example, compare the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups to Trader Joe's peanut butter cups [0]. It may be that the Reese's ones used to use better chocolate or it may be that my tastes changed as I grew up. But I used to love them as kids and now they taste off. Similarly for Twix etc.
[0] I'm sure other stores sell peanut butter cups too. There's nothing special about the Trader Joe's ones other than they are mass produced and use better chocolate that Reese's.
I look at products like Hershey's chocolate or Reeses more like their own category of processed food, kind of like Spam. They have a close, but not exact resemblance to "normal" chocolate or peanut butter, but they're also sort of an acquired taste, and I think their customers would be upset if Reese's Peanut Butter cups suddenly tasted like the Trader Joe's versions (with real peanut butter instead of a mysterious chalky peanut-flavored substance), or if Hershey's stopped using the butyric acid process that makes them taste like vomit to non-americans.
Most chocolate things, like random chocolate cookies or commercial cake etc, breakfast cereal, irritate the back of my throat in a mild way. Couple that with the foreground taste not being anything special, and it's just enough to make the whole experience just the wrong side of neutral. Not terrible just not good either.
All stuff that's made in factories and needs to have shelf life, so I can only imagine it's any number of cost saving substitutions and preservatives and who knows what all for other reasons like preserving texture etc.
It's what gives US chocolate the "vomit/bile" taste uncommon in other chocolate. I am guessing it becomes acquired or unnoticeable taste for people who eat it a lot but man is it a shock if you usually eat chocolate without it!
I have no idea why they use it, but I can think of one really good reason why they shouldn't, your product probably shouldn't have "hints of vomit" in its flavour profile.
I mean it's also in cheese. People just aren't used to the weird tang, and I don't blame them. I can tolerate it but Hershey's isn't exactly my favorite haha
There's an enormous difference between supermarket crap (or whatever it is that you think Nespresso is barely better than, because that would be the first thing I think of for crap coffee) and 'local roasters', however overly you think they're roasting.
I get all mine from Pact, by no means particularly artisan or expensive, and yeah a light roast is not my favourite. But whole beans freshly roasted and ground makes an entirely different drink to freeze-dried instant Nescafe or whatever, or supermarket beans ok the shelf for months, flavoured with cinnamon or vanilla or something to hide the stale.
These will give you an idea of beans we find in supermarket, several of these brands are considered as local roasters, I can even find Boreal in supermarket, which would be your typical "new wave coffee bar/beans" https://www.galaxus.ch/en/s7/producttype/coffee-beans-183
Given that, Switzerland is a bit special for this matter I believe, but I know that most people will be happy with Nespresso.
I rarely see anyone drinking instant coffee. On that subject, I rather drink some "expensive" instant coffee (yes I have seen single origin instant coffee) than Nespresso or Nescafé.
Give any child, anywhere in the world, standard Hershey's chocolate and they are going to lose their mind if it's the first time they have tasted chocolate.
Is there any place on earth that has good coffee? Italy's coffee is horrible, even if they have quality machines to make it with. 99% of people will use "ille" or whatever that brand is, which is far worse than starbucks worst roast. Meanwhile I can wander down the street in the US and find better sourced and roasted beans than I could find anywhere in europe.
>Meanwhile I can wander down the street in the US and find better sourced and roasted beans than I could find anywhere in europe.
You must know the place you live very well, I was excited to try coffee in New York when I lived in Manhattan given it was essentially responsible for popularising the current trend in western coffee culture. I had many local coffee snobs directing me to places all over the city and I found only a single shop that I could bear, even then it would've been average to poor in London or Berlin, and worse still in my colleague's native Melbourne.
Blue Bottle was the biggest let down of all, since at the time it was hyped to all hell.
the opposite, the ubiquity of burnt mud in every office coffee warmer seems to have dulled the American palate, that or the over abundance of artificial ingredients in everything, to the extent that they simply cannot discern what good coffee is, because it's either that or coffee that looks like the water from a particularly detail oriented miniature painting session; scant colour, scant aroma.
I will admit of course that the French seem to enjoy charcoal, and when in my teens I worked as at a shop the beans that were left too long in the roaster were usually marked as "French Roast"
idk man, I would say the opposite but I tended to avoid the Illy shops because I already knew I didn't care for that brand much.
Right here in NJ a shop a block away from me had it as their distinguishing feature and I didn't like it much (still better than sbux though). And then when I go on vacation in Italy and other European countries I see Illy mostly in vending machines, so when I see and Illy shop I'm not tempted, when there are 500 other more interesting looking shops every direction you look. And in all of those, I mostly had a lot of cappucinos, and they were basically all excellent.
I cannot call Italy's coffe bad. But I confess I never drink it perfectly straight. Usually cappucino. The European style, a pretty small and strong espresso that is foamed. Not a honking big american cup.
Anecdotally, Australia and Melbourne does it pretty well. And obviously there is good coffee in every American city, you just need to know where to go.
I mean, Australia the default is decent espresso. Even our petrol stations do decent espresso, it is overroasted for sure, but it's not pot coffee either.
But we have the Italians to thank for that, and Australian cafe culture is why it's so easy to get a good coffee even without trying.
Somehow I grew up with the expectation that coffee in US is exceptional everywhere. I guess from movies, pop culture - just how much coffee is part of American daily life.
Then later in life, when I traveled to US as an independent adult (after EU coffee culture upbringing), for work, and embraced the local coffee culture... I had a big disassociation between what my mind thought about how coffee in US should be and what it actually was.
I realized that majority of positive feedback about coffee drinks was based on all those other things people put into coffee...syrups, chocolate, marshmallows, cinnamon, milk, etc. Etc.
+1 on this. There's a big difference for some between the 15 dollar whiskey and the 35 dollar whiskey, probably another jump between 35 and 80 dollar whiskey, and then after that it starts getting into crazy marginal gains. If you drink 15 dollar whiskey you'd get 90% of your gains from just bumping it up to 35 versus going straight for the 300 dollar bottle.
Same it was with me for coffee, I enjoy single origin vs supermarket coffee, but after that it got to a point where I couldn't realistically make up the difference.
There seems to be an 80/20 effect here on how much you should deep-dive into these tangent domains in your life.
Once you get into that high end ($100+ whiskeys for instance), I feel like it often doesn't get _better_, it just gets more interesting. People seek out unique flavors or experiences, but you start max out the pure quality aspect.
Don't go into the difference between varietals, washing process or fermentation ones.
Better, I don't know but there are large differences between producers.
I feel it's the same or similar than wine, chocolate etc
As in to OP's experience with chocolate, some of this may be down to people being more sensitive to flavors and textures associated with the less expensive manufacturing processes.
I, for one, don't like the bite of low quality alcohol. Whisky taken neat starts to be drinkable to me somewhere around $150-$200 a bottle. With ice or water, you can go cheaper than that because you're cutting the harshness of the impurities.
There used to be a theory that passing cheap rail alcohol through an activated charcoal filter several times would improve the taste. In my experience with rail vodka, it removes the worst part of the bite from impurities. But it obviously doesn't make it taste like high quality alcohol. I've only tried this with vodka. It may remove some desirable favors from other alcohols.
I used to think i didn't like people — Until i met some people I liked.
I think it's a bit different from developing taste, what you describe. It's more about finding out who you are. I would say once you know your baseline for what makes chocolate/coffee/etc enjoyable, then taste is about experiencing the nuances within that spectrum. Some people also have a greater tolerance for things that aren't really tasty due to coming up in a culture where things generally taste plain or bad (netherlands and UK come to mind).
No, I've tried cigarettes, which is all I needed for that sentence, something I don't like.
I guess it's a natural question given the rest, and expensive cigars might indeed be different than cheap cigarrettes, but it's irrelevant, since the point was not that no matter what you don't like you might still like the good version.
The point was only that discovering the good version of something did not leave me worse than before because I used to enjoy something abundant and now I can only enjoy something scarce.
It's a bit like Feynman on flowers too. You don't have to be ignorant of the biological workings of a flower to appreciate it's mere outward properties exactly the same way as the layperson does. I still love a box mac & cheese even though I thoroughly appreciate far better home or chef made mac & cheese.
> Then one day I had actually proper coffee, and I discovered that good coffee isn't just some imperceptably theoretically better version of regular coffee that snobs are basically just faking being sophisticated for show. They are two entirely different things.
I know what you mean, but it's important to be mindful of the fact that enjoying coffee is way more than the quality of the coffee in the cup. I think for most there's a whole ritual around having a coffee which renders the actual coffee a minor detail around everything. You can see this even in coffee brewing snobs, where they use extremely specialized tools and equipment to perform a coffee brewing cerimonies that rival religious ones. Sometimes the coffee itself is just the pretext, but the goal is different.
When chocolate was discovered they consumed it in an extremely different fashion from what we think of good chocolate today.
The dried beans were simply cooked with water. Later with milk. Chocolate as we know it only became a thing centuries later. (Dried milk was only invented in 1802, and you can’t make milk chocolate without that for example)
The point of coffee is caffeine. If coffee didn't have caffeine it would be some boring curiosity tucked away in specialty markets. Same with beer, wine, and spirits; it's the alcohol. This is why people still buy Folgers, Pabst, and Night Train: they get the job done for cheap.
Yeah, this is not true. This is the type of argument that people make when they insist that "no one actually likes IPAs and they just want to get drunk quicker."
No, people like IPAs because they taste good to them. I have never heard anyone complementing the flavorings of Pabst (yuk), Schaefer (worst beer I ever tasted), or Milwaukee's Best (aka The Beast). Same with Old English 800 or Colt 45, they're awful but get you drunk for cheap.
As a former home brewer, when I taste a ton of hops, the first thing that pops into my mind is "oh they screwed up the batch" because a fistfull of hops was a way to wipe out bad flavors and save material.
As a home brewer, just because one person tried to salvage crap by dumping hops into the boil does not automatically make all hoppy styles crap. Perhaps more forgiving for less-experienced brewers, but doing them well still takes skill.
It's one of those things so common and spoken about among brew clubs that I saw it as an established truth. We always gave the PNW brewers crap for over reliance on hops. In the time and place I was at, porters and stouts ruled.
The hardest thing to brew at home is actually a pale ale or a light lager. You can't hide any mistakes in those because they are 'sex in a canoe' beers.
Well, I reckon whether one considers that statement true or not depends on who one is (as I'll explain).
Coffee, tea, chocolate and cola all contain mixtures of methylxanthines of which caffeine is but one, others include theophylline, theobromine† and paraxanthine to mention a few.
What's relevant here is not only that all are psychoactive to varying degrees but also they are bitter substances that contribute significantly to the taste. For example, dark chocolate is considerably more bitter than milk chocolate because it contains significantly higher level of xanthines than the latter.
I've yet to taste any decaffeinated coffee that in my opinion is worth drinking and it's not for the want of the stimulating effects of the caffeine but rather its taste. Without those xanthines the product just doesn't taste like coffee to me.
From observation, most consumers of decaffeinated coffee consume it with cream or as a latte and often with sugar, these additives tend to mask the bitterness of caffeine so it seems its absence doesn't bother them. For my part I add nothing to coffee—not even sugar—for reason that for me the bitterness of the xanthines is an integral part of the taste.
I drink coffee because of its taste, not for its stimulating properties. Unfortunately, unlike many others, caffeine has almost no noticeable stimulating effect on me—I can drink the strongest coffee at bedtime and still easily fall asleep.
† Despite its name theobromine does not contain bromine.
You seem to be in violent agreement with my point, because what I was getting at is that you drink coffee for the taste, and I drink IPAs for the taste.
Even though there's a popular strain of edgy internet bro logic that "no one actually likes X, they only drink/eat/wear/consume it because Y."
I'll offer a counter-anecdote and suggest this advice isn't necessarily ironclad. I've used the same pair of $20 headphones for decades (replacing them with the same model when they die), or else laptop/TV speakers. A couple of years ago I got $200 headphones included with a new phone purchase. The $200 headphones were amazing. I got to listen to all of my favorite music with a new perspective. But I still use the $20 ones on a daily basis because the $200 ones hurt my ears with prolonged usage. The $20 ones are fine. The nice ones didn't diminish my enjoyment of them at all. And every now and then I break out the $200 ones for a treat.
Just don't become a snob. I think people tie their identity to the expensive junk they purchase and develop a sense of ego around it, of being better than the peasants, and that's why they become unable to enjoy the "lesser" experience.
I think you point to the real problem: It's often not about taste or enjoyment but about using expensive things as a crutch for your feeble ego. Neatly expressed by the term "nouveau riche"
I think it's more to do with 'taste' as an indicator of social status. Not all things within the 'good taste' space or expensive. It's more about access to the secret club thinking, e.g. the secret hidden strip mall restaurant that has the best Bahn Mi.
Regarding audio, I have access to very decent headphones and also lower-grade studio monitors, as I've decided to make audio production a hobby of mine. Both of these are absolutely better than my cheaper in-ears for cycling and walking around outside. And sure, you also start to notice how different bluetooth boxes are also on a range of audio quality. And live music on a PA is a whole different ball game and not comparable to studio recordings entirely.
But that's fine. The in-ears are at a decent conjunction between audio quality and a price point I won't be hurt if I lose or break them. And some music from a janky box is better than no music from a janky box. At worst it will be funny how janky it is.
If I encounter something I like, I can ask what it is, break out the better equipment at home, probably sit down on the balcony with some tea or a drink and focus on the music and appreciate it for an hour or so while watching the magpies and crows in our back yard.
It's in fact even fun to me to dive into a song or an album like this to explore what you didn't hear on the other audio system. Sometimes there is an entire instrument you're missing on other systems.
The entire concept of "comfort food" and "poverty food" is about people excusing the enjoyment of "low class" stuff that is eminently enjoyable and shouldn't need justification.
You can learn tasting notes in wines, and how to identify wines that are well balanced with good tasting notes or an interesting character. You can appreciate all the care and expertise that went into that process and how it meshes with the "flavor pairing" guides and cheese that it was served with. You can then buy an entire case of $6 wine from that winery because that wine tastes exactly like Welches concord grape juice and when you were a kid you always expected wine to taste like tasty grape juice but make you drunk and have always been disappointed that wine doesn't taste like grape juice.
That wine was so good and it was $6 because snobs hate simple pleasures.
Don't be a snob. Good is not the inverse of simple, and complex is not inherently good.
Nobody can stop you from drinking boxed wine cut with gatorade. Nobody can stop you from enjoying boxed wine cut with gatorade.
If you find you can't enjoy the simple things, you don't need to "upgrade" or get more expensive stuff or keep up with the Jones's, you need therapy.
I think there's an unfinished journey whenever I hear such a story. Like someone who learns just enough about music that they "feel like" Bach is better than Taylor Swift, but then never move to the other side to use their newly acquired competence to understand what's nice about Taylor Swift's music as well.
E.g. a great designer will be able to design houses in very different styles, because they can understand what gives each of those styles its own specific beauty.
There's a lot to say about this, but I think your coffee friend never passed the snob-like point, which is a point I think most people reach when they learn just enough about something and that makes them feel superior. But if you keep going, then you start to understand what makes Italian coffee great as well, for example.
Wrt to coffee, I speak from experience, after going through very expensive equipment, I have learned to enjoy very different styles of roasts, coffees, etc. I still have preferences, I'm just far less judgmental.
Applies to most of my hobbies, I've seen this trajectory very often.
Yeah, that's a horrible way to enjoy life. By your reasoning, you should subsist on protein blocks and watch paint dry for entertainment. By lowering the bar to the absolute lowest threshold, you'll classify everything as enjoyable.
The pareto principle holds strong. Just put 20% of the effort in and you reap 80% of the results.
I get what they are trying to say. Looking for negatives is the problem.
When I was in college I got into beer. I was brewing at home and whenever I went out I was looking for something new and tasting it like I was a beer critic. It was great fun at first, but then the more refined my palate got, the less I found myself being able to find beer I enjoyed. Like if I went to a hockey game, I'd complain about the only choices being Bud and Bud light.
So I decided to look for positives rather than negatives and my enjoyment level went back up again. No matter where I am, I can find a beer that I enjoy. And that means when I'm in the bleachers on a sunny day watching a baseball game, a Bud Light and a hot dog might be absolutely perfect.
Coffee is the same for me. I was in Toronto this summer and went to The Library Specialty Coffee and had the best pour over I think I've ever had. The next morning I was up early and popped out for a Tim Horton's coffee and it was way different, but exactly what I wanted at that time.
IMHO, being a fan is a lot more fun than being a critic.
Tell me more! I need to hear this! I'm fed up with being a critic. It feels like a trap I set myself into without realizing. I'm at the point where I can only enjoy coffee brew at home with expensive toys and I'm becoming miserable about it: Id prefer the freedom to have anything anywhere while being able to enjoy.
Applies to coffee but also other things. So yeah, pls tell us more.
I mean, I'm not advocating for snobbery or being a critic at all.
One time I was walking around Belgium in the rain, I was cold and every single restaurant or bar (some serve food) was packed and wouldn't let new patrons in.
After walking around for about 35 minutes we found a cozy bar, had a beer, and discovered that they had a big pot of spicy pasta in the back, where you could pay €1 to ladle full a plate. In my memory, that is still the best meal I've ever tasted. And I'm definitely a haute cuisine enjoyer, been to a fair bit of Michelin restaurants.
Practicing photography on a smartphone is terrible compared to a dedicated device; in both ergonomics (hard to get a good grip, unprecise shutter actuation due to the touchscreen, and sometime unreliable software) and quality (granted, I like to actually print my picture instead of looking at them on a tiny screen; but still the difference is noticeable).
But that doesn't doesn't necessarily mean you need a camera system that cost as much as a small car; you can get plenty joy with an entry-level mirrorless (which would be in the pareto 20% price range).
I think it's a good starting point though. I like to try out the cheapest option and see how it really feels or tastes. For mattress shopping i always ask, "what's your second cheapest option?". For most consumer goods the diminishing returns kick in pretty quick
At some point I think there's almost an inverse relationship with how much time you spend researching a product and how much you enjoy it. I fell in to this hole with gaming monitors. At the top end, no product has it all, no product is without flaws. So then you start getting frustrated that you can't find one that has the right HDMI version, freesync, 240hz, 4k, USB-C with decent power delivery, etc. And what you buy is something quite expensive but every flaw frustraights you.
While if you just ignore most of that and buy something mid tier, you feel quite happy because it works pretty well and you didn't spend too much on it. The moment you start scrolling the subreddit for the product you've gone too far and need to disengage.
I definitely suffer from this "do enough research until I find flaws that I then can't un-see".
When my older kid wanted a gaming monitor, he suggested a specific model because it was on sale and he could afford it. I took that opportunity to do some research solo that night, find a few alternatives, research each deeply and then suggest that we "look together at 2 or 3 different models", compare the features, and talked through whether it really mattered if one was $100 more than the other given the likely useful lifespan of a monitor.
He ended up with a monitor that he's really happy with, we got some time together bonding over a shared interest, and he doesn't have to know all the flaws I saw in it. (It's also barely mid-tier, which is congruent with your advice.)
Yeah for sure do enough research to avoid something awful, but as soon as you get to the reddit comments that are like "Nah don't buy that it's junk, buy this one" and "this one" is twice the price, it's probably best to ignore. And certainly best to avoid doing any more research or reading forums/reddit after the purchase is made.
Ah, but it can give you such fun projects. Go, hunt down your headphones’ frequency response, cancel it out in PulseEffects (if that’s what it is called this release…), then adjust to the Harman Curve…
Excellent idea, hunting for the best headphones only cost me like two hundred hours of my life, couple hundreds of dollars, and rewarded me with a mild tinnitus as well.
I recently tried to play a bit of tennis, which I've already stopped. My friend was appalled when I proudly announced that my tennis racket costed $15. "But we are in tech!" he cried. But for a couple of games, I know I won't be able to tell the difference between a $15 one and a $150 one (I know because I've played tennis in the past).
And true to my predictions, I no longer play tennis and I'm only $15 poorer. I don't know the name for this, but the fact that I avoided wasting $150 and only "wasted" $15 into something I knew might be temporary also feels very satisfying.
> At first, buy the absolute cheapest tools you can find. Upgrade the ones you use a lot. If you wind up using some tool for a job, buy the very best you can afford.
Absolutely the right choice. I do triathlons and your comment makes me think of all the people who turn up, do an Ironman and leave the sport after. Or people who sign up for a marathon, do it, then never run again.
Meanwhile there are shorter events you can do on much less training and cheaper equipment to see if you’ll like it before investing in the extreme end of the sport. If you run a 10k and hate every step, you’ve saved yourself a lot of time, pain and money.
This is my thinking with photography, I love photography but I'm still not very good at it. So I use a D7100, which is probably considered a shitty relic nowadays compared to more modern stuff. But right now, the camera isn't the bottleneck for me getting good photos, it's me. The camera is still way better a camera than I am a photographer.
I'll get a better camera, when I'm a better photographer and the camera is actually the limiting factor, but I expect that is very very very far off.
This is how I have it with my guitar. It's a simple Ibanez Gio from a starter kit, probably coming in at 150 Euros - 200 Euros or so, with another 40 Euros spent on a guitar tech to set it up properly.
I'll replace it once I know how it is holding me back. At least that's the plan I've had for the last 4-5 years. But it has low action, fairly low-noise pickups, holds tuning. So no need so far.
Cheap electric guitars are much better now since the parts are CNC'd, even if they don't come properly setup from the factory. As long as the fretwork is good, you can easily upgrade everything else if you have problems with it.
Yes, and from what I've been reading and hearing: Modern electronic components and the manufacturing methods in general are also much more consistent in this day and age.
Back in the day, costs of a guitar would go into higher quality parts, and possibly even labor to ensure consistency and function exactly how it should. Nowadays, components are more consistent and cheaper than the better components of the 80s and 90s.
Thus the pure functional spread between cost ranges has been reduced.
Yep, it’s the golden age of guitar quality. These days even a starter guitar is pretty darn good. Ditto for amp emulators and small tube amps, wish that was all around as a teen.
I just look around in the most expensive street in my city for posts online or offline of people selling rackets that have maybe 2 hours of use on them. Then you can usually get 150$+ rackets for $15 as these folks threat $150 as I threat $15. Some of them are just given away to charity shops etc.
This is the way I am with hiking and biking. I genuinely enjoy them, but I have a tendency to really get into the weeds with things I'm interested in and ruining the fun.
I purposely just go for hikes for the sake of it, and refuse to give in and buy anything other than a generic bike, even though a part of me really wants __ hardware. If I buy it, that will be the point of no return for becoming a bike nerd and I'll start caring about stuff I don't want to care about.
Now computers, I've learned a million ways to hate them, and learn new ways to hate them every day. Not with bikes, though :)
I do the same, although my reasoning probably slightly differs. I hate the idea that I'll mangle a pastime as "primitive" as hiking or biking into some technology optimization problem. People did this stuff way back with perfectly simple gear and were entirely happy enough.
Sure, I could probably be a bit faster or go on a bit longer if I had better gear. But I could also achieve that by just getting into a better shape. With this level of commitment the gear is not the limiting factor. If I can't go faster with this bike, then I don't deserve to go faster with a fancier one, god dammit.
My work is very complicated and technical, so I get some satisfaction from keeping my hobbies ascetic.
To be honest, when I was younger, I found hardcore cyclists a bit ridiculous and never wanted to be like them. I find spending a lot of money on gear so you can essentially move around unappealing, I guess. It starts becoming about the gear, getting better gear, always wanting something new, etc. At some point it's so far abstracted from simply walking or pedaling and I just can't give a shit.
I think I agree. Although it is funny, everybody’s cut off point is different. I have a… it must be 30 years old by now… old road bike. But, I don’t really like riding bikes without clippy pedals. If I’m not clipped in, it just doesn’t feel right somehow. Like I’m not part of the system, just sitting on the system.
Lucky you! You didn’t fall into that trap and just enjoy the best experience you could get without overoptimizing for it. I fell into the musical instruments trap for a bit but luckily I got out of it and play with what I have.
I messed up in that domain when it comes to music software, it's tweaks all the way down, amazing that it works at all. I make do with cheap MIDI controllers, but spend hours cracking VSTs I already bought so I can run them in Linux.
Typing this out makes me realize its not even about the music anymore, but the tweaks. Let this be a warning
I don’t know if it’s a counterpoint or not, but I both know and appreciate a lot about coffee and enjoy instant or—especially—that black tarry sludge at the bottom of the gas station carafe, the sort that’s getting ever harder to find. One doesn’t diminish the other, they’re different things.
Similarly consider the people who build world-class systems in their day jobs, yet spend their weekends running Doom on potatoes or battling janky bots to the death.
Cultivating taste doesn’t have to be the same thing as developing snobbery or becoming jaded.
I drink things that taste bad. No, not always. But when an option exists that I think might taste bad, I always choose it. Someone has determined that it is a worthy drink and unless I explore their thinking, I will never know whether or not I agree. Once explored, I have some data that I can use to compare with other implementations of such an horrific recipe. At once, I am a connoisseur of this awful thing.
Let me know if you are interested in the worst place to get a bean-paste mojito with a cactus apple sidecar. I still search for the best.
Why yes I am! Both of those sound suited to a deliciously wide range of interpretation. I’ll raise you a pair of excellent and abject chòu dòufu served within about 5 blocks of each other (oddly enough, in a Puerto Rican section of New York)…
It seems like, in most domains of aesthetic appreciation, it doesn’t take all THAT much “trying stuff” before you get off a “bad-to-good” axis and onto a “varieties of experience” plane… (mumble mumble decommodification etc)
Then again perhaps you and I are showing our hand as people whose aesthetic preferences are not to be trusted :)
There must have been something that drove him to coffee expert level.
For me, I get dissatisfied and then reach for something nicer and nicer until I hit a limit. I'm just very skeptical he'd still love cheap instant coffee. He was climbing a sort of dopamine ladder. Then he ran out of rungs to climb. Now he has to move to a new thing. Life is almost nothing but impermanence and dissatisfaction. Its a little odd to think you could somehow beat the system. The person who finishes the dopamine ladder would never have been happy staying at the most bottom rung, which was disintegrating for them hence pushing them along to the highest rung. Short of becoming a very serious practitioner in things like meditation and other monastic-type things to fight these urges, this is just a really tough thing to get away from.
Now job, new book, new video game, new movie, new friend, etc. We're almost always doing this in some way.
Maybe those examples are things you don't have good discernment with. For me, I can instantly tell when I have quality headphone speakers. I can hear a fuller range of music than cheap ones. Its almost always obvious and cheap ones are almost always annoying. I have yet to go deeper into audiophone territory and I might never, but I have affordable headphones with really nice speakers inside and I wont go any less quality than this. So maybe for you, you can't tell or don't value it, but there are probably other things you do focus on.
I think you have to “aestheticize” the cheap stuff in a way that doesn’t add value purely on price. In other words, you aren’t just picking the absolute best quality of a thing, you’re picking it for some specific aesthetic reason that puts it above the more expensive one.
To put that into more concrete terms: I really like dark roast black coffee. There’s something about the bitterness and presentation that reminds me of coffee’s history, the variety of people drinking it, etc. and thus it is more appealing to me than the “high quality” light roasts with subtle flavors available in the expensive cafes.
Another example are diners. If you become such a gourmand that you only eat at Michelin restaurants and disparage anywhere “normal”, I think you miss out on the real culture and quality of diner food, which is a unique phenomenon.
I think it's possible to get a careful dark roast, but often "dark roast" coffee mainly tastes like burned toast. It's still warm and caffeinated, but it's not really that enjoyable. There's a reason so many people make this kind of coffee very watered down or drown it in cream and sugar. Maybe it feels historically connected to cowboys brewing coffee in a sock over a campfire or whatever, but is that connection really so valuable?
I just prefer the taste and it reminds me more of Turkish coffee, which is my favorite way of preparation. And also black coffee reminds me of various cultural things like diners, detective fiction, etc. Like this quote from Phoenix Wright, the game:
“Blacker than a moonless night. Hotter and more bitter than hell itself… that is coffee.”
Lighter roast coffee just isn’t a thing I generally enjoy, to me it feels like a different drink, an over-complicated consumer product, not the kind of thing one would write quotes like the one above about.
A bit like grilling vs. sous vide with meat. Grilling has a whole culture to it, whereas sous vide feels soulless and overly technical, even if it produces great flavors.
What I love about learning a topic thoroughly is that I can then pick apart the "expert wisdom" into what actually matters. That usually results in me getting better but very pragmatic results.
Coffee is a great example, I worked through the whole stack, tried everything I had access to until eventually I weeded out what matters most to me.
Good beans, good milk, and just enough prep. I tried no prep, all the prep, and then just enough prep. Good beans not perfect beans. Good milk but whatever is available.
I do the same with everything, cars, bicycles, sim racing equipment, computers, software etc.
It sounds like you're choosing to live in ignorance and lead a mediocre life. That's your choice to make but to me that seems sad. Expanding experiences beyond mediocrity is what makes life interesting.
You don't need to have full knowledge or the best, most expensive thing to rise above. The 80/20 rule applies.
You can spend thousands on coffee equipment and hundreds of hours in understanding it. Or you can spend $15 on a pour over cone, $15 on a bag of beans, and $20 on a hand grinder to get 80% of the way there. The coffee you make with this minor investment will be night and day better than the swill you make with cheap grocery store beans and a cheap auto drip brewer.
Strive to be better than average rather than the best.
I can't remember where I read this, but I read a very similar sentiment: "If you can only afford $2 pizza on a regular basis, never buy a $20 pizza, because it will just ruin the $2 pizza for you."
Another aspect of this which doesn't depend on price, is when I get attached to some regional variety, and then I move. That's always a bit painful.
Or sometimes they just stop making it. Or they change the formulation!
A fun thing to do is remember why you liked the low end, for me and coffee it was instant coffee with too much sugar, in a big mug, on a building site. It hits totally different to a fancy coffee. I can still drink that now and enjoy it as it is associated with happy memories (and hot sweet coffee is great).
Another is to look at what the low end are trying to do, with wine it is generally appeal to as many people as possible, buying things like the supermarkets own brand of a variety of you like is a good way to get a great bottle.
If you can’t appreciate why the simple / cheap stuff is loved by the masses I wouldn’t think anyone is a true expert in their field. Feels like a well worn path for chefs.
I strive to be at the informed part of the spectrum.
Wine example:
- Novice: "I'd like any red wine" -> waiter brings you something you don't like
- Informed: "I'd like a red wine that is dry, not st" -> waiter brings you something you are quite likely to like
- Asshole: "Do you have an Argentinian malbec from 1998-2000, from the so and so valley?" -> you spend a lot of money and like the wine, or you are unhappy because they don't meet your asshole preferences
Keep pushing through the asshole stage and you get to another where you learn to enjoy what you enjoy, whether it is a $10 chocolate chip cookie or Chips A'Hoy. A $200 bottle of wine or a $5 bottle.
It is possible to dig deep into subjects and emerge with a nuanced understanding rather than an asshole demeanor!
I've kept aquariums basically my whole life and have had all kinds of critters including a really expensive marine tank fully kitted out with fish worth hundreds each. My current favorites are some guppies I got for free because it wasn't worth charging for them!
> - Asshole: "Do you have an Argentinian malbec from 1998-2000, from the so and so valley?" -> you spend a lot of money and like the wine, or you are unhappy because they don't meet your asshole preferences
So asshole is having preferences that don't fit the norm? If they don't impose their standards on you, and do not act a snob, why do you care?
I am in the 20$ dollars headphones and 200$ TV bucket too. But for different reasons.
The point of the video/movie/song etc. is the content not the fidelity, there is a level of fidelity that allows 99 per cent of the enjoyment of the content. That level of fidelity typically costs 20$ for headphones and 200$ for tvs.
1080p and mp3s are good enough. The point is to see what's happening on the screen and to hear without noise.
I think that's mostly true above a certain threshold, but where that threshold lies, is probably different for different people.
The <1$ earphones you get on an airplane sound terrible. I can understand what the actors in movies are saying but that's about it. I can't hear or experience the music.
The $20 headphones my kids have are a good step up. For me headphones/speakers in the $100 range make me _feel_ more when listening to music. But I don't need to go more expensive. That's where my threshold is for music.
The lesson is to learn enough from first principles and then optimise pragmatically for fun and comfort, and only go really nerdy/taste-oriented on a few things at a time.
I use secondhand laptops/phones/tablets, plain wired airbuds insead of airpods etc., because I know what good enough is, for the purposes I have in mind. (I also know that most of the music industry still practises what Phil Spector preached about bad radios.)
I know a tiny bit about coffee and I like it, but I optimise for pragmatic fun. I know enough to know that the grind makes most of the difference, but a cheap contemporary stainless steel burr hand grinder makes really enough of that difference. I know enough to know that the Aeropress is not a toy, that the flow control cap accessory is helpful, a simple process, and I know enough not to over-optimise that process because it won't be fun. I do have a scale; I use it only if I feel the process can't be eyeballed and guesstimated.
I own a 3D printer: I bought the cheapest properly viable, just-about-big enough model. Here I am going much more deeply into the nerding, but in phases; I've owned it three years and I am only now doing the Klipper upgrade (from Marlin/Octoprint). I know I need a bigger printer but I also know this smaller printer will teach me things I need to know. The most important thing is not to optimise the printer: it is to learn CAD properly to express my ideas.
In my day job, I know enough to reduce my code dependencies but not to roll all of them myself. I know enough to know that in my specific job, spending my time optimising Docker containers is unlikely to provide any meaningful reward over roughly configuring more complete VMs, etc.; I know enough to know that AI is a rabbit-hole that other people can go down and I am probably not missing out by not adopting early.
Is any of the above wrong or misguided? I am sure some is. Not enough to matter though: I'm over fifty and in the grand scheme of things I am going to die soon.
It sounds to me you're describing the feeling of being content, rather than having the least taste.
I prefer to look at things that way rather than not having taste. Some people really enjoy $600 headphones, while others don't really care.
I think everyone has some "taste" though, you don't really realize it until you compare experiences.
For me personally, having taste doesn't ruin my experience for anything - it just add more to things. And I still like the things I like, even if there is "less".
Using more expensive headphones and hearing instruments I've never heard before makes it fun and using $20 headphones is still fun because I'm still listening to music I like.
yeah for headphones, I also feel the same. But for food and coffee, I really cannot go back to lower standards.
It feels like I put myself in a trap with this attitude.
I have not found a way out yet.
On the other hand, a part of becoming an expert in some field should be getting to be _realistic_. Learn not to deceive yourself.
I can give you an example from my experience. I got annoyed by my dull knives, so at first I went and bought really expensive knives, the ones made of hardened high-carbon steel that start rusting if you look at them dirtily. And I spent hours reading reviews before buying them. That's probably the "most expensive cup of coffee" stage.
Then I stumbled upon a Youtube channel that explained how to sharpen knives properly. So I bought $70 worth of diamond sharpening stones and re-sharpened my old IKEA knives. And they started working almost as well as my set of ultra-expensive knives, but they are far more practical. The expensive knife set is now a display piece in my kitchen.
Another revelation for me was that past a certain point, there's really not that much difference in the quality of sushi. It's just rice and sliced fish. Sure, there are individual variations between chefs in rice-to-fish ratio, maybe some special soy sauce here and there, but these are all just matters of personal taste. So I now just enjoy sushi for its taste. And instead of a looking for reservations in expensive restaurants, I just drop by my local sushi place and just ask the chef to add a bit more wasabi to the rice.
I've watched like 3 hours of his videos on sharpening because he's pragmatic, approachable, and scientific, and now I actually understand how to sharpen a knife and why it works.
That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's also easier to get dry, poorly seasoned rice, mushy fish, overdone or poorly done sauce and toppings combinations, and >1 day old uni than I'd really like at a lot of places.
Your advice makes sense when your local options are good enough, but I don't think you're actually arguing that quality doesn't matter -- only that beyond a certain point the additional discernment isn't valuable.
I went down the knife-sharpening rabbit hole a bit, too, but I only managed to make my knives duller with whetstones, even though I have good dexterity.
Eventually, I just took my knives to a professional sharpener and got the paper-thin, tomato-slicing sharpness I wanted.
Funnily enough, I had both an expensive "forged" knife and a cheap IKEA one, and the IKEA knife was sharper and held its edge much better.
> That advice has stuck with me, and I try to have the least taste I can. I use $20 headphones and a $200 TV because I can't tell what "good" is, and I enjoy music and movies as much as my friends with $600 headphones and $3k TVs do.
Thank you for sharing this observation. It resonated with me in a surprising way. Finding something that's "good enough" is such a blessing.
I think that's a shame - I take a different approach that means the article resonates with me a lot more.
It's about learning enough to be able to appreciate something beyond surface level. You struck a chord with coffee and headphones - yes, I've gone deep on both, but rather than suck the enjoyment out of cheaper options it's given me an appreciation across the segment. I can now buy a cheap coffee and make it taste excellent - I can appreciate a well tuned headphone regardless of cost or lack of technicalities.
When headphones reach $2k+ and coffee starts costing $50 for 100g, rather than get universally better they tend to get opinionated - a different flavor of weird as a friend once said.
So I would suggest that it's fine to go deep on something, but make sure you're doing it to get to a deeper true/understanding.
You're describing the hedonic treadmill. But I think you are missing something.
The thing is it does feel good to fix things and upgrade. The treadmill just says your baseline reverts back to where it was. So yeah you're just as happy with the expensive TV as you were with the shitty one, but it did feel good to upgrade, if only for a little while.
So the key is to introduce tiny upgrades and often. If you blow your budget for the whole year on a TV then you only get to be happier once. If you tinker and introduce tiny, sustainable upgrades you can be happier every day.
The sustainable part is important. You can only afford something if you can buy it twice. Don't ever take out a loan to buy anything (apart from a house).
I too have this fear sometimes, and for example never want to learn anything about wine, but it's not always the case.
A friend and I have bonded over appreciating the "shit" things, like white bread toast and hotel coffee and I think that's quite a good habit to instill. I love coffee and will hunt out the best spots in any city for a single-origin V60 on ice, but I am equally content in a diner when the only option is literally just "coffee".
Also studying art & practicing photography has made the world a much more beautiful place. Some of my best pictures have been taken in places that are usually considered unphotogenic.
To quote Reggie Watts:
Listen, invest two hundred dollars in a pair of good headphones
Take care of ′em, put 'em in your ears, listen to the music
Listen to how it′s supposed to be recorded
You're missing, I swear to God, forty to fifty percent
Of the music that's in there in the first place
So if you wanna go back and listen to
The shit that you thought you liked
You might even like it more, motherf*er
This did inspire me to get better headphones and I have no regrets! I think some parts of the aversion to getting too fancy come from the reasonable ideas of: not wanting to lower your floor, avoiding the hedonic treadmill, and not wanting to increase your burn. This kind of does make sense for coffee: a lot of coffees you get will be out of your control and increasing the fanciness of your coffee is an ongoing expense. For headphones though they're all moot. I can't remember the last time I wore someone else's headphones, and it's just a pretty small once off payment (these have lasted me 5 years). I would strongly recommend upgrading in this department.
As for TVs, I rewatched Alien on my friend's new LG OLED and it was absolutely stunning. I am looking forward to getting a new place and having a nice set up like that. Again just a once off thing.
And just for balance, my computer monitor which I use all the time has an annoying flickering issue that I have just been putting up with for a long time.
> Listen, invest two hundred dollars in a pair of good headphones Take care of ′em, put 'em in your ears, listen to the music Listen to how it′s supposed to be recorded You're missing, I swear to God, forty to fifty percent Of the music that's in there in the first place So if you wanna go back and listen to The shit that you thought you liked You might even like it more, motherf*er
Chances are the music you listen to was recorded, monitored, and mixed using Beyer Dynamic DT100s. They're those white ones you see everyone with in photos of recording studios.
Try a pair. You'll wonder where all the bass has gone. That's because they're not "optimised" or "enhanced" or "MEGA BASS DOOF DOOF DOOF" headphones. It takes a bit of getting used to, like eating less processed food that's not loaded with salt and sugar.
After a bit, you'll realise you can actually hear detail in the bass.
I used to have some medium expensive good headphones. That was pretty much the only non-shit hardware I ever invested in and I really could hear a difference. But with age and decreasing hearing now I cant tell anymore, so that one thing I cared about not buying cheap trash is no longer relevant.
The trick for most things is to just not spend time and effort to learn what to look for. Happy to see in this thread I am not the only one.
I'm with you with the TV - HD is usually enough, but audio needs to be at least reasonable. $20 headphones is too cheap, even from a longevity perspective.
If noise at all bothers you, decent ANC is a game-changer and worth spending more. I never tried it until I picked up a next cheap pair with it, and it's even better with a good pair.
If your friend keeps mastering coffee he'll learn to appreciate what Folgers or Starbucks is doing again. He'll also learn to suggest the coffee that will make someone happiest, or help them the most, in a wider variety of situations. It's nice to retain youthful oblivious in some categories, though. We can't learn everything anyway. It's often enough just to know how to avoid expensive mistakes.
I've used the "Harbor Freight" principle for years when purchasing tools for either professional or personal use. I'll buy something I need at a discount store like Harbor Freight and use it for as many jobs as it lasts. If it breaks and I still need it, I'll upgrade to a better version. If it doesn't break then all the better.
Oh dear. Years ago I had the ‘misfortune’ to taste some of the greatest first and second growth Bordeaux wines—the 1945s, Margeaux, Lafite, etc. Now my palate lies in ruins, ordinary wine is essentially undrinkable, and even good wine only draws comparisons with those Greats, enjoyment for their own sake is thus reduced or lost.
To make matters worse, those great Bordeaux wines and Burgundy's Grand crus such as Romanée-Conti, Grands Échezeaux etc. have in resent years reached truly dizzying heights, only multimillionaires and lottery winners can now afford to drink them. Unless one’s in either of those categories, paying a $1,000, $10,000 and upward per bottle is even an outrageous notion to contemplate.
Lesson: getting spoiled on the very best—especially early on—depreciates one’s appreciation for not only the mundane but also things that by most other criteria are deemed very good.
It's possible to be exposed to, and understand, high end things. I've had $2000+ bottles of wine, listened to music on $100k+ speakers, driven $500k+ cars, seen Keith Jarrett Trio at Montreux, had cat-shit coffee, etc.
And I'm perfectly happy listening to Toxic by Britney Spears on phone speakers while drinking Miller High Life on a sunny day in the park, hopping in a banged up Miata to rip a donut in a parking lot.
Don't let fear of "spoiling" things keep you from ever growing your experiences. People tend to have a gravity for the things that matter to them.
And don't let knowledge of fancy things keep you from finding joy in the basics.
I don't need any more hobbies. I already have too little time.
Also, shitty coffee ensures I don't drink even more. I failed with beer, so I am probably what some call a connaisseur. I learned a bit about whiskey, and once every 3 years I buy one I like, but I don't need an expensive hobby.
I used to build my own computers. Learned a lot, was fun. Now I exclusively use hand-me-downs. Understanding how I can get the same (perhaps more!) done within a smaller envelop is kind of it's own hobby.
I have a TV with a row of dead pixels. I don't need to watch even more.
The money saved this way is just a happy by product.
Work gave me a 5k monitor to use at home. I set it up dual monitor with my cheap-o monitor. Had to upgrade that as it looked awful. But now maybe better for my eyes?
When the Apple Air, with the M1 chip came out, I upgraded, because the charging port on med 2013 MacBook Pro was failing. It never occurred to me that my old laptop had terrible performance, it felt just fine. The comparison of the two made me not wanting to go back. Monitors feel like much the same, once you had a high DPI monitor, it's hard to go back.
I did look at the website of the local IT refurbishing company yesterday, and you can build a completely workable office/development machine (including monitor) for less than I paid for my current 4K display.
In some sense I am a little sad that I didn't just go down the route of refurbished hardware for 20% of the cost, but my eyes probably appreciates it.
I imagine your friend is talking about specific coffee preparations like "espresso" because, for example, there are hundreds of years of traditional Arabic coffee that continue to be appreciated for generations. Your friend reminds me of this movie scene in Mulholland Drive[1].
Here's a handy recipe for your friend: go to a blind tasting. This way, they will probably find out that they really can't tell a $15 coffee from a $150, or a $500 machine from a $ 5,000 one.
Works like a charm with wine: I know a lot about it, can maintain a conversation for hours, but will never buy anything above $50/bottle except for a gift.
For coffee, I get beans from a local roaster, like $14 per pound nowadays. I like the taste and it is nice to support someone local. Then I put it through a ~$200 Flair espresso machine. It is a manual press, so it has become a fun project/ritual. Plus, Americano is or espresso tastes better than coffee (and IMO mine is better than the coffee shop… a lot cheaper at this point I guess, too).
Same. This is a surprisingly simple recipe for a happy life and helps prevent lifestyle inflation. It reminds me of PG's "Keep your identify small" (https://paulgraham.com/identity.html).
Ignorance is bliss and cheap taste is the best one. This is the reason why I have been reluctant to learn about wines. I am satisfied with cheap wines and I would like to keep that way
How your friend enjoys coffee does not predict how you'll enjoy music? Getting wider ranges of experiences often is fun and worthwhile. Avoiding that to save a couple hundred bucks doesn't seem rational.
I deliberately avoided cultivating a taste in coffee and wine after having acquired a taste for good whisky. For exactly the same reason you mention: I knew my utility from drinking coffee/wine would stay constant, but the time and money cost of acquiring them would significantly increase.
There are certainly diminishing returns but good coffee is objectively better than some pre ground supermarket stuff. Part of it is recognizing what's a good value more than what's the best and most expensive.
Yup. A few years a go a friend of mine made me notice my cheap third-hand thinkpad t440 had screen tearing issues i had never noticed. I couldn't unsee them after that.
it's stochastic, our tastes grow as we do, a stale mars bar is sufficient for a child, where a small square of 80+% dark single origin might be the evolution of that taste over thirty more years.
I was raised a snob by chefs, my snobbery extends to all areas of my life in the hope that I might find reason enough to stay.
Honestly that sounds like a personal issue. I’ve gf the opposite experience - trying the high quality version of a thing has allowed me to find more intentional appreciation of the low quality version. I like shitty wines better now that I know what a good wine is, because I know what I’m paying for. “This isn’t great but it was like $8” and “this is great and well-worth $40” are better together than just “this is cheap and I dont mind it” in my book.
Then again I’ve never understood the appeal of ‘ignorance is bliss’
Not to criticize your friend, but it isn't as if things following his path is sn inevitable law of nature.
Coincidentally I went from being an Audio consumer to a person that developes audio hard- and software, and mixes music in my spare time and deals with live sound in acoustically challenging rooms in my work (to keep things short, I do/did even more).
While I certainly spent some money on audio equipment, I can't say that you need infinitly expensive stuff to enjoy it. For me it went exactly the opposite way. Where as a teenager I thought you need all that expensive stuff to make and listen to music on a high level, I now know what matters and what doesn't.
There is a point beyond which things don't matter factually, because they are beyond the limits of human perception. Audiophiles then trick themselves into hearing the atoms that make up the wire, when every measurement doesn't show anything.
One of my mics I prefer most on floor drums is a modified Pyle Karaoke mic I got from Amazon for 30 bucks and added a cheap transformer into. My headphones are maybe 200 bucks (and half of that was paid for reliability, not for sound quality). I got a second pair for closer to 1200 bicks, but thst is just for retouche work where I need to hear the faintest background noises, I actually prefer the sound of the cheaper ones.
I am still amazed by most recordings I was amazed by when I started on my journey. In fact more so now.
We don't need to inevitably turn everything into a stage to show off our own mental superiority. Especially in the audiophile realm these people claim to hear things that they wouldn't be able to pick out reliably in a properly conducted double-randomized blind test. And everything else is basically worthless since you then just measure a persons ability to fool themselves.
Recently my assistant who just started out in the field came for advice. She wanted to spend some money on a mic and audio interface. And I recommended her one for a quarter of the price she planned on spending since it basically had the same measurements and better software support. As for mics I told her to test my mics with that interface and she should use that test to figure out what she wants. Originally she wanted to spend good money on getting an expensive studio mic, in the test my old dynamic Sennheiser MD21 that I got from ebay won. She got the same for cheap from there as well.
Don't get me wrong, I will be the first to hear bad acoustics, missaligned speakers, a dying loudspeaker suspension, a overdriven amplification system, a missed buffer deadline, a bad mix, a bad recording, phase issues, etc. It is my job to notice. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the music running over such a system as much as I did before I knew all that. In fact I might even enjoy it more.
I deliberately avoided fancy coffee because I didn't want to raise that bar and add a chore to my mornings, but last year I finally caved in. A friend asked incredulously "why wouldn't you want to enjoy something more?"
In hindsight it was dumb. I love the little ritual of making coffee. I finally notice coffee, the same way I notice good carpentry and art. It added another layer of understanding and appreciation to life.
Art is all about the shortcuts you choose to take to represent reality on a canvas. I think that life is the opposite. It's all about what you choose to complicate, to be deliberate about.
> I use $20 headphones and a $200 TV because I can't tell what "good" is, and I enjoy music and movies as much as my friends with $600 headphones and $3k TVs do.
It's the same argument as "why do you spend so much time and money on food, it's going to become shit anyway".
No, just no. You can close your eyes, chant lalala with plugged ears and inhale all sorts of copium, but listening uncompressed music and movies on expensive equipment is a completely different experience, period.
You can't say that you enjoy it as much as they do, because you are you and they are they.
You misunderstand the point, I'm afraid. It's not that better things aren't better, it's that they don't increase your enjoyment of the better thing, but decrease your enjoyment of the worse thing.
yeah but you can't tell what good is because you was not exposed to enough good TV. Taste and perception is much more of a developed skill than people realize.
Most often, people deliberately choose not to pursue a special interests area because of limited time / budget rather than a lack of perception for what is "good".
> I have come to understand that there are two kinds of people, those who do things only if it helps them achieve a goal, and those who do things just because.
I think in this age of vibe coding where anyone can code anything, the discriminating factor between two developers, at a technical level, just comes down to "good taste" (lots of other more important factors, too, like a good human to work with).
And like the author, I agree that taste is acquired through tinkering and trying to be able to discern the qualities of one approach or one design over another. You can't have good taste in anything without having tried lots of variants in that domain -- wine, sushi, furniture, color, style, etc. Having this quality now is more important than ever for senior devs and mid-level devs that want to reach the next level.
When anyone can vibe code, it is the ones with "good taste" in the design of systems that will thrive. Anyone can use an agent and code fast; few will be able to do it fast and well and build systems that do not eventually collapse under the weight of their own tangled mess.
How to acquire it? Have a folder called `sandbox` and just build small projects in there and try new ideas, new techniques, new libraries you come across. Used a particularly interesting package? Go check out the GitHub repo and see how they did it; learn something new. Good taste can be acquired; it just surprises me how few devs actually care to seek it.
Having a distinctive style is also going to become increasingly rare in the age of LLMs. I see it with people at work already. They have no style. They learn very little. They get something to work but have no ability to discern whether it is a “good way” of doing it or simply “a way” of doing it. They have little interest in how or why things are built. I get the sense that they have little or no enjoyment or interest in deep understanding.
As a concrete example I just reviewed a PR for a feature that someone wanted to add to a flask app. It had a ton of terraform code, an aws api gateway, a lambda, etc. then on the flask app frontend they added a page with a call to this new API. I asked why they didn’t just add a route to the flask app. Blank stare response.
Distinctive style is actually bad. You want your code to be uniform, readers should not be unable to tell who wrote what.
Otherwise you run into the danger of having parts that are peculiar and or obscure to everyone except the one who wrote them. That's if you are lucky, if you are unlucky the person who wrote them won't be able to decode them either.
Obviously there’s a line to draw somewhere so that your code doesn’t end up looking like a YouTube comment section or have half of its API with Spanish names. And if by style you mean that overly “clever” or dense code without detailed comments and formatting for readability ought to made digestible by those who lack context about the why/what of it, or that “dangerous” or unsafe practices like rust’s unsafe/python’s exec/C++ UB ought to be only permitted in exceptional situations, sure.
Everything else is so inconsequential that it truly pains me to see people spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars of their time having to indent, comment, or space things in a certain way just to get CI to pass or merge a PR.
I don’t give a fuck that Jeff wants to use 4-space tabs and I cannot tell you how much I resent spending tens of thousands of dollars of Google’s time pleasing the fucking Go linter or trying to figure out errors like “ERROR: const/var” that I can’t turn off because some master artisan truly finds it meaningful and important to make me declare const blocks before var blocks, and their OCPD and fulltime bikeshedding is more important than whatever actual work I’m trying to do to get them paid.
> Everything else is so inconsequential that it truly pains me to see people spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars of their time having to indent, comment, or space things in a certain way just to get CI to pass or merge a PR.
I generally agree with that sentiment, but the solution is to use automated formatting and lint fixing.
I as a mostly python developer have my gripe with mypy. The powers that be decided all code must pass mypy which means I have to spend hours of their money typing out trivially inferable types because myph can't infer the type of the empty dictionary I just defined when just two lines below I proceed to initialize it. Or it can't infer the return type of my function that returns true in half the return statements and false in the others.
If I wanted to write down types I would use another language. And if I didn't want duck typing I would write somekind of ML. In short I would never write out the types because that's compiler work. But nooooo All the cool kids use mypy and typescript so we have to as well.
You say that, but sufficiently advanced automated formatting and fixing can be its own kind of footgun. The unsung heroes behind making absolutely sure my code passed Go linting also enabled an automatic formatter that would constantly remove imports immediately after adding them, because they were now imported and not used.
However a normal person might actually handle auto formatting in their CICD still requires spending a decent amount of upfront time and ongoing maintenance on running scripts/containers that convert true tabs into 4-spaces tabs. Most of the time, anything that’s fully automatically formattable into something that passes linting is so trivially superficial like reordering or replacing or spacing out things, so if it’s necessary for anything more important than that I’d be questioning things.
I can actually see value in encouraging explicit types for most of the kind of stuff I work on, but I’d never choose Python for them to begin with because of that. LLMs make some of this stuff a lot easier to handle in one shot, but the ceremony and constant implication that you can’t be trusted to good work without being forced to wear a monkey backpack with a leash just wear you down when you run into them consistently over long periods of time.
Simplicity is the most underrated attribute of a well-designed system.
There is a tendency for smart people to want to build complex solutions when often, the best solution is one that simple.
We had a dev recently write a whole source generation library to verify configuration at application startup. I pointed out that it would only save -- at most -- 14ms over a reflection based approach and that our application at startup is rolling over nodes in K8s and not a serverless function where cold starts matter.
I'm kind of confused by your post, as if you didn't read your parent poster at all and wanted to use the chance to write a lecture about CS101 concepts. Can you explain how your uniform code argument fits in at all with their example of introducing multiple other system components in a PR because they lacked the knowledge to add it in the correct area? Every piece of code they brought to that PR could have followed a uniform standard and still be considered a failure at understanding proper system architecture for their app, which is the discussion everyone else is actually having.
Within a module, yes. But it's ok for one module to be different from another because, you know, they are different modules that do different things (the difficult part is deciding what level your modules are split at, of course).
How do you deal with issues and feature requests? I used to put stuff on github, but nowadays I keep one off things mostly to myself. I don't want to do any support to strangers for things I have no interest in.
> When anyone can vibe code, it is the ones with "good taste" in the design of systems that will thrive. Anyone can use an agent and code fast; few will be able to do it fast and well and build systems that do not eventually collapse under the weight of their own tangled mess.
“He didn’t process information in any conventional sense. He didn’t read. He didn’t really even skim. Some believed that for all practical purposes he was no more than semi-literate.”
I think that's a sign of senility more than anything else. There's been articles which show clips of his speech in the 1980s and 1990s. His vocabulary was much more extensive, and he used more complex sentences than the word salad he spews out these days.
I used to resonate with the word "taste" as a distinguishing factor between good and bad quality, but a comment on HN some months ago about one of the many blog posts that talks about taste really nailed it:
"Taste" is just the degree to which two people value the same things.
When someone is rated as having "good taste" it just means that the person rating them values a lot of the same qualities.
The more I thought about it, the more that applies everywhere: Food, wine, clothes, architecture, software design, etc.
I would argue that taste is the ability to reason about one's own preferences.
A person who doesn't consider themself to have a taste in music and listens casually won't really be able to reason about why they like the music they do other than "I like the band" or "I like the song."
A person with taste in music is going to have listened to a larger variety, be able to speak passionately about it, and justify why they like and dislike particular music.
One is a boneheaded consumer, one is a fanatic.
Similarly with wine, you can't claim you've got taste when you've been drinking only red your whole life.
I struggle with the music one. I listen to a lot of different music, used see live music at least once a week, and have some strong opinions. I still struggle to explain music to others or why I enjoy certain artists/songs.
It is like the details don't register in a usable way, where one of my good friends will tell me he likes a band because of the guitar tone or the drummer's technique or something else that I struggle to explain or even pick out of the music. I wish I could explain my preference better.
Software is a bit different from music or wine because taste can mean “has the right function and attention to detail and aesthetic and interface and data model and conforms to my expectations and has a certain kind of API and has documentation with actual examples and uses the right JavaScript framework and”, whereas taste in wine can mean “has a blend of flavors that I particularly like” and taste in music can mean “pushes the boundaries of its genre and introduces genuinely new sounds”. Most but not all of what we want out of software is about function and utility and intuitive UX.
But wine and music and other subjective consumption-hobbies that enable snobbery are much less grounded in practicality and tend to become arenas for novelty/pure experimentation (charitably) or countersignaling and identity-building (uncharitably). So you end up with situations where the people who “have good taste” consistently associate themselves with music that sounds legitimately bad to regular listeners or never gets popular enough to be recognizable because it’s about being better than casual music listeners more than it is about the music to them. Or, proclaiming that no taste preferences for icecream products are worthy of respect unless they come from someone that regularly consumes pistachio ice cream - it’s not about the ice cream to them.
That’s why we can say “this UI needs to be collapsible and expanded by default” about software - we want it to be a certain way. The type of people who relish in their taste in music and ice cream don’t tend to say things like “maybe cut the bridge 10 seconds and add some kind of duet with reverb” or “it used too much nitrate fertilizer for loamy soil and ended up kind of woody (for ice cream)” because they want themselves to be a certain way.
I don’t dispute that. What I’m saying is that functional and even non-functional taste in software tends to be grounded in how it can more effectively serve our needs. In a way that’s actually a more profound kind of creativity and taste than something that tries to just look cool.
OTOH music and anything else snob-adjacent aren’t grounded in serving our direct needs to some other end the same way software tends to be, so to them “taste” could be reducible to just a favorite flavor or becomes a kind of status/value/oneupmanship. The products are consumed directly as ends unto themselves so people who have strong opinions on their comparative tastefulness care about that for different reasons than they do software.
Taste has nothing to do with your awareness of your preference, and cannot exist in a social vacuum.
Taste has everything to do with others opinions of your preference: If your preferences, on display, are enough to bring many others to agree that your preferences are similar to their preferences, you have good taste.
If your preferences, when encountered, are enough to bring others preferences into alignment with yours, you have excellent taste. If you can recognise what is the new hotness before anyone else does, you have even better taste. You don't have to be able to justify it, you just have to know it.
You don't need to be aware of this to be happening. You can have incredible taste while just sitting around and doing your own thing.
You can have incredible taste in only red wine without ever tasting white. You can have good taste in only hip-hop and not jazz, or in impressionist art and not abstract expressionism, or any other number of things.
If I know that your recommendation for a category is going to be good, then I know you have good taste.
That's not true. The best evidence that somebody has taste is that they introduce something to you (a band, a movie, etc.) that you've never encountered, but they are correct that you love it. But whatever they chose to share might not be their favorite work of art. They just knew that you would like it, because not only do they have a well formed sense of what they like and why, they can read other people the same way. They can find enjoyment in a huge range of art, because they can tap into what about it is enjoyable rather than reflexively labeling things good or bad. That is the definition of people with taste.
I think a distinction can be made between bad taste and different tastes.
One of the greatest developers I've worked with, who I learned a lot from and respect immensely, has extremely different tastes in software from me. To the point where I wouldn't say I think he has good taste.
But, his work still has a distinct style and intention. I can tell anytime I come across libraries he had a hand in. I understand what the code is doing and why is is correct, even when I disagree with it.
And I think that is what is important. When working with more junior people, I'll ask them why they did things a certain way and will generally me be with a "well, idk" of some variant of path dependence.
I think developing that intentionality as a developer is important. Which does come with some amount of aesthetic, and I think taste is a defensible metaphor.
I actually see no difference in the two definitions unless you also slide in the idea that things are more relative and less clearly good/bad with the second. That seems to be the natural implication and the real difference, more so than the shift to "valuing."
- a distinguishing factor between good and bad quality
- the degree to which two people value the same things
If we don't also accept that implication, then its just the same thing. People thinking good things are good vs people thinking bad things are good.
I understood “taste” here to mean opinions. It’s not “good taste” it’s just “some taste”. IMO there are many ways to express taste that are not tinkering, such as preferentially selecting things and my personal favourite, complaining :) Nevertheless I think he means opinions rather than some universally good taste.
Always loved this Michael Caine line from the third Austin Powers movie: "There's two things I can't stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
> 2. How well you're able to understand the medium and identify the differences between things.
Combining these two ideas: Taste is the ability to understand the topic/craft/medium well enough to have a strong opinion about what good is, and usually that opinion is similar to other well experienced practitioners.
In software engineering it's the ability to recognize an elegant solution that avoids pitfalls that the observer may have experienced in the past.
In other fields it might be that someone with good taste can better understand and appreciate the process or journey to get to whatever $thing is being evaluated, and they appreciate the $thing more because they can empathize more fully with the creator, compared to a layman.
I just want to work with someone who can clearly articulate why they chose tabs or spaces (in this example), not someone who gives a blank stare. E.g I want someone with their own tastes.
I agree fully with this. I was on a project once and the manager leading it would tell me to do things I thought were in pour taste. I gave him a list of reasons why I thought a different direction would be better. He couldn’t backup his opinions at all, but thought he was right based on his title. Eventually he got sick of fighting with me and installed a PM to deliver his baseless and tasteless opinions. That PM said he thought my design was better, but his job was to be the mouthpiece for the manager to push the worse design. He didn’t have any power, so me pushing back on what he said was a waste of breath.
People with strong opinions, who can’t back them up with reasons why they hold them, is a huge pet peeve of mine. This project was the most clear example of that.
With the above scenario, I eventually just made what he wanted, then secretly made what I wanted as well. This was an internal product. I told a few people about my secret page. Over the next couple months, 100% of the team was using my secret page and no one wanted to use the manager’s design. Once he was no longer paying attention to the project, I swapped out my secret page for the main page and it’s been that way ever since.
Absolute aesthetic relativism is the complete opposite of "thinking about", it's giving up to the cult of modernity, an intellectual shortcut to avoid the complicated and controversial question of "I instinctively know that objective good/bad exists but what is it, to what extent can it be formalized and separated from my opinion, how does it interact with subjective qualities?".
That shortcut leads to a dead end that only contains the rotting corpse of truth and integrity.
Some of the worse engineers I've ever interacted with had too strong of a "taste" for what they felt were right and were completely unable or unwilling to work outside of that. Developing a superiority complex because you think you have "taste" is a great way to torpedo your team.
Coding for others is not art, it does not have much meaning in of itself. Your users won't marvel at your choice of language or your usage of design patterns - they care about how the end product looks and works.
In a world like that where you have to work in a team, why you ever wear your inflexibility as a badge of pride? The ones who are the most useful are the ones who can code any way, any how, and can plugin anywhere - "taste" be damned. If you want to be a net positive on the teams you work on, stop thinking it's about you, because it's not.
It absolutely is, and I think it's what separates good from bad and junior from senior devs.
Most devs can produce an artifact that more or less works. But one that has an internal consistency others can understand and extend, one which accurately captures the problem as it exists and ways it will likely change, is much more of an art form.
A big part of that is knowing which situations are worth making a stand. Every you write code or leave feedback, your doing it for your team current and future.
Nothing that you talked about pertains to art. Writing good code does not mean you're making art.
You shouldn't strive for internal consistency with yourself, you should strive for external consistency with the other developers in your team. If someone reads your code and immediately knows it was you, you probably aren't doing a good job.
And that's the difference. If you are doing a good job as a software engineer, no one should notice you. If you're making good art, everyone should see you. And that is the difference between devs who think they're good, and devs who are truly good.
Code can be art but not all code should or even could be art. Like there is just zero utility or elegance in formatting your bash script with pretty comments and some elegant data model if it’s just something you run to manually pull metrics from a staging environment or whatever.
I see code more like rocks, nails, planks, tape, shards of broken glass, and a pile of signs that say things like RADIOACTIVE - DO NOT ENTER. If you need to do something cool with that stuff you probably do need to create something that looks pretty interesting and elegant in spite of your choice in building materials. But sometimes you just need to take a NO TRESPASSING sign and tape it to a plank that you jam into a pile of rocks. Don’t need to find a hammer if you don’t use nails, only need it up for a day, just one of a hundred things on your plate to do something of bigger scope and impact - just make sure the rocks are big enough to keep the plank standing, leave and forget about it.
Spot on! The real difference between having great taste and just thinking you do lies in understanding the user's needs deeply. Good design isn’t just about looking pretty; it’s about nailing that value. And yeah, it’s no walk in the park!
> Your users won't marvel at your choice of language or your usage of design patterns - they care about how the end product looks and works.
Yeah, but if the patch is unreadable slop, some tasteful choices that make the code more maintainable will make features and bugfixes come faster for users and number go up for the business.
Unreadable slop and "tasteful" choices are independent of each other. You can make "tasteful choices" that makes code unreadable (I know from experience).
Readability also has some level of objectiveness to it. There's only so many ways you can abstract a concept, and so many ways you can express logic.
In that sense, readability has way more to do with skill in abstraction, than taste. In fact picking bad abstraction layers or expressing logic in odd manners because of taste is a great way to write unreadable slop.
> ...there are two kinds of people, those who do things only if it helps them achieve a goal, and those who do things just because. The ideal, of course, is to be a mix of both.
This is related to what Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance calls the romantic (subjective, "artistic") and the classical (objective, "scientific") understanding. He, too, points that the ideal is to enjoy both. Not because there are both useful and have their place and time, but because this is a false dichotomy to begin with and, ideally, one should refrain from defining the splitting and abandon both concepts (after all, the Zen in the title is there for a reason).
This is the second article I've seen on taste here. It seems to me the author's definition of "tinkering" is primarily describing hyperfocused, repetitive behaviors found in neurodivergent individuals, potentially even a complex form of stimming. I think this is unrelated to taste.
I think good taste in engineering comes down to a mix of skill and knowledge. It isn't just about how you can reach a goal, but rather about having a solid internal map of the world and an understanding of which parts of the map you are unfamiliar with. To those lacking knowledge, the map can deceptively appear much smaller. Skill allows you to effectively find your way to the places you know you can go. With knowledge and skill, taste comes naturally. Those with bad taste, I've found, are those with limited knowledge of the vast universe of tools available and/or the lack of skill needed to utilize those tools effectively.
I think the author has a point, but his examples are bad. He talks about mouse sensitivity, windows manager, keyboard switches, and vscode. All those things were made to be tweaked. He's not so much exploring as he is playing with a toy the way it was intended. The stickiest learning comes from getting things wrong, and that happens when you're using things the way you're not supposed to. For example disassembling a microwave. Not the keyboard switches.
The world has become so comfy that even tweaking has been packaged and monetized by some company. That's right, I'm gatekeeping tweaking, sue me.
Getting this wrong will not be a learning experience, because it will kill you. This is an incredibly dangerous thing to do and should only be done by people who already know what they're doing.
That's not just a tangential tidbit -- you don't learn well when you are completely out of your depth. You learn well when you are right at the edge of your ability and understanding. That involves risk of failure, but the failure isn't the important part, operating on the boundary is.
Yes, disassembling and tinkering with microwave is almost the only easily available thing I would not recommend at all because it seems so ordinary but actual danger is way too high and hidden. Even if you know exactly the dangers, it takes only one distracted move, just being tired or too complacent to end really badly. Like even some medium time disconnected and expectedly safe units can have real nasty shock in them when discharge resistor is faulty, that failure mode does not usually kill but not recommended.
It sent me back in time, very nostalgic. I even took a few minutes to sit and enjoy the moment and remember what it was like to explore the internet on a pixelated CRT in the 90s.
Yours. I can't explain your frustration then, or why the author's intent escaped you. If you use Firefox there's a little reader-mode icon in the address bar you may find convenient.
I love it too. Appears to be accomplished with this CSS, which you can tinker with by finding the :after element at the bottom of the <body> tag in browser devtools:
i figured that's what it was, but i didnt know how to find it in the browser tools but i missed the "after" part, so yeah it's in the "pseudo-elements". nice!
I think the problem, for me, is that people turn tinkering on something INTO the hobby. People will spend years tweaking their 3d printer to have the perfect settings and have a bunch of weird plastic things attached that make it look like something from Tron but will never design and print anything useful. Same with so many things, the guy mentioned neovim and it's the same there. I am not here to judge people's hobbies but I think a lot of people have too much taste these days based on discussion on reddit. It's annoying, you can barely find a community that isn't just overly toxic about each aspect of their hobby.
Try going to any random hobby subreddit. Browse for a little while and try to not find like "The community favorite" (which is actually just the most expensive, well-marketed option) that everyone swears by and will make others feel like, if they don't have that, they don't have anything.
Most notably, for example, instead of having fun playing video games, I spent time benchmarking my hardware, making charts and graphs comparing the different hardware I owned. (There's a place for that, but I was no Anandtech!) And then I'd buy a new video card, run benchmarks for a week, and then forget to play any games.
I also spent a LOT of time making a French cleat wall in my workshop. And building a workbench. And making a mobile table for my miter saw. The tools all saw more use making the workshop than they did building the things.
On the other hand... when my spouse said "could you build a bed frame for our mastiff?" I made a beautiful, very functional, perfectly fitted bed frame with a latching gate over the course of a few hours, assembled and in use. I was ready. I had tinkered so much I was pretty good at the final pursuit. (For deeper context for those that care, we would totally let our mastiff sleep in our bed, but she kicks while she dreams. Without the fencing / gate on her personal Twin XL bed, she would just hop in the bed as soon as we fell asleep, and we'd wake up to her sitting on us or kicking us. She happily goes into her personal bed space at night when she's ready to move from sleeping somewhere else to sleeping in her bed for the night.)
I don't know if taste is the correct word here but I agree with the spirit of the article, especially the parts on tinkering being a form of practice. Play (in the form of enjoyable tinkering) is such a powerful motivator in learning. In saying that I've found two big limitations with this style of play-based learning:
1. It can easily devolve into meaningless tweaking (see author's point about touching dotfiles) which can still be satisfying but not very impactful.
2. It's hard to maintain motivation when something stops being fun. This is where external motivators like bosses, clients and scoreboards (e.g. Advent of Code) are actually valuable...
I moved away from tinkering, ever since I had to juggle family, job, chores, and social contacts.
I don't want to spend the little free time I have fixing broken configs. Instead of rolling my own self-build NAS / home server like I used to, I just have a Synology now. I moved back to Windows after I fcked my graphics driver on linux and didn't have enough time to fix it in a day or two.
Still, I love the tinkering spirit, and it still is a part of me, but it's not very pragmatic to implement in my life nowadays.
For many things, tinkering is a hobby. Obsidian note keeping strategy is another one I see a lot. No thanks. I'll just brain dump into files in a flat directory and use search if I ever need to. Do whatever works for you but I'm not going to take notes in a way where my ability to take notes requires maintenance.
As a person who doesn't do much tinkering the thing I dislike about this article is it doesn't really get across to me why the author likes tinkering so much or why I should either. Not saying that the article is bad but I was curious about the author's mindset and felt he didn't talk more about the appeal of tinkering.
> is it doesn't really get across to me why the author likes tinkering so much or why I should either
It's literally stated in the second paragraph: "It’s how I learn." You can learn how the things around you work by tinkering with them.
Of course, you can then ask why someone would want to learn things, or why they enjoy learning, and I honestly don't know how to explain that, but I feel like it's the sort of thing that shouldn't need to be asked.
I used to tinker with fonts, colors, etc but as I’ve gotten older I just accept the defaults in most things. You can waste any number of hours on that stuff and in the end it makes very little difference.
Fonts are like my dotfiles, I fucked with fonts.conf a decade+ ago and have just lived with that since then.
So I get to be very particular, but also not have to care about tweaking, I did all the work back when I had time for that.
I will argue that if you stare at a screen for hours a day, might as well make it pleasant with good hinting/anti-aliasing/features and a professional font instead of Dejavu Sans lol
I wish this viewpoint were more common/well-known. Somehow people get it in their head that people are tinkering with all their stuff constantly and never working, but just as TFA says, you'll have configs that haven't changed in over 6 months and are customized to your liking so you can work more efficiently and comfortably. Get a new PC? rsync configs over, or git clone your dotfiles repo or whatever. The work you put in doesn't disappear.
I maintain a personal dotfiles repo on github, and when I start at a new job etc, I just git clone my dotfiles repo and then run ./setup.sh and everything is set up nicely with my fonts, colors, and stuff. It didn't take much effort at all and I get to use what I like. And I haven't tweaked my dotfile in years.
Feeling the same. I used to have a highly customised Liunx setup, then I got a macbook from work and hated everything that was different from what my linux desktop did. But eventually you just get over it and realise it's all fine and works. Being unfamiliar with something is different from it being bad.
If you don't want to tinker, don't! But it's absurd to suggest that it's only something for children to enjoy. (30 should not be considered near the end of your life btw.) Please don't tell others they should feel bad about learning for fun because they're adults.
Tinkering with fonts is the only way to get fonts that improve legibility by replacing ambiguous glyphs with unabiguoius. ie programmer fonts. Every day it boggles my mind that password managers use fonts that don't distinguish 1Il| 0O etc. cut & paste does not help when you need to speak them into a phone or type them into some other device. Same applies to simple part numbers, serial numbers etc, just all data.
Something I say about complainers applies here:
In the entire history of the world not one thing has ever gotten better by accepting something as it is.
Go ahead and never tinker, but don't delude yourslef it's a virtue. It's merely something you're free to do because it doesn't actively harm anyone else.
The fact that the author went out his way and styled it very uniquely displays that he does have taste :) It is just that your taste is different. Like another commenter pointed out, I liked the style (though I hated the pixelated font to begin with)
I don't mind any color palette or font or anything as long as it keeps text readable. But this choice is just user unfriendly. These horizontal black lines across the display just render text unreadable. Not to mention that sans serif for a longread is also a bad taste
Funny part is he points out at the end that it's highly subjective...
I actually really liked the look of the blog. It gave me a retro vibe, which is obviously what he was going for. But I'm also reading on my phone. Maybe the choice was more annoying on a larger screen.
Once one gets over the infatuation phase one realizes how subjective taste really is. I thihk there are some common points though that one can tell someone has refined taste without necessarily liking it
I'm a VSCode user and when I hear people talk about neovim and it customizability or its productivity, I think to myself "VSCode is also very customizable and there's a lot of ways to get a lot of productivity out of it, why would I use neovim?".
Surely there's something I'm missing? Does it help you stay more in the flow or something? Is it because it's faster? Maybe it's because it's an editor you can easily use while ssh'd into a remote machine? Please enlighten me!
Most of the things I do with Neovim I could probably also do with VS Code (not sure about autocommands and macros though, I haven't used Code in years). I don't use a mouse much, I have a very keyboard-centric workflow. I was a Code user for years, but did most everything else in the terminal. I figured I would give it a try and I ended up just liking it. I like to tinker. I like to tweak my configuration. I like how I can set autocommands for things, pipe text into Vim and manipulate it, or record a quick macro for some repetitive task. I like that there are "Vim keymap" plugins for things like Firefox, so learning basic Vim keys has helped me outside of Vim. I like that I keep discovering new things Vim can do (and then promptly forgetting them most of the time, but still). I also like to spend 2 hours writing something to automate something that saves me two seconds.
It's absolutely not for everyone, though it looks like some of the pre-built configs (NvChad, LaZyVim, etc.) are decent enough of the box now that you don't need to go on the endless-customization journey if you don't want to. To me though, that's the appeal: tinkering, tweaking, refining. Generally when people ask if they should use Vim, I tell them probably not but try it for a few weeks and see if it clicks in your brain. I had a great VSCode setup, everything worked great, I was productive, but something about Vim just made more sense to me once I got over the hump of modes and all the keymaps you need to turn into muscle memory.
Edit: I also like that I can do abominations like:
("def" @keyword (#set! conceal "ƒ"))
("if" @keyword (#set! conceal "?"))
("unless" @keyword (#set! conceal "¿"))
("else" @keyword (#set! conceal "∶"))
("elsif" @keyword (#set! conceal "⁇"))
("case" @keyword (#set! conceal "⟨?"))
("when" @keyword (#set! conceal "→"))
("begin" @keyword (#set! conceal "⌊"))
to make Ruby look absolutely insane. Is it useful? No. Do people hate it when I share my screen? Yes.
I'll second the enjoyable parts of Neovim shared above, and add a few more of my own:
- vi uses most of the same default keybindings, which is available across most distros (in busybox). Meaning I can use the same keybindings in a docker container, appliance server, etc.
- With the conform[1] plugin, I can add any CLI code/text formatters that might not be available as a vscode extension. As long as it takes a file/stdin and outputs a file/stdout.
In the end, it's still just a text editor. Don't expect that you will get things done n times faster than in vscode without extra effort added.
> I'm a VSCode user and when I hear people talk about neovim and it customizability
I think it's more customizable than vscode, but you need to learn some lua or vimscript to customize it. Back then I tried to create some custom keybindings in vscode and realized you can't add new ones, only modify what exists. While (n)vim provides you with out-of-the-box flexibility and more if you use something like LazyVim.
> Is it because it's faster?
What I retroactively like about (n)vim is that, after the initial learning cost, it turns out the default nvim keybindings are transferable to many UNIX tools (less/more, man, journalctl, etc). It feels much more comfortable to write some code in nvim, open up a terminal, and then `man X` without mentally switching the keybindings.
> Maybe it's because it's an editor you can easily use while ssh'd into a remote machine?
Actually, rather than nvim itself, it's more like vim is already preinstalled in many popular server distros. It's sometimes a huge time saver in cases where you're unable to install additional packages to edit some config/code/text files, just type `vim`/`vi` and you're good to go.
I did convert myself from a minimal vscode setup (disabled everything & only LSP extensions) to LazyVim nvim a few months ago. I had to tweak my .config/nvim, relearn Lua again, and read the manual. It took me about a week to settle things down and get used to basic nvim bindings.
After another week of suffering trying to fix JDTLS (Java LSP) integration, I'm enjoying my nvim setup. Unlike vscode sync which requires you to login, I could just git clone my `.config/nvim` and I'm good to go.
If you dislike the terminal or aren’t comfortable there, you should try using the vim keybinds for VSCode. They’ll get you most of the way there, and the rest is a lot of customization to get things how you like. The vim motions are the best part! They take a while to get used to, but they’re incredibly convenient.
I don't want to sound like "advising", because long-term recommendations often carry the personal weight with them- whatever I tell you worked (or didn't) for me had an effect on me - it's never guaranteed to have any implications on someone else's life.
But here's what I learned after a long time trying different things and what's worked.
Don't try to find objective reasons for making big shifts in your workflow - be that a change of your major tool, language, technique, or paradigm. What I mean is: don't try to decide if any concrete tool would be good for you. Instead, try to understand the big underlying idea behind the tool. Once you comprehend the abstraction, choosing a concrete implementation of that idea wouldn't really matter - you can carry the big idea with you regardless of one concrete implementation.
In practice, here's what I mean: the idea of vim-navigation is absolutely beautiful, pragmatic, and fantastic, and it's positively worth every minute of the initial learning curve. It's really not that hard - it only requires just a bit of dedication and discipline. I honestly don't understand programmers who choose to be in this field, yet outright reject the mere idea of it after trying it for like six minutes.
Just go with it - you probably will hate me, everyone else in this thread, and yourself for a few days, but then it will grok. Once you have a good understanding of its tenets, you could easily take it to whichever medium you choose to stay in and it doesn't even have to be neovim.
Neovim might be great for you, and maybe not even as a concrete tool to achieve defined goals, but even as a head-start medium to understand the 'big idea' of vim-navigation.
Finally, whenever picking up a new thing, maybe don't try to find elevator pitches. After the initial acquaintance - Wikipedia, GitHub pages, etc. - google instead: "Why does [that thing] suck..." and maybe try instead to find compelling reasons to remain skeptical. Trying to remain unconvinced may help you find perspectives for why a certain idea is a matter of fact might be a good one to have in your pocket.
"The Idea" here I think is in the revelation of the ultimate preeminence of text in a programmer's life. Plain text deserves our utmost attention, yet many programmers overlook its significance and rarely give it deliberate thought.
"Text can convey ideas with a precisely controlled level of ambiguity and precision, implied context and elaborated content, unmatched by anything else."¹
Vim-navigation provides a mental and spatial "language" that enables efficient text manipulation through keyboard input. Rather than forcing your brain to process raw character chunks on the screen, it allows you to reason about text in meaningful units: letters, words, paragraphs, tags, nested structures - e.g., "delete everything between parentheses" - and more.
Sadly, we keep moving away from plain text conventions, making our work increasingly complicated. Have you ever tried quickly extracting text interwoven with code from Slack into your editor? Ever gotten mad when websites won't let you copy the content or use colors and fonts that make it unreadable?
I implore every programmer to reject the status quo and reclaim agency over text interactions - always find ways to deal with text on your own terms. For instance, I'm reading this thread and typing this very comment in my editor. Why wouldn't I? It has all the tools I need for it - vim-navigation, thesaurus, dictionaries, translation, etymology lookup, LLMs, and tons of other tools.
Final point: do not assume code is somehow different. Code simply is structured text. Don't try to find perfect "code editor", prioritize plain text. Good plain text editors are the best code editors, but even the most sophisticated IDE at some points brings mostly frustration if it cannot nicely handle the simplicity of plain text.
When using vscode or its derivatives, I find the customizability is very limited. You have a couple of settings, but any new functionality basically requires writing a whole new extension and nobody really does that.
Meanwhile with vim I often add one or two lines to a local vimrc script which adds some project-specific command or keybind. For example - take ioctl name under the cursor, translate to the handler function name and open corresponding driver file in split view. It only saves a couple seconds but makes it so much more natural to analyze code. I have no clue how I would go about doing that in vscode.
I used vim for decades and the sensation is that I can hold the code in my hands and manipulate it directly. Other editors feel like I’m wearing thick gloves, can’t move correctly.
but it’s like learning to play the piano, it only feels natural after years of practice
nowadays I’m faster with Cursor so it doesn’t matter as much
no, emulated vim motions annoy me because they’re always slightly wrong, especially for the interesting stuff like multi-line selections. Or, worse, I’ve got stuff in my muscle memory from the `surround.vim` plugin that isn’t emulated. Easier to just open vim in a terminal if I want to do surgery on a file.
For one, you don't have to figure out how to remove whatever random AI UI element and integration MS decided to introduce and turn on by default every update.
I don't think "taste" in UI-adjacent things is important.
Tinkering habit is kind of important as even small interactions help to build an internal model of how things work, how to operate them, etc. And this model might generalize.
If you're going to make changes, make big changes. Learn to squat 100kg. Finish a triathlon. Learn intermediate Chinese. These are all impactful goals you can hit in a year, worth way more than colors and fonts.
What exactly does "taste" mean in this context? Taste is about artistic quality. Aesthetics is generally a tertiary concern when it comes to software or hardware tinkering. That assumes it's a concern at all.
And while I'm talking about artistic quality on HN, I have to take some obligatory potshots at the website in question. When I have to use Safari's reader mode to see what you wrote, something has gone terribly wrong.
I know everyone is busy but the author provides the definition explicitly:
> And what I mean by taste here is simply the honed ability to distinguish mediocrity from excellence. This will be highly subjective, and not everyone’s taste will be the same, but that is the point, you should NOT have the same taste as someone else.
Concisely, discernment.
So your comment about “artistic quality” may apply. But from your ends sentence It seems you equate “artistic quality” to aesthetics , and I don’t think that’s what the author intended.
> GitHub desktop rather than the cli (at the very least)
I keep hearing this same "GitHub Desktop bad, git cli good" take, but I just don't see how the cli can compete terms of things like being able to go through each changed file, see a clean visual representation of all my changes, and to choose exactly what lines I want to commit just by clicking on them.
I've spent an inordinate time tuning my home nas to what I want to do. e.g. NPM reverse proxy with all kinds of docker apps and configuring it securely made me appreciate how tough cyber security is. My latest venture was to create several docker images for whatever environment I want: VsCode Remote SSH server, a docker image with a custom LLM, sync thing for obsidian notes across all devices
My goal is to de Google with home nas hosting a bunch of services. I want to take all my Dropbox photos and recreate what Google memories does using off the shelf AI tools on my nas. Then email and finally maps with great PoI data.
Probably not all of what I did is a differentiator that put my learning beyond mediocrity. But a good yard stick is if what I built is useful to someone and even better if one would pay me for something.
I’m starting to believe that taste in code isn’t something you’re born with. It’s something you build after getting burned by your own mistakes again and again. I used to think some code just looked nice, but now I can explain why it works.
How did you develop your sense of taste in code? Any stories or lessons worth sharing?
I think there is too much associating taste with quality. We can see it in many of these comments and in the post as well:
> And what I mean by taste here is simply the honed ability to distinguish mediocrity from excellence.
And I say, maybe. But more than quality I think taste is a way to discern what’s unique and novel. In my mind it doesn’t necessarily mean that it has to be “excellent” because, as the post mentions, everyone’s “excellent” may be different.
Why do I think this distinction is important? Because if taste is about seeing the nuances that make something interesting instead of what makes it “good” then getting to good taste promotes open minded exploration (healthy exploration) over status seeking.
You don't have interesting taste if you write articles like this.
People are just figuring out taste matters for product, so at this pace in 10 years they'll figure out that having novel tastes that aren't just a distillation of the echo chamber you live in matters just as much.
I love tinkering but I'm very minimalist as far as tooling is concerned. I don't like to use too many tools. I only use tools to automate activities that I do frequently. I don't try to micromanage and automate every aspect of my existence. Some stuff is better left uncounted and unplanned.
A lot of other people who like tinkering seem to have a kind of obsession with using all the latest gadgets to solve the tiniest problems. IMO, there's a point when you're so into automation that you end up looking for problems to use your tools on. You end up introducing new problems into your life, just so you can solve them using your tool of choice. Your life becomes like a Rube Goldberg machine.
Tinkering is a very demanding activity, especially when you are total newbie at a new domain. The first steps are very intellectual-draining. [and that is probably why so few people learn new things, when adults].
Having good mentors [on Youtube, among your friends, or a vendor at a localshop] can really help you figure out things much faster, that will have taken forever to discover by yourself.
Tinkering is the ultimate satisfaction of a hacker. When you love perfecting your tools, shaping your terminal, your Emacs, your Neovim, or whatever tool you use, exactly the way you want it. You spend hours doing it and feel enormous satisfaction from every small improvement.
That is exactly what a Japanese swordsmith, a chef, or a craftsman does. Perfecting their work, finding joy in refinement, and taking pride in the process itself.
I used to see tinkering as a form of procrastination. But not anymore. What does that even mean? That we should be doing something else, and devalue this activity? What if this very activity, and the results it produces, bring me deep satisfaction? In that case, it is not procrastination. It is the perfection of the art.
This is not what a Japanese swordsmith or any craftman does, they obsess over the end result, polishing it until it reaches perfection.
Riced out Neovim/emacs setup doesn't and hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will.
If it did, world would be full of polished, high quality software, what instead we have is endless sea of garbage produced by these cough, cough "craftsmen" - that obsess about everything else, but the actual end product.
Edit: But why do you believe that my super polished and streamlined WezTerm is less worth than a japanese sword? :) Which value has a perfectly made sword in a world today? Which value has a perfecly made machs tea? And other things only the maker or a few select people value?
So you think money is the indicator? I have to disappoint you: There's a ton of things that have zero monteray value, yet an enourmous value for the person who creates it. One example: Open source software. Another: Art you create for the fun of it.
> Riced out Neovim/emacs setup doesn't and hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will.
Hmm... excuse me?
Linux kernel - most contributors use vim/emacs extensively, with some deep customizations.
Git - Linus developed it in his own heavily customized Emacs fork
Rust - Core team members use various customized setups
Postres - core devs use vim/emacs
Kubernetes - vim/emacs
What the fuck are you even talking about? Majority of high quality shit we use today - probably 90% of all C - from networking stacks - nginx, HAPoxy, OpenSSL, drivers; to compilers and languages; databases; web infra; cryptography; build systems, basically everything written before ~2010 that's still critical infrastructure was likely built by developers in vim/emacs.
All that stuff was developed by those craftsmen you're so dismissively mocking. Do you think they never customized their environments? Spending weeks perfecting configs instead of shipping is a discipline problem, not a tool problem.
"Most is software is written using a some text editor."
What an astute fucking observation you've made, mate!
And so it happens, that webdevs and web infra people (which is the extent of your understanding of "high quality shit") tend to use unixes and consequently vim/emacs as their text editor. No fucking way!
Perhaps, you can even tell just by looking at a piece of code - oh, this is beautiful, clean and clear, bugfree, this surely must have been written vim OR emacs?
Or maybe, just maybe, you're just making shit up on the spot and thinking backwards and attributing software quality metrics and outcomes to choice of a fucking text editor and how riced it is.
I'm not making shit up on the spot nor am I attributing any metrics to vim or emacs specifically or how riced should they be, I'm simply telling you the facts to counter-argue your point of: "hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will".
Most software is not written using "some" text editor, I would love to see maniacs writing kernel patches in notepad.exe or nano. Tools are tools - disputing that vim or emacs are not great tools is plainly dumb, obviously there must be something about them for why they've remained a popular choice among highly skilled pros for decades.
Of course, simply picking up a tool isn't enough - I can perfectly write shitty code equally well in Emacs, InteliJ or VSCode, yet saying good stuff never ever got done there is just disingenuous - it was, it is, and it will be. Of course, ricing the editor and terminal doesn't guarantee amazing shit, but the opposite is also equally true - you can't magically build some awesome sauce by paying for proprietary, sophisticated IDE that "just works" either.
> facts to counter-argue your point of: "hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will".
Your line of reasoning is something akin to - there are some skilled programmers that have shipped high quality software and wrote the code using lubed mechanical switches.
Therefore there MUST be something about lubing your switches and obsessing over clacks and thocks that contributes to quality of software somehow.
It's some weird bizzaro cargo cult reasoning.
Unix/webdevs often tend to use vim/emacs -> therefore this absolutely must contribute to the quality of software somehow (it has to!)
Except there are absolutely no basis for this claim, as there are high quality software that is written using neither vim nor emacs nor lubed mechanical switches.
> > facts to counter-argue your point of: "hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will".
> Your line of reasoning is something akin to - there are some skilled programmers that have shipped high quality software and wrote the code using lubed mechanical switches.
No, I can second that the claim of "hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form" has been pretty solidly invalidated by GP. You may be able to claim many other things, and some of them might be true, but that point above won't be.
By pointing out that SOME widely used software (mostly web/web infra with unix heritage) has been written using vim/emacs as the text editor?
Now, you can find endless sea of garbage software on github that is written using riced vim/emacs setups - would you therefore conclude that using vim/emacs leads to garbage software?
The only thing you can conclude here is that to write software (either good or bad) you generally speaking need a keyboard and a text editor.
Claiming vim/emacs leads to or directly contributes to "quality software" is the same and
about as meaningful as saying that keyboards and text editors lead to "quality software".
> would you therefore conclude that using vim/emacs leads to garbage software?
I cannot conclude that "it leads to garbage software", but I can definitely conclude that "it has ever led to garbage software" at least once, and in some "shape or form".
> Claiming vim/emacs leads to or directly contributes to "quality software" is the same
This (or the alluded opposite) was not the original claim. The original claim was the total impossibility of vim/emacs to have ever led to quality software, in any shape or form. That is the only claim being contested here.
You contorted it to mean that it's literally impossible to write "quality software" in vim/emacs.
I did NOT claim this. Nobody would claim this either.
I wouldn't make such claim even about nano or notepad or any text editor
(of which there and hundreds and thousands) for that matter.
What an insane thing to contest even.
Would I attribute quality of software to - in any shape or form - to the text editor it was written in - whether written in nano, notepad or vim or emacs or god knows what else? No, I would not. That WAS the original claim.
> I have come to understand that there are two kinds of people, those who do things only if it helps them achieve a goal, and those who do things just because.
There are two kinds of people, those that think it is clever to split people into just two groups, and everyone else.
> This will be highly subjective, and not everyone’s taste will be the same, but that is the point, you should NOT have the same taste as someone else.
Lost me here. If tastes don't converge in the limit, then there's no point and you're just justifying a hobby.
In my day, we'd say that as kids we'd take apart all our toys to see how they worked. We didn't necessarily call the end goal "taste"; it was to understand how things work, and to learn which results require which trade-offs.
agreed, tinkering in my experience is either understanding how something works, or fixing something that is broken, or, building something new entirely (and in my mind all of these are hardware based) and usually involves disassembling things into their constituent components, whether or not you're supposed to. I also don't think tinkering is required for taste, I think being exposed to things, exploring things you're interested in, and questioning things is how you develop taste, which is also highly subjective.
My coworkers are shocked and confused that I own/use a sewing machine and see at as some legacy old timey thing. It's true that you certainly don't need to own one anymore and you won't save any money making your own clothes. But you can modify and make loads of custom cool stuff that are impossible to buy new.
I've got a few things I made that just bring a lot of joy knowing it's the exact thing I wanted which you can't buy, and couldn't justify paying someone else to make either.
> In fact, the last meaningful change to my config was 6 months ago.
I know that's supposed to convey restraint, but it seems too much fiddling to me. But I've been using Vim for decades, so I only touch my .vimrc when something breaks.
can one really formulate a consistent philosophy of whether to get the mass market thing that "just works" or the power user thing that the author of this article describes as the path to good taste?
(and by "just works" - i mean about 80% of the time)
some of these are even represented in the hacker news front page: iphone vs fairphone, tesla vs corolla, macbook vs framework, vscode or helix, sora vs comfyui etc etc
If anyone's wondering, author makes no attempt to demonstrate the veracity of the title, he just talks about being a tinkerer and why it's important to have taste nowadays, and lets the reader make the connection.
edit: I lied, the connection is that if you don't try many things, you won't know what's good and what's bad, and if you don't tinker, you won't try many things.
Reminds me of the Steve Jobs biography. He was a notorious tinkerer. He obsessed over the design of Macintosh, the NeXT step cube, and a bunch of other products.
He also valued taste a lot. It seemed like the worst insult Jobs could have for someone was to say they had no taste. Other insults may have used stronger language, but it always felt that him saying someone had no taste was to say they were worthless and he had no respect for them as a human being.
No he definitely tinkered. Yes, his primary tinkering mechanism was "having others execute his vision," but like if that's not tinkering then neither is editing config files like the article author mentions, because you're directing other peoples code into configuration.
There's one story from Macintosh era where he spent weeks harassing one engineer over the calculator app: "it looks too bloated, it looks afwul, these lines are terrible.." until the engineer got fed up and said "here this is the Macintosh Calculator App: Steve Edition. You get to pick your font, your layout, your color theme." And Steve sat there for hours literally tinkering on a calculator app until he got what he wanted.
He tried to get Paul Rand to change the colors on the NeXT logo--who promptly directed Steve to go have s*x with himself.
There was one point in the Apple Store's inception where they had basically reached done, and Steve decides that he didn't like a certain aspect of it, which was essentially going to require them to redo the entire thing. So he did, and they started from scratch. I think it might have been the Carrara marble floors but I can't remember for certain.
I'm not saying I have immense respect for the guy as a human being, but he was absolutely a notorious tinkerer--a complete menace of one.
The author gives several examples of tinkering. Tweaking mouse sensitivity in FPS, installing a linux distro, experimenting with windows managers, changing mechanical keyboard caps etc.
Then he looks at one specific example of tinkering, the IDE, and sorts people as tinkerers based on that.
>There are plenty of people who still use the VSCode terminal as their default terminal, do not know what vim bindings are, GitHub desktop rather than the cli (at the very least). I’m not saying these are bad things necessarily, just that this should be the minimum, not the median.
Couldn't someone not tinker with an IDE and still tinker with other things? I mean clearly you dont have to tinker with everything that can possibly be tinkered with, right? What is it about the IDE that makes it necessary to tinker with?
It seems like this was the main motivation for the article and then it got a bit over-abstracted.
Agreed, although I'd characterize it as more closely related to curiosity. Some people can select particular items that make themselves look good or are high-quality for example, but are surprisingly some of the least curious people, whereas I don't think the same can be said of tinkerers. People lacking this type of curiosity get frustrated easily if you want to discuss ideas or hypotheticals, nebulous intangible problem solving etc..; they want the right answer and an authority to point to. People with this type of curiosity want to discover why it might or might not be true regardless of whether it's a solved problem for others. The former type of person wants to look up what the viewpoints are like before they agree to go on a hike, getting frustrated when they're not there yet, and the latter just wants to hike and see what it's all about, enjoying the process.
Consequently, maybe taste can be acquired by impersonation or purchased, but could be more superficial than taste acquired through deep iterative tinkering and repetition. Much like someone watching a youtube video that tells them so and so is the correct way to do something, therefore it is, and it may be true, but they didn't necessarily learn that organically or in a way that they could analytically discuss.
Incidentally, the person without this type of curiosity is extremely dull to engage in conversation with from the perspective of the curious person, and in the reverse the curious person would seem to be wasting the incurious person's time because they aren't getting to the point and there's no tangible benefit in the conversation.
Incurious people seem like they're the typical tourist or the consumer, eliminating as much inconvenience as possible but not necessarily interested the exploration of the what or why of either the problem or solution, making it hard to identify where the depth is. Good at delegating, but terrible managers.
It's hard to take seriously anyone who unironically says "there are two kinds of people".
That, and the judgmental humblebrag tone leads me to believe the author is young. I suggest they focus more on learning than writing these vapid articles.
Just noticed that as well. Isn't this strictly against the rules here? It has a completely different meaning from the original title and actual article content.
Except "taste before skill" is a well known issue and source of frustration for starting artists: They can already see what's good and they know what they want to do, but they don't yet have skill in measure with their taste and get locked in a feeling of inadequacy. They resolve that if they stick with it. So, taste looong before skill.
So...
> If you don't tinker, you don't have taste
> Acquiring good taste comes through using various things, discarding the ones you don’t like and keeping the ones you do. if you never try various things, you will not acquire good taste.
Unpopular opinion here probably but:
Tinkering is also a great habit to be disappointed and unhappy.
I love software and programming, but the apologetic requirements that can come from users mean adding a lot of complexity to software, that leads to many bugs and very slow programs. Everything has a cost attached.
I feel like this is true as ever, yet the current environment seems to be going towards the opposite, I.e. not about taste but just doing as much as possible, as much hours, as many responsibilities, just shipping out slop as fast as you can, don't waste time on stuff, all about being a 1000x AI engineer etc..
I despise the word "taste" for preferring specific software and workflows. Why are you selecting for aesthetic experience over usefulness?
I do get satisfaction from the results of my work, not through the mechanical process of arriving there. Tools are useful or not and this is the category by which I decide to use them or not.
Can the aesthetic experience improve usefulness? A million years ago I had an MP3 player with all of my mp3s on it. I listened to it every now and then. But when the iPod came out, and I put my same MP3 library on there, I listened to it all the time because it was super nice to use and interact with
Is the author doing that over usefulness or doing that in addition to usefulness? Some people would also enjoy the journey with the tool, along with the results. Just because someone enjoys the 'taste' of the tool doesn't mean that they don't care about usefulness.
Also usefulness is very subjective too depending on the context and scope.
Taste is real and a question of subjective alignment with objective reality. Hence, we can speak of the objectivity of beauty, but the bad taste of an person. That is only possible if both exist and an misalignment exists between them.
Whether the author knows what he's talking about is another matter.
And that font of his could use a few treatments from the taste bat.
Decades ago, an old friend told me "I became a coffee expert, I learned everything there is to learn about beans, the ways to prepare them, the chemistry that goes into it, and now I can only enjoy a cup of coffee prepared by the most expensive machines from the most expensive beans. The shit part is that I enjoy it just as much as I enjoyed my shitty supermarket coffee back when I didn't know anything about coffee."
That advice has stuck with me, and I try to have the least taste I can. I use $20 headphones and a $200 TV because I can't tell what "good" is, and I enjoy music and movies as much as my friends with $600 headphones and $3k TVs do.
I never enjoyed shitty coffee. I never enjoyed shitty chocolate or chocolate flavored things like cakes.
Until I was 30-something I thought I just didn't like coffee or chocolate.
Then one day I had actually proper coffee, and I discovered that good coffee isn't just some imperceptably theoretically better version of regular coffee that snobs are basically just faking being sophisticated for show. They are two entirely different things.
Same even more so for chocolate. 99% of chocolate products you come into contact with are garbage. Actual chocolate is like an entirely different product. It's not a better version of the usual thing. I ate it and thought "Oh. Ok THIS must be why chocolate ever became this huge thing in the first place. Hundreds of years ago before all the industrial process and market forces produced all the "chocolate" I ever tasted in my life, what they had was this, actual chocolate. Of course they loved it."
To restate the point, I was never happy with the regular version in the first place. I assumed "I don't like coffee" or chocolate, the same way I don't like cigarettes. Turns out I love them both.
And it's possible to continue to enjoy the results of having discovered and grown some taste in some area indefinitely without diminishing returns or anything like that. I'm not much of a sweets person so I still don't buy a lot of chocolate or chocolate things like cookies etc, but we have a Trade subscription and get a new and different bag from some random indipendant roaster every 2 or 3 weeks and it's great. I don't love every single bag but I at least find them all interesting and I do love the overall high level of quality basically all the time. I'm not now overall poorer for having discovered good coffee. Life is better. And what else is there?
Are you from the US by chance?
I only ask because specifically for chocolate and coffee, I would consider the US baseline to be exceedingly average, even terrible. Even "okay" chocolate and coffee from other countries better known for food will blow it out of the water.
The US does do excellent coffee, and excellent chocolate, but you have to seek it out. In a country like Italy or Australia the default, okay stuff is better. If an Australian couldn't tell the difference between good and great coffee I'd see why.
This is definitely the main issue in the US. People are always clamoring for the cheapest thing that's good enough. The US has some of the best coffees, chocolates, beers, food, and more in the world. I mean, if you wanna make money, you sell to Americans.
But they're all artisanal products that few access. The baseline Starbucks, Hershey's, Budweiser, TGI Fridays, etc. are all... so bad.
Hershey's standard milk chocolate bothers me (and many others) because of the spoiled milk/butyric acid smell, which is due to their original manufacturing process.
However, some people in the US enjoy Hershey's, are not sensitive to the smell, and want the chocolate they grew up with (they might also like the acidic/tangy taste.)
But certain varieties of Hershey chocolate (Symphony, Special Dark) do not bother me as much.
First time I had Valrhona chocolate I was actually furious because I felt I had been cheated my whole life...
I don't know that brand but this exactly haha
Yep. nailed it. I agree that at least to my limited vacation experiences, it's not true in say Italy that 99% of chocolate products are garbage.
Some of the American chocolate for high volume candy bars is very waxy and not very chocolatey.
For example, compare the Reese's Peanut Butter Cups to Trader Joe's peanut butter cups [0]. It may be that the Reese's ones used to use better chocolate or it may be that my tastes changed as I grew up. But I used to love them as kids and now they taste off. Similarly for Twix etc.
[0] I'm sure other stores sell peanut butter cups too. There's nothing special about the Trader Joe's ones other than they are mass produced and use better chocolate that Reese's.
EDIT: Flavor change may be due to cost-saving measures like replacing cocoa butter with vegetable oil https://www.today.com/food/chocoholics-sour-new-hersheys-for...
I look at products like Hershey's chocolate or Reeses more like their own category of processed food, kind of like Spam. They have a close, but not exact resemblance to "normal" chocolate or peanut butter, but they're also sort of an acquired taste, and I think their customers would be upset if Reese's Peanut Butter cups suddenly tasted like the Trader Joe's versions (with real peanut butter instead of a mysterious chalky peanut-flavored substance), or if Hershey's stopped using the butyric acid process that makes them taste like vomit to non-americans.
Most chocolate things, like random chocolate cookies or commercial cake etc, breakfast cereal, irritate the back of my throat in a mild way. Couple that with the foreground taste not being anything special, and it's just enough to make the whole experience just the wrong side of neutral. Not terrible just not good either.
All stuff that's made in factories and needs to have shelf life, so I can only imagine it's any number of cost saving substitutions and preservatives and who knows what all for other reasons like preserving texture etc.
> Most chocolate things, like random chocolate cookies or commercial cake etc, breakfast cereal, irritate the back of my throat in a mild way.
This happens to me too; I thought it was universal. I actually like it, though, for some reason (I guess the association with chocolate).
That would be the butyric acid.
It's what gives US chocolate the "vomit/bile" taste uncommon in other chocolate. I am guessing it becomes acquired or unnoticeable taste for people who eat it a lot but man is it a shock if you usually eat chocolate without it!
I have no idea why they use it, but I can think of one really good reason why they shouldn't, your product probably shouldn't have "hints of vomit" in its flavour profile.
I mean it's also in cheese. People just aren't used to the weird tang, and I don't blame them. I can tolerate it but Hershey's isn't exactly my favorite haha
Coffee in Europe is still a majority of cheap, overoasted blends.
Nespresso is barely any better.
Same for a majority of local roasters.
And people expect this type of taste:(
There's an enormous difference between supermarket crap (or whatever it is that you think Nespresso is barely better than, because that would be the first thing I think of for crap coffee) and 'local roasters', however overly you think they're roasting.
I get all mine from Pact, by no means particularly artisan or expensive, and yeah a light roast is not my favourite. But whole beans freshly roasted and ground makes an entirely different drink to freeze-dried instant Nescafe or whatever, or supermarket beans ok the shelf for months, flavoured with cinnamon or vanilla or something to hide the stale.
These will give you an idea of beans we find in supermarket, several of these brands are considered as local roasters, I can even find Boreal in supermarket, which would be your typical "new wave coffee bar/beans" https://www.galaxus.ch/en/s7/producttype/coffee-beans-183
Given that, Switzerland is a bit special for this matter I believe, but I know that most people will be happy with Nespresso.
I rarely see anyone drinking instant coffee. On that subject, I rather drink some "expensive" instant coffee (yes I have seen single origin instant coffee) than Nespresso or Nescafé.
My point is drinking good coffee is a luxe.
My go to for "supermarket" coffee is Illy (red)
Give any child, anywhere in the world, standard Hershey's chocolate and they are going to lose their mind if it's the first time they have tasted chocolate.
Is there any place on earth that has good coffee? Italy's coffee is horrible, even if they have quality machines to make it with. 99% of people will use "ille" or whatever that brand is, which is far worse than starbucks worst roast. Meanwhile I can wander down the street in the US and find better sourced and roasted beans than I could find anywhere in europe.
>Meanwhile I can wander down the street in the US and find better sourced and roasted beans than I could find anywhere in europe.
You must know the place you live very well, I was excited to try coffee in New York when I lived in Manhattan given it was essentially responsible for popularising the current trend in western coffee culture. I had many local coffee snobs directing me to places all over the city and I found only a single shop that I could bear, even then it would've been average to poor in London or Berlin, and worse still in my colleague's native Melbourne.
Blue Bottle was the biggest let down of all, since at the time it was hyped to all hell.
Perhaps europeans are simply used to burnt coffee
the opposite, the ubiquity of burnt mud in every office coffee warmer seems to have dulled the American palate, that or the over abundance of artificial ingredients in everything, to the extent that they simply cannot discern what good coffee is, because it's either that or coffee that looks like the water from a particularly detail oriented miniature painting session; scant colour, scant aroma.
I will admit of course that the French seem to enjoy charcoal, and when in my teens I worked as at a shop the beans that were left too long in the roaster were usually marked as "French Roast"
Best coffee I have ever had was in Vietnam... but that's robusta beans (which tend to be bitter) and they use a lot of condensed sweetened milk.
https://www.seriouseats.com/vietnamese-coffee-recipe-1177539...
idk man, I would say the opposite but I tended to avoid the Illy shops because I already knew I didn't care for that brand much.
Right here in NJ a shop a block away from me had it as their distinguishing feature and I didn't like it much (still better than sbux though). And then when I go on vacation in Italy and other European countries I see Illy mostly in vending machines, so when I see and Illy shop I'm not tempted, when there are 500 other more interesting looking shops every direction you look. And in all of those, I mostly had a lot of cappucinos, and they were basically all excellent.
I cannot call Italy's coffe bad. But I confess I never drink it perfectly straight. Usually cappucino. The European style, a pretty small and strong espresso that is foamed. Not a honking big american cup.
Anecdotally, Australia and Melbourne does it pretty well. And obviously there is good coffee in every American city, you just need to know where to go.
I mean, Australia the default is decent espresso. Even our petrol stations do decent espresso, it is overroasted for sure, but it's not pot coffee either.
But we have the Italians to thank for that, and Australian cafe culture is why it's so easy to get a good coffee even without trying.
The entire world has awful chocolate, except for Europe. And Europe doesn't even produce cocoa beans. It's ridiculous.
Somehow I grew up with the expectation that coffee in US is exceptional everywhere. I guess from movies, pop culture - just how much coffee is part of American daily life.
Then later in life, when I traveled to US as an independent adult (after EU coffee culture upbringing), for work, and embraced the local coffee culture... I had a big disassociation between what my mind thought about how coffee in US should be and what it actually was.
I realized that majority of positive feedback about coffee drinks was based on all those other things people put into coffee...syrups, chocolate, marshmallows, cinnamon, milk, etc. Etc.
While the most basic espresso was... Vile:(
+1 on this. There's a big difference for some between the 15 dollar whiskey and the 35 dollar whiskey, probably another jump between 35 and 80 dollar whiskey, and then after that it starts getting into crazy marginal gains. If you drink 15 dollar whiskey you'd get 90% of your gains from just bumping it up to 35 versus going straight for the 300 dollar bottle.
Same it was with me for coffee, I enjoy single origin vs supermarket coffee, but after that it got to a point where I couldn't realistically make up the difference.
There seems to be an 80/20 effect here on how much you should deep-dive into these tangent domains in your life.
Once you get into that high end ($100+ whiskeys for instance), I feel like it often doesn't get _better_, it just gets more interesting. People seek out unique flavors or experiences, but you start max out the pure quality aspect.
Don't go into the difference between varietals, washing process or fermentation ones. Better, I don't know but there are large differences between producers.
I feel it's the same or similar than wine, chocolate etc
I remember buying a bottle of Pappy van Winkle at a gas station over 25 years ago for $40. Hipsters ruined that...
As in to OP's experience with chocolate, some of this may be down to people being more sensitive to flavors and textures associated with the less expensive manufacturing processes.
I, for one, don't like the bite of low quality alcohol. Whisky taken neat starts to be drinkable to me somewhere around $150-$200 a bottle. With ice or water, you can go cheaper than that because you're cutting the harshness of the impurities.
There used to be a theory that passing cheap rail alcohol through an activated charcoal filter several times would improve the taste. In my experience with rail vodka, it removes the worst part of the bite from impurities. But it obviously doesn't make it taste like high quality alcohol. I've only tried this with vodka. It may remove some desirable favors from other alcohols.
can it be like perceiving the value is higher making your taste as good as it is the value of it? can it be a placebo effect?
I used to think i didn't like people — Until i met some people I liked.
I think it's a bit different from developing taste, what you describe. It's more about finding out who you are. I would say once you know your baseline for what makes chocolate/coffee/etc enjoyable, then taste is about experiencing the nuances within that spectrum. Some people also have a greater tolerance for things that aren't really tasty due to coming up in a culture where things generally taste plain or bad (netherlands and UK come to mind).
> I assumed "I don't like coffee" or chocolate, the same way I don't like cigarettes.
So have you tried Cuban cigars?
No, I've tried cigarettes, which is all I needed for that sentence, something I don't like.
I guess it's a natural question given the rest, and expensive cigars might indeed be different than cheap cigarrettes, but it's irrelevant, since the point was not that no matter what you don't like you might still like the good version.
The point was only that discovering the good version of something did not leave me worse than before because I used to enjoy something abundant and now I can only enjoy something scarce.
It's a bit like Feynman on flowers too. You don't have to be ignorant of the biological workings of a flower to appreciate it's mere outward properties exactly the same way as the layperson does. I still love a box mac & cheese even though I thoroughly appreciate far better home or chef made mac & cheese.
> Then one day I had actually proper coffee, and I discovered that good coffee isn't just some imperceptably theoretically better version of regular coffee that snobs are basically just faking being sophisticated for show. They are two entirely different things.
I know what you mean, but it's important to be mindful of the fact that enjoying coffee is way more than the quality of the coffee in the cup. I think for most there's a whole ritual around having a coffee which renders the actual coffee a minor detail around everything. You can see this even in coffee brewing snobs, where they use extremely specialized tools and equipment to perform a coffee brewing cerimonies that rival religious ones. Sometimes the coffee itself is just the pretext, but the goal is different.
When chocolate was discovered they consumed it in an extremely different fashion from what we think of good chocolate today.
The dried beans were simply cooked with water. Later with milk. Chocolate as we know it only became a thing centuries later. (Dried milk was only invented in 1802, and you can’t make milk chocolate without that for example)
Don't forget the chillies to make Xocolatl
The point of coffee is caffeine. If coffee didn't have caffeine it would be some boring curiosity tucked away in specialty markets. Same with beer, wine, and spirits; it's the alcohol. This is why people still buy Folgers, Pabst, and Night Train: they get the job done for cheap.
Yeah, this is not true. This is the type of argument that people make when they insist that "no one actually likes IPAs and they just want to get drunk quicker."
No, people like IPAs because they taste good to them. I have never heard anyone complementing the flavorings of Pabst (yuk), Schaefer (worst beer I ever tasted), or Milwaukee's Best (aka The Beast). Same with Old English 800 or Colt 45, they're awful but get you drunk for cheap.
As a former home brewer, when I taste a ton of hops, the first thing that pops into my mind is "oh they screwed up the batch" because a fistfull of hops was a way to wipe out bad flavors and save material.
As a home brewer, just because one person tried to salvage crap by dumping hops into the boil does not automatically make all hoppy styles crap. Perhaps more forgiving for less-experienced brewers, but doing them well still takes skill.
It's one of those things so common and spoken about among brew clubs that I saw it as an established truth. We always gave the PNW brewers crap for over reliance on hops. In the time and place I was at, porters and stouts ruled.
The hardest thing to brew at home is actually a pale ale or a light lager. You can't hide any mistakes in those because they are 'sex in a canoe' beers.
"Yeah, this is not true."
Well, I reckon whether one considers that statement true or not depends on who one is (as I'll explain).
Coffee, tea, chocolate and cola all contain mixtures of methylxanthines of which caffeine is but one, others include theophylline, theobromine† and paraxanthine to mention a few.
What's relevant here is not only that all are psychoactive to varying degrees but also they are bitter substances that contribute significantly to the taste. For example, dark chocolate is considerably more bitter than milk chocolate because it contains significantly higher level of xanthines than the latter.
I've yet to taste any decaffeinated coffee that in my opinion is worth drinking and it's not for the want of the stimulating effects of the caffeine but rather its taste. Without those xanthines the product just doesn't taste like coffee to me.
From observation, most consumers of decaffeinated coffee consume it with cream or as a latte and often with sugar, these additives tend to mask the bitterness of caffeine so it seems its absence doesn't bother them. For my part I add nothing to coffee—not even sugar—for reason that for me the bitterness of the xanthines is an integral part of the taste.
I drink coffee because of its taste, not for its stimulating properties. Unfortunately, unlike many others, caffeine has almost no noticeable stimulating effect on me—I can drink the strongest coffee at bedtime and still easily fall asleep.
† Despite its name theobromine does not contain bromine.
You seem to be in violent agreement with my point, because what I was getting at is that you drink coffee for the taste, and I drink IPAs for the taste.
Even though there's a popular strain of edgy internet bro logic that "no one actually likes X, they only drink/eat/wear/consume it because Y."
Could you point me in the direction of some actual chocolate please
https://valrhona-collection.us/
You should try a high quality cigarette!
I miss my Nat Sherman Fantasia's... although I am grateful I was finally able to quit smoking years ago. Thank god for city-wide bans.
I mean it's even better to not enjoy things in the first place. You're happier with less.
Interesting.
That chocolate - can you name a product, or give us a link? I think I know what you mean, but one can never be sure.
I'll offer a counter-anecdote and suggest this advice isn't necessarily ironclad. I've used the same pair of $20 headphones for decades (replacing them with the same model when they die), or else laptop/TV speakers. A couple of years ago I got $200 headphones included with a new phone purchase. The $200 headphones were amazing. I got to listen to all of my favorite music with a new perspective. But I still use the $20 ones on a daily basis because the $200 ones hurt my ears with prolonged usage. The $20 ones are fine. The nice ones didn't diminish my enjoyment of them at all. And every now and then I break out the $200 ones for a treat.
Just don't become a snob. I think people tie their identity to the expensive junk they purchase and develop a sense of ego around it, of being better than the peasants, and that's why they become unable to enjoy the "lesser" experience.
I think you point to the real problem: It's often not about taste or enjoyment but about using expensive things as a crutch for your feeble ego. Neatly expressed by the term "nouveau riche"
I think it's more to do with 'taste' as an indicator of social status. Not all things within the 'good taste' space or expensive. It's more about access to the secret club thinking, e.g. the secret hidden strip mall restaurant that has the best Bahn Mi.
It's similar for me.
Regarding audio, I have access to very decent headphones and also lower-grade studio monitors, as I've decided to make audio production a hobby of mine. Both of these are absolutely better than my cheaper in-ears for cycling and walking around outside. And sure, you also start to notice how different bluetooth boxes are also on a range of audio quality. And live music on a PA is a whole different ball game and not comparable to studio recordings entirely.
But that's fine. The in-ears are at a decent conjunction between audio quality and a price point I won't be hurt if I lose or break them. And some music from a janky box is better than no music from a janky box. At worst it will be funny how janky it is.
If I encounter something I like, I can ask what it is, break out the better equipment at home, probably sit down on the balcony with some tea or a drink and focus on the music and appreciate it for an hour or so while watching the magpies and crows in our back yard.
It's in fact even fun to me to dive into a song or an album like this to explore what you didn't hear on the other audio system. Sometimes there is an entire instrument you're missing on other systems.
Grado SR80x headphones are $125 (they used to be $90 for decades) and are arguably some of the best headphones ever made.
yeah sometimes it can be that. but most of the time it's difficult to step back once you raise the bar. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill and all that
The hedonic treadmill is a choice
The entire concept of "comfort food" and "poverty food" is about people excusing the enjoyment of "low class" stuff that is eminently enjoyable and shouldn't need justification.
You can learn tasting notes in wines, and how to identify wines that are well balanced with good tasting notes or an interesting character. You can appreciate all the care and expertise that went into that process and how it meshes with the "flavor pairing" guides and cheese that it was served with. You can then buy an entire case of $6 wine from that winery because that wine tastes exactly like Welches concord grape juice and when you were a kid you always expected wine to taste like tasty grape juice but make you drunk and have always been disappointed that wine doesn't taste like grape juice.
That wine was so good and it was $6 because snobs hate simple pleasures.
Don't be a snob. Good is not the inverse of simple, and complex is not inherently good.
Nobody can stop you from drinking boxed wine cut with gatorade. Nobody can stop you from enjoying boxed wine cut with gatorade.
If you find you can't enjoy the simple things, you don't need to "upgrade" or get more expensive stuff or keep up with the Jones's, you need therapy.
I think there's an unfinished journey whenever I hear such a story. Like someone who learns just enough about music that they "feel like" Bach is better than Taylor Swift, but then never move to the other side to use their newly acquired competence to understand what's nice about Taylor Swift's music as well.
E.g. a great designer will be able to design houses in very different styles, because they can understand what gives each of those styles its own specific beauty.
There's a lot to say about this, but I think your coffee friend never passed the snob-like point, which is a point I think most people reach when they learn just enough about something and that makes them feel superior. But if you keep going, then you start to understand what makes Italian coffee great as well, for example.
Wrt to coffee, I speak from experience, after going through very expensive equipment, I have learned to enjoy very different styles of roasts, coffees, etc. I still have preferences, I'm just far less judgmental.
Applies to most of my hobbies, I've seen this trajectory very often.
Yeah, that's a horrible way to enjoy life. By your reasoning, you should subsist on protein blocks and watch paint dry for entertainment. By lowering the bar to the absolute lowest threshold, you'll classify everything as enjoyable.
The pareto principle holds strong. Just put 20% of the effort in and you reap 80% of the results.
I get what they are trying to say. Looking for negatives is the problem.
When I was in college I got into beer. I was brewing at home and whenever I went out I was looking for something new and tasting it like I was a beer critic. It was great fun at first, but then the more refined my palate got, the less I found myself being able to find beer I enjoyed. Like if I went to a hockey game, I'd complain about the only choices being Bud and Bud light.
So I decided to look for positives rather than negatives and my enjoyment level went back up again. No matter where I am, I can find a beer that I enjoy. And that means when I'm in the bleachers on a sunny day watching a baseball game, a Bud Light and a hot dog might be absolutely perfect.
Coffee is the same for me. I was in Toronto this summer and went to The Library Specialty Coffee and had the best pour over I think I've ever had. The next morning I was up early and popped out for a Tim Horton's coffee and it was way different, but exactly what I wanted at that time.
IMHO, being a fan is a lot more fun than being a critic.
Tell me more! I need to hear this! I'm fed up with being a critic. It feels like a trap I set myself into without realizing. I'm at the point where I can only enjoy coffee brew at home with expensive toys and I'm becoming miserable about it: Id prefer the freedom to have anything anywhere while being able to enjoy. Applies to coffee but also other things. So yeah, pls tell us more.
I mean, I'm not advocating for snobbery or being a critic at all.
One time I was walking around Belgium in the rain, I was cold and every single restaurant or bar (some serve food) was packed and wouldn't let new patrons in.
After walking around for about 35 minutes we found a cozy bar, had a beer, and discovered that they had a big pot of spicy pasta in the back, where you could pay €1 to ladle full a plate. In my memory, that is still the best meal I've ever tasted. And I'm definitely a haute cuisine enjoyer, been to a fair bit of Michelin restaurants.
I agree.
Practicing photography on a smartphone is terrible compared to a dedicated device; in both ergonomics (hard to get a good grip, unprecise shutter actuation due to the touchscreen, and sometime unreliable software) and quality (granted, I like to actually print my picture instead of looking at them on a tiny screen; but still the difference is noticeable).
But that doesn't doesn't necessarily mean you need a camera system that cost as much as a small car; you can get plenty joy with an entry-level mirrorless (which would be in the pareto 20% price range).
I think it's a good starting point though. I like to try out the cheapest option and see how it really feels or tastes. For mattress shopping i always ask, "what's your second cheapest option?". For most consumer goods the diminishing returns kick in pretty quick
How often do you buy a mattress? I went high end and have only needed 1 in my adult life so far.
This. Ruin your back for life with shitty mattress, but save $100 is a really shitty advice.
The Buddhists would say otherwise.
At some point I think there's almost an inverse relationship with how much time you spend researching a product and how much you enjoy it. I fell in to this hole with gaming monitors. At the top end, no product has it all, no product is without flaws. So then you start getting frustrated that you can't find one that has the right HDMI version, freesync, 240hz, 4k, USB-C with decent power delivery, etc. And what you buy is something quite expensive but every flaw frustraights you.
While if you just ignore most of that and buy something mid tier, you feel quite happy because it works pretty well and you didn't spend too much on it. The moment you start scrolling the subreddit for the product you've gone too far and need to disengage.
I definitely suffer from this "do enough research until I find flaws that I then can't un-see".
When my older kid wanted a gaming monitor, he suggested a specific model because it was on sale and he could afford it. I took that opportunity to do some research solo that night, find a few alternatives, research each deeply and then suggest that we "look together at 2 or 3 different models", compare the features, and talked through whether it really mattered if one was $100 more than the other given the likely useful lifespan of a monitor.
He ended up with a monitor that he's really happy with, we got some time together bonding over a shared interest, and he doesn't have to know all the flaws I saw in it. (It's also barely mid-tier, which is congruent with your advice.)
Yeah for sure do enough research to avoid something awful, but as soon as you get to the reddit comments that are like "Nah don't buy that it's junk, buy this one" and "this one" is twice the price, it's probably best to ignore. And certainly best to avoid doing any more research or reading forums/reddit after the purchase is made.
Ah, but it can give you such fun projects. Go, hunt down your headphones’ frequency response, cancel it out in PulseEffects (if that’s what it is called this release…), then adjust to the Harman Curve…
Excellent idea, hunting for the best headphones only cost me like two hundred hours of my life, couple hundreds of dollars, and rewarded me with a mild tinnitus as well.
[dead]
Yep, the traveller's curse.
I know friends who describe a product more by its specs rather than whether they like it.
I prefer to just ask for a recommendation. Looking at specs is often just a money sinkhole to me.
I recently tried to play a bit of tennis, which I've already stopped. My friend was appalled when I proudly announced that my tennis racket costed $15. "But we are in tech!" he cried. But for a couple of games, I know I won't be able to tell the difference between a $15 one and a $150 one (I know because I've played tennis in the past).
And true to my predictions, I no longer play tennis and I'm only $15 poorer. I don't know the name for this, but the fact that I avoided wasting $150 and only "wasted" $15 into something I knew might be temporary also feels very satisfying.
> At first, buy the absolute cheapest tools you can find. Upgrade the ones you use a lot. If you wind up using some tool for a job, buy the very best you can afford.
—https://x.com/kevin2kelly/status/1845192874947674291
Absolutely the right choice. I do triathlons and your comment makes me think of all the people who turn up, do an Ironman and leave the sport after. Or people who sign up for a marathon, do it, then never run again.
Meanwhile there are shorter events you can do on much less training and cheaper equipment to see if you’ll like it before investing in the extreme end of the sport. If you run a 10k and hate every step, you’ve saved yourself a lot of time, pain and money.
This is my thinking with photography, I love photography but I'm still not very good at it. So I use a D7100, which is probably considered a shitty relic nowadays compared to more modern stuff. But right now, the camera isn't the bottleneck for me getting good photos, it's me. The camera is still way better a camera than I am a photographer.
I'll get a better camera, when I'm a better photographer and the camera is actually the limiting factor, but I expect that is very very very far off.
Photography is an edge case. The camera is virtually never the limiting factor. Case in point, Daido Moriyama.
Yeah, I played with a $15 racket for years. I only got a $150 one when I could tell the difference between them.
This is how I have it with my guitar. It's a simple Ibanez Gio from a starter kit, probably coming in at 150 Euros - 200 Euros or so, with another 40 Euros spent on a guitar tech to set it up properly.
I'll replace it once I know how it is holding me back. At least that's the plan I've had for the last 4-5 years. But it has low action, fairly low-noise pickups, holds tuning. So no need so far.
When it come to equipment, sometimes I think it’s okay for a beginner to splurge on something mid level because of resale.
Do a little math and figure out how much it’d cost you to quit and cash out.
A more expensive intermediate-level instrument is easier to sell than the cheaper beginner model.
Cheap electric guitars are much better now since the parts are CNC'd, even if they don't come properly setup from the factory. As long as the fretwork is good, you can easily upgrade everything else if you have problems with it.
Yes, and from what I've been reading and hearing: Modern electronic components and the manufacturing methods in general are also much more consistent in this day and age.
Back in the day, costs of a guitar would go into higher quality parts, and possibly even labor to ensure consistency and function exactly how it should. Nowadays, components are more consistent and cheaper than the better components of the 80s and 90s.
Thus the pure functional spread between cost ranges has been reduced.
Yep, it’s the golden age of guitar quality. These days even a starter guitar is pretty darn good. Ditto for amp emulators and small tube amps, wish that was all around as a teen.
> with another 40 Euros spent on a guitar tech to set it up properly
that's probably the best decision you could have made, much better than putting an extra 40euros in a slightly more expensive guitar!
I just look around in the most expensive street in my city for posts online or offline of people selling rackets that have maybe 2 hours of use on them. Then you can usually get 150$+ rackets for $15 as these folks threat $150 as I threat $15. Some of them are just given away to charity shops etc.
[dead]
This is the way I am with hiking and biking. I genuinely enjoy them, but I have a tendency to really get into the weeds with things I'm interested in and ruining the fun.
I purposely just go for hikes for the sake of it, and refuse to give in and buy anything other than a generic bike, even though a part of me really wants __ hardware. If I buy it, that will be the point of no return for becoming a bike nerd and I'll start caring about stuff I don't want to care about.
Now computers, I've learned a million ways to hate them, and learn new ways to hate them every day. Not with bikes, though :)
I do the same, although my reasoning probably slightly differs. I hate the idea that I'll mangle a pastime as "primitive" as hiking or biking into some technology optimization problem. People did this stuff way back with perfectly simple gear and were entirely happy enough.
Sure, I could probably be a bit faster or go on a bit longer if I had better gear. But I could also achieve that by just getting into a better shape. With this level of commitment the gear is not the limiting factor. If I can't go faster with this bike, then I don't deserve to go faster with a fancier one, god dammit.
My work is very complicated and technical, so I get some satisfaction from keeping my hobbies ascetic.
Hiking and biking as your “I’ll love the inexpensive options” hobbies. Did you intentionally pick the maximum test of will or something?
To be honest, when I was younger, I found hardcore cyclists a bit ridiculous and never wanted to be like them. I find spending a lot of money on gear so you can essentially move around unappealing, I guess. It starts becoming about the gear, getting better gear, always wanting something new, etc. At some point it's so far abstracted from simply walking or pedaling and I just can't give a shit.
I think I agree. Although it is funny, everybody’s cut off point is different. I have a… it must be 30 years old by now… old road bike. But, I don’t really like riding bikes without clippy pedals. If I’m not clipped in, it just doesn’t feel right somehow. Like I’m not part of the system, just sitting on the system.
Lucky you! You didn’t fall into that trap and just enjoy the best experience you could get without overoptimizing for it. I fell into the musical instruments trap for a bit but luckily I got out of it and play with what I have.
I messed up in that domain when it comes to music software, it's tweaks all the way down, amazing that it works at all. I make do with cheap MIDI controllers, but spend hours cracking VSTs I already bought so I can run them in Linux.
Typing this out makes me realize its not even about the music anymore, but the tweaks. Let this be a warning
I don’t know if it’s a counterpoint or not, but I both know and appreciate a lot about coffee and enjoy instant or—especially—that black tarry sludge at the bottom of the gas station carafe, the sort that’s getting ever harder to find. One doesn’t diminish the other, they’re different things.
Similarly consider the people who build world-class systems in their day jobs, yet spend their weekends running Doom on potatoes or battling janky bots to the death.
Cultivating taste doesn’t have to be the same thing as developing snobbery or becoming jaded.
I agree strongly.
I drink things that taste bad. No, not always. But when an option exists that I think might taste bad, I always choose it. Someone has determined that it is a worthy drink and unless I explore their thinking, I will never know whether or not I agree. Once explored, I have some data that I can use to compare with other implementations of such an horrific recipe. At once, I am a connoisseur of this awful thing.
Let me know if you are interested in the worst place to get a bean-paste mojito with a cactus apple sidecar. I still search for the best.
Why yes I am! Both of those sound suited to a deliciously wide range of interpretation. I’ll raise you a pair of excellent and abject chòu dòufu served within about 5 blocks of each other (oddly enough, in a Puerto Rican section of New York)…
It seems like, in most domains of aesthetic appreciation, it doesn’t take all THAT much “trying stuff” before you get off a “bad-to-good” axis and onto a “varieties of experience” plane… (mumble mumble decommodification etc)
Then again perhaps you and I are showing our hand as people whose aesthetic preferences are not to be trusted :)
I have a love for natto that disgusts all my friends... even the Japanese ones. In my defense, I only eat it with Chinese hot mustard.
There must have been something that drove him to coffee expert level.
For me, I get dissatisfied and then reach for something nicer and nicer until I hit a limit. I'm just very skeptical he'd still love cheap instant coffee. He was climbing a sort of dopamine ladder. Then he ran out of rungs to climb. Now he has to move to a new thing. Life is almost nothing but impermanence and dissatisfaction. Its a little odd to think you could somehow beat the system. The person who finishes the dopamine ladder would never have been happy staying at the most bottom rung, which was disintegrating for them hence pushing them along to the highest rung. Short of becoming a very serious practitioner in things like meditation and other monastic-type things to fight these urges, this is just a really tough thing to get away from.
Now job, new book, new video game, new movie, new friend, etc. We're almost always doing this in some way.
Maybe those examples are things you don't have good discernment with. For me, I can instantly tell when I have quality headphone speakers. I can hear a fuller range of music than cheap ones. Its almost always obvious and cheap ones are almost always annoying. I have yet to go deeper into audiophone territory and I might never, but I have affordable headphones with really nice speakers inside and I wont go any less quality than this. So maybe for you, you can't tell or don't value it, but there are probably other things you do focus on.
I think you have to “aestheticize” the cheap stuff in a way that doesn’t add value purely on price. In other words, you aren’t just picking the absolute best quality of a thing, you’re picking it for some specific aesthetic reason that puts it above the more expensive one.
To put that into more concrete terms: I really like dark roast black coffee. There’s something about the bitterness and presentation that reminds me of coffee’s history, the variety of people drinking it, etc. and thus it is more appealing to me than the “high quality” light roasts with subtle flavors available in the expensive cafes.
Another example are diners. If you become such a gourmand that you only eat at Michelin restaurants and disparage anywhere “normal”, I think you miss out on the real culture and quality of diner food, which is a unique phenomenon.
Hopefully that made sense.
I think it's possible to get a careful dark roast, but often "dark roast" coffee mainly tastes like burned toast. It's still warm and caffeinated, but it's not really that enjoyable. There's a reason so many people make this kind of coffee very watered down or drown it in cream and sugar. Maybe it feels historically connected to cowboys brewing coffee in a sock over a campfire or whatever, but is that connection really so valuable?
I just prefer the taste and it reminds me more of Turkish coffee, which is my favorite way of preparation. And also black coffee reminds me of various cultural things like diners, detective fiction, etc. Like this quote from Phoenix Wright, the game:
“Blacker than a moonless night. Hotter and more bitter than hell itself… that is coffee.”
Lighter roast coffee just isn’t a thing I generally enjoy, to me it feels like a different drink, an over-complicated consumer product, not the kind of thing one would write quotes like the one above about.
A bit like grilling vs. sous vide with meat. Grilling has a whole culture to it, whereas sous vide feels soulless and overly technical, even if it produces great flavors.
There’s a name for that coffee. Nostalgia blend.
What I love about learning a topic thoroughly is that I can then pick apart the "expert wisdom" into what actually matters. That usually results in me getting better but very pragmatic results.
Coffee is a great example, I worked through the whole stack, tried everything I had access to until eventually I weeded out what matters most to me.
Good beans, good milk, and just enough prep. I tried no prep, all the prep, and then just enough prep. Good beans not perfect beans. Good milk but whatever is available.
I do the same with everything, cars, bicycles, sim racing equipment, computers, software etc.
It sounds like you're choosing to live in ignorance and lead a mediocre life. That's your choice to make but to me that seems sad. Expanding experiences beyond mediocrity is what makes life interesting.
You don't need to have full knowledge or the best, most expensive thing to rise above. The 80/20 rule applies.
You can spend thousands on coffee equipment and hundreds of hours in understanding it. Or you can spend $15 on a pour over cone, $15 on a bag of beans, and $20 on a hand grinder to get 80% of the way there. The coffee you make with this minor investment will be night and day better than the swill you make with cheap grocery store beans and a cheap auto drip brewer.
Strive to be better than average rather than the best.
I regularly spend $200 at restaurants. I know what good food is. I still enjoy it as much as I enjoyed a $3 gyros ten years ago.
You do you.
Only time I get up in that range is when I go for a huge dry aged steak and really nice single malt at a place I want to be noticed at.
I could do the same thing (and better) at home for about 1/4 that.
I can't remember where I read this, but I read a very similar sentiment: "If you can only afford $2 pizza on a regular basis, never buy a $20 pizza, because it will just ruin the $2 pizza for you."
Another aspect of this which doesn't depend on price, is when I get attached to some regional variety, and then I move. That's always a bit painful.
Or sometimes they just stop making it. Or they change the formulation!
Attachment is the root of suffering...
A fun thing to do is remember why you liked the low end, for me and coffee it was instant coffee with too much sugar, in a big mug, on a building site. It hits totally different to a fancy coffee. I can still drink that now and enjoy it as it is associated with happy memories (and hot sweet coffee is great).
Another is to look at what the low end are trying to do, with wine it is generally appeal to as many people as possible, buying things like the supermarkets own brand of a variety of you like is a good way to get a great bottle.
If you can’t appreciate why the simple / cheap stuff is loved by the masses I wouldn’t think anyone is a true expert in their field. Feels like a well worn path for chefs.
novice -> informed -> asshole
I strive to be at the informed part of the spectrum.
Wine example:
- Novice: "I'd like any red wine" -> waiter brings you something you don't like
- Informed: "I'd like a red wine that is dry, not st" -> waiter brings you something you are quite likely to like
- Asshole: "Do you have an Argentinian malbec from 1998-2000, from the so and so valley?" -> you spend a lot of money and like the wine, or you are unhappy because they don't meet your asshole preferences
*edit formatting
novice -> informed -> asshole -> seasoned
Keep pushing through the asshole stage and you get to another where you learn to enjoy what you enjoy, whether it is a $10 chocolate chip cookie or Chips A'Hoy. A $200 bottle of wine or a $5 bottle.
It is possible to dig deep into subjects and emerge with a nuanced understanding rather than an asshole demeanor!
I've kept aquariums basically my whole life and have had all kinds of critters including a really expensive marine tank fully kitted out with fish worth hundreds each. My current favorites are some guppies I got for free because it wasn't worth charging for them!
> - Asshole: "Do you have an Argentinian malbec from 1998-2000, from the so and so valley?" -> you spend a lot of money and like the wine, or you are unhappy because they don't meet your asshole preferences
So asshole is having preferences that don't fit the norm? If they don't impose their standards on you, and do not act a snob, why do you care?
In general, you should avoid putting people in positions where they have to admit their inadequacy to fulfill your preferences.
A better question is to first ask what they have, and see if there is reasonable expectation they can fulfill something so exact.
I am in the 20$ dollars headphones and 200$ TV bucket too. But for different reasons.
The point of the video/movie/song etc. is the content not the fidelity, there is a level of fidelity that allows 99 per cent of the enjoyment of the content. That level of fidelity typically costs 20$ for headphones and 200$ for tvs.
1080p and mp3s are good enough. The point is to see what's happening on the screen and to hear without noise.
I think that's mostly true above a certain threshold, but where that threshold lies, is probably different for different people.
The <1$ earphones you get on an airplane sound terrible. I can understand what the actors in movies are saying but that's about it. I can't hear or experience the music.
The $20 headphones my kids have are a good step up. For me headphones/speakers in the $100 range make me _feel_ more when listening to music. But I don't need to go more expensive. That's where my threshold is for music.
The lesson is to learn enough from first principles and then optimise pragmatically for fun and comfort, and only go really nerdy/taste-oriented on a few things at a time.
I use secondhand laptops/phones/tablets, plain wired airbuds insead of airpods etc., because I know what good enough is, for the purposes I have in mind. (I also know that most of the music industry still practises what Phil Spector preached about bad radios.)
I know a tiny bit about coffee and I like it, but I optimise for pragmatic fun. I know enough to know that the grind makes most of the difference, but a cheap contemporary stainless steel burr hand grinder makes really enough of that difference. I know enough to know that the Aeropress is not a toy, that the flow control cap accessory is helpful, a simple process, and I know enough not to over-optimise that process because it won't be fun. I do have a scale; I use it only if I feel the process can't be eyeballed and guesstimated.
I own a 3D printer: I bought the cheapest properly viable, just-about-big enough model. Here I am going much more deeply into the nerding, but in phases; I've owned it three years and I am only now doing the Klipper upgrade (from Marlin/Octoprint). I know I need a bigger printer but I also know this smaller printer will teach me things I need to know. The most important thing is not to optimise the printer: it is to learn CAD properly to express my ideas.
In my day job, I know enough to reduce my code dependencies but not to roll all of them myself. I know enough to know that in my specific job, spending my time optimising Docker containers is unlikely to provide any meaningful reward over roughly configuring more complete VMs, etc.; I know enough to know that AI is a rabbit-hole that other people can go down and I am probably not missing out by not adopting early.
Is any of the above wrong or misguided? I am sure some is. Not enough to matter though: I'm over fifty and in the grand scheme of things I am going to die soon.
It sounds to me you're describing the feeling of being content, rather than having the least taste.
I prefer to look at things that way rather than not having taste. Some people really enjoy $600 headphones, while others don't really care.
I think everyone has some "taste" though, you don't really realize it until you compare experiences.
For me personally, having taste doesn't ruin my experience for anything - it just add more to things. And I still like the things I like, even if there is "less".
Using more expensive headphones and hearing instruments I've never heard before makes it fun and using $20 headphones is still fun because I'm still listening to music I like.
yeah for headphones, I also feel the same. But for food and coffee, I really cannot go back to lower standards. It feels like I put myself in a trap with this attitude. I have not found a way out yet.
On the other hand, a part of becoming an expert in some field should be getting to be _realistic_. Learn not to deceive yourself.
I can give you an example from my experience. I got annoyed by my dull knives, so at first I went and bought really expensive knives, the ones made of hardened high-carbon steel that start rusting if you look at them dirtily. And I spent hours reading reviews before buying them. That's probably the "most expensive cup of coffee" stage.
Then I stumbled upon a Youtube channel that explained how to sharpen knives properly. So I bought $70 worth of diamond sharpening stones and re-sharpened my old IKEA knives. And they started working almost as well as my set of ultra-expensive knives, but they are far more practical. The expensive knife set is now a display piece in my kitchen.
Another revelation for me was that past a certain point, there's really not that much difference in the quality of sushi. It's just rice and sliced fish. Sure, there are individual variations between chefs in rice-to-fish ratio, maybe some special soy sauce here and there, but these are all just matters of personal taste. So I now just enjoy sushi for its taste. And instead of a looking for reservations in expensive restaurants, I just drop by my local sushi place and just ask the chef to add a bit more wasabi to the rice.
Knives are a great example. Any chance it was this guy?
https://youtu.be/pagPuiuA9cY
I've watched like 3 hours of his videos on sharpening because he's pragmatic, approachable, and scientific, and now I actually understand how to sharpen a knife and why it works.
Yup, this guy. I highly recommend this channel to anyone who wants to learn to sharpen the knives.
It's not at all hard once you understand the idea!
That's not a bad rule of thumb, but it's also easier to get dry, poorly seasoned rice, mushy fish, overdone or poorly done sauce and toppings combinations, and >1 day old uni than I'd really like at a lot of places.
Your advice makes sense when your local options are good enough, but I don't think you're actually arguing that quality doesn't matter -- only that beyond a certain point the additional discernment isn't valuable.
I went down the knife-sharpening rabbit hole a bit, too, but I only managed to make my knives duller with whetstones, even though I have good dexterity.
Eventually, I just took my knives to a professional sharpener and got the paper-thin, tomato-slicing sharpness I wanted.
Funnily enough, I had both an expensive "forged" knife and a cheap IKEA one, and the IKEA knife was sharper and held its edge much better.
> That advice has stuck with me, and I try to have the least taste I can. I use $20 headphones and a $200 TV because I can't tell what "good" is, and I enjoy music and movies as much as my friends with $600 headphones and $3k TVs do.
Thank you for sharing this observation. It resonated with me in a surprising way. Finding something that's "good enough" is such a blessing.
I think that's a shame - I take a different approach that means the article resonates with me a lot more.
It's about learning enough to be able to appreciate something beyond surface level. You struck a chord with coffee and headphones - yes, I've gone deep on both, but rather than suck the enjoyment out of cheaper options it's given me an appreciation across the segment. I can now buy a cheap coffee and make it taste excellent - I can appreciate a well tuned headphone regardless of cost or lack of technicalities.
When headphones reach $2k+ and coffee starts costing $50 for 100g, rather than get universally better they tend to get opinionated - a different flavor of weird as a friend once said.
So I would suggest that it's fine to go deep on something, but make sure you're doing it to get to a deeper true/understanding.
You're describing the hedonic treadmill. But I think you are missing something.
The thing is it does feel good to fix things and upgrade. The treadmill just says your baseline reverts back to where it was. So yeah you're just as happy with the expensive TV as you were with the shitty one, but it did feel good to upgrade, if only for a little while.
So the key is to introduce tiny upgrades and often. If you blow your budget for the whole year on a TV then you only get to be happier once. If you tinker and introduce tiny, sustainable upgrades you can be happier every day.
The sustainable part is important. You can only afford something if you can buy it twice. Don't ever take out a loan to buy anything (apart from a house).
I too have this fear sometimes, and for example never want to learn anything about wine, but it's not always the case.
A friend and I have bonded over appreciating the "shit" things, like white bread toast and hotel coffee and I think that's quite a good habit to instill. I love coffee and will hunt out the best spots in any city for a single-origin V60 on ice, but I am equally content in a diner when the only option is literally just "coffee".
Also studying art & practicing photography has made the world a much more beautiful place. Some of my best pictures have been taken in places that are usually considered unphotogenic.
To quote Reggie Watts:
Listen, invest two hundred dollars in a pair of good headphones Take care of ′em, put 'em in your ears, listen to the music Listen to how it′s supposed to be recorded You're missing, I swear to God, forty to fifty percent Of the music that's in there in the first place So if you wanna go back and listen to The shit that you thought you liked You might even like it more, motherf*er
This did inspire me to get better headphones and I have no regrets! I think some parts of the aversion to getting too fancy come from the reasonable ideas of: not wanting to lower your floor, avoiding the hedonic treadmill, and not wanting to increase your burn. This kind of does make sense for coffee: a lot of coffees you get will be out of your control and increasing the fanciness of your coffee is an ongoing expense. For headphones though they're all moot. I can't remember the last time I wore someone else's headphones, and it's just a pretty small once off payment (these have lasted me 5 years). I would strongly recommend upgrading in this department.
As for TVs, I rewatched Alien on my friend's new LG OLED and it was absolutely stunning. I am looking forward to getting a new place and having a nice set up like that. Again just a once off thing.
And just for balance, my computer monitor which I use all the time has an annoying flickering issue that I have just been putting up with for a long time.
> Listen, invest two hundred dollars in a pair of good headphones Take care of ′em, put 'em in your ears, listen to the music Listen to how it′s supposed to be recorded You're missing, I swear to God, forty to fifty percent Of the music that's in there in the first place So if you wanna go back and listen to The shit that you thought you liked You might even like it more, motherf*er
Chances are the music you listen to was recorded, monitored, and mixed using Beyer Dynamic DT100s. They're those white ones you see everyone with in photos of recording studios.
Try a pair. You'll wonder where all the bass has gone. That's because they're not "optimised" or "enhanced" or "MEGA BASS DOOF DOOF DOOF" headphones. It takes a bit of getting used to, like eating less processed food that's not loaded with salt and sugar.
After a bit, you'll realise you can actually hear detail in the bass.
It was right here all along.
I used to have some medium expensive good headphones. That was pretty much the only non-shit hardware I ever invested in and I really could hear a difference. But with age and decreasing hearing now I cant tell anymore, so that one thing I cared about not buying cheap trash is no longer relevant.
The trick for most things is to just not spend time and effort to learn what to look for. Happy to see in this thread I am not the only one.
I'm with you with the TV - HD is usually enough, but audio needs to be at least reasonable. $20 headphones is too cheap, even from a longevity perspective.
I don't mind buying new $20 headphones every two years! I guess the latest SoundPeats I got were around $40, though.
If noise at all bothers you, decent ANC is a game-changer and worth spending more. I never tried it until I picked up a next cheap pair with it, and it's even better with a good pair.
And if you don't think it does, it will when you remove the ANC! (Trains, planes, coaches especially.)
If your friend keeps mastering coffee he'll learn to appreciate what Folgers or Starbucks is doing again. He'll also learn to suggest the coffee that will make someone happiest, or help them the most, in a wider variety of situations. It's nice to retain youthful oblivious in some categories, though. We can't learn everything anyway. It's often enough just to know how to avoid expensive mistakes.
I've used the "Harbor Freight" principle for years when purchasing tools for either professional or personal use. I'll buy something I need at a discount store like Harbor Freight and use it for as many jobs as it lasts. If it breaks and I still need it, I'll upgrade to a better version. If it doesn't break then all the better.
Oh dear. Years ago I had the ‘misfortune’ to taste some of the greatest first and second growth Bordeaux wines—the 1945s, Margeaux, Lafite, etc. Now my palate lies in ruins, ordinary wine is essentially undrinkable, and even good wine only draws comparisons with those Greats, enjoyment for their own sake is thus reduced or lost.
To make matters worse, those great Bordeaux wines and Burgundy's Grand crus such as Romanée-Conti, Grands Échezeaux etc. have in resent years reached truly dizzying heights, only multimillionaires and lottery winners can now afford to drink them. Unless one’s in either of those categories, paying a $1,000, $10,000 and upward per bottle is even an outrageous notion to contemplate.
Lesson: getting spoiled on the very best—especially early on—depreciates one’s appreciation for not only the mundane but also things that by most other criteria are deemed very good.
It's possible to be exposed to, and understand, high end things. I've had $2000+ bottles of wine, listened to music on $100k+ speakers, driven $500k+ cars, seen Keith Jarrett Trio at Montreux, had cat-shit coffee, etc.
And I'm perfectly happy listening to Toxic by Britney Spears on phone speakers while drinking Miller High Life on a sunny day in the park, hopping in a banged up Miata to rip a donut in a parking lot.
Don't let fear of "spoiling" things keep you from ever growing your experiences. People tend to have a gravity for the things that matter to them.
And don't let knowledge of fancy things keep you from finding joy in the basics.
This is the curve of mastery.
I think there's a saying that you learn decades of music so that you can forget it and just play - fairly similar things here
You learn things to the point of mastery. Mastery proves all the ways things won't work, leaving you with what will.
And often what will work are the fundamentals.
well, you don't "forget it" and play. you internalize it to the point you don't need to actively think about it but its still there influencing you
No, it's the hedonic treadmill.
It changes. Previously, I wouldn’t watch h264 videos that had wrong encoding settings (bad deblock, 2pass, bad crf). Now I don’t really care.
When I cared, I cared about movies as well. It’s just the energy of caring. Now I don’t find movies interesting at all.
I don't need any more hobbies. I already have too little time.
Also, shitty coffee ensures I don't drink even more. I failed with beer, so I am probably what some call a connaisseur. I learned a bit about whiskey, and once every 3 years I buy one I like, but I don't need an expensive hobby.
I used to build my own computers. Learned a lot, was fun. Now I exclusively use hand-me-downs. Understanding how I can get the same (perhaps more!) done within a smaller envelop is kind of it's own hobby.
I have a TV with a row of dead pixels. I don't need to watch even more.
The money saved this way is just a happy by product.
Work gave me a 5k monitor to use at home. I set it up dual monitor with my cheap-o monitor. Had to upgrade that as it looked awful. But now maybe better for my eyes?
When the Apple Air, with the M1 chip came out, I upgraded, because the charging port on med 2013 MacBook Pro was failing. It never occurred to me that my old laptop had terrible performance, it felt just fine. The comparison of the two made me not wanting to go back. Monitors feel like much the same, once you had a high DPI monitor, it's hard to go back.
I did look at the website of the local IT refurbishing company yesterday, and you can build a completely workable office/development machine (including monitor) for less than I paid for my current 4K display.
In some sense I am a little sad that I didn't just go down the route of refurbished hardware for 20% of the cost, but my eyes probably appreciates it.
I imagine your friend is talking about specific coffee preparations like "espresso" because, for example, there are hundreds of years of traditional Arabic coffee that continue to be appreciated for generations. Your friend reminds me of this movie scene in Mulholland Drive[1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVI-Jew-iHo
Here's a handy recipe for your friend: go to a blind tasting. This way, they will probably find out that they really can't tell a $15 coffee from a $150, or a $500 machine from a $ 5,000 one.
Works like a charm with wine: I know a lot about it, can maintain a conversation for hours, but will never buy anything above $50/bottle except for a gift.
For coffee, I get beans from a local roaster, like $14 per pound nowadays. I like the taste and it is nice to support someone local. Then I put it through a ~$200 Flair espresso machine. It is a manual press, so it has become a fun project/ritual. Plus, Americano is or espresso tastes better than coffee (and IMO mine is better than the coffee shop… a lot cheaper at this point I guess, too).
Same. This is a surprisingly simple recipe for a happy life and helps prevent lifestyle inflation. It reminds me of PG's "Keep your identify small" (https://paulgraham.com/identity.html).
Ignorance is bliss and cheap taste is the best one. This is the reason why I have been reluctant to learn about wines. I am satisfied with cheap wines and I would like to keep that way
How your friend enjoys coffee does not predict how you'll enjoy music? Getting wider ranges of experiences often is fun and worthwhile. Avoiding that to save a couple hundred bucks doesn't seem rational.
I deliberately avoided cultivating a taste in coffee and wine after having acquired a taste for good whisky. For exactly the same reason you mention: I knew my utility from drinking coffee/wine would stay constant, but the time and money cost of acquiring them would significantly increase.
There are certainly diminishing returns but good coffee is objectively better than some pre ground supermarket stuff. Part of it is recognizing what's a good value more than what's the best and most expensive.
Yup. A few years a go a friend of mine made me notice my cheap third-hand thinkpad t440 had screen tearing issues i had never noticed. I couldn't unsee them after that.
I wonder what they are doing now because specialty coffee was just starting to get traction 15 years ago, the scene is still evolving now.
The logical fallacy here is that the most expensive thing is the best, which can be the case sometimes but not all that often in my experience.
There's some music that simply can't be enjoyed as intended without a proper system. Like early Swans, for example.
it's stochastic, our tastes grow as we do, a stale mars bar is sufficient for a child, where a small square of 80+% dark single origin might be the evolution of that taste over thirty more years.
I was raised a snob by chefs, my snobbery extends to all areas of my life in the hope that I might find reason enough to stay.
Honestly that sounds like a personal issue. I’ve gf the opposite experience - trying the high quality version of a thing has allowed me to find more intentional appreciation of the low quality version. I like shitty wines better now that I know what a good wine is, because I know what I’m paying for. “This isn’t great but it was like $8” and “this is great and well-worth $40” are better together than just “this is cheap and I dont mind it” in my book.
Then again I’ve never understood the appeal of ‘ignorance is bliss’
Not to criticize your friend, but it isn't as if things following his path is sn inevitable law of nature.
Coincidentally I went from being an Audio consumer to a person that developes audio hard- and software, and mixes music in my spare time and deals with live sound in acoustically challenging rooms in my work (to keep things short, I do/did even more).
While I certainly spent some money on audio equipment, I can't say that you need infinitly expensive stuff to enjoy it. For me it went exactly the opposite way. Where as a teenager I thought you need all that expensive stuff to make and listen to music on a high level, I now know what matters and what doesn't.
There is a point beyond which things don't matter factually, because they are beyond the limits of human perception. Audiophiles then trick themselves into hearing the atoms that make up the wire, when every measurement doesn't show anything.
One of my mics I prefer most on floor drums is a modified Pyle Karaoke mic I got from Amazon for 30 bucks and added a cheap transformer into. My headphones are maybe 200 bucks (and half of that was paid for reliability, not for sound quality). I got a second pair for closer to 1200 bicks, but thst is just for retouche work where I need to hear the faintest background noises, I actually prefer the sound of the cheaper ones.
I am still amazed by most recordings I was amazed by when I started on my journey. In fact more so now.
We don't need to inevitably turn everything into a stage to show off our own mental superiority. Especially in the audiophile realm these people claim to hear things that they wouldn't be able to pick out reliably in a properly conducted double-randomized blind test. And everything else is basically worthless since you then just measure a persons ability to fool themselves.
Recently my assistant who just started out in the field came for advice. She wanted to spend some money on a mic and audio interface. And I recommended her one for a quarter of the price she planned on spending since it basically had the same measurements and better software support. As for mics I told her to test my mics with that interface and she should use that test to figure out what she wants. Originally she wanted to spend good money on getting an expensive studio mic, in the test my old dynamic Sennheiser MD21 that I got from ebay won. She got the same for cheap from there as well.
Don't get me wrong, I will be the first to hear bad acoustics, missaligned speakers, a dying loudspeaker suspension, a overdriven amplification system, a missed buffer deadline, a bad mix, a bad recording, phase issues, etc. It is my job to notice. But that doesn't mean I can't enjoy the music running over such a system as much as I did before I knew all that. In fact I might even enjoy it more.
I deliberately avoided fancy coffee because I didn't want to raise that bar and add a chore to my mornings, but last year I finally caved in. A friend asked incredulously "why wouldn't you want to enjoy something more?"
In hindsight it was dumb. I love the little ritual of making coffee. I finally notice coffee, the same way I notice good carpentry and art. It added another layer of understanding and appreciation to life.
Art is all about the shortcuts you choose to take to represent reality on a canvas. I think that life is the opposite. It's all about what you choose to complicate, to be deliberate about.
> I use $20 headphones and a $200 TV because I can't tell what "good" is, and I enjoy music and movies as much as my friends with $600 headphones and $3k TVs do.
It's the same argument as "why do you spend so much time and money on food, it's going to become shit anyway".
No, just no. You can close your eyes, chant lalala with plugged ears and inhale all sorts of copium, but listening uncompressed music and movies on expensive equipment is a completely different experience, period. You can't say that you enjoy it as much as they do, because you are you and they are they.
You misunderstand the point, I'm afraid. It's not that better things aren't better, it's that they don't increase your enjoyment of the better thing, but decrease your enjoyment of the worse thing.
The Allegory of the Cave
yeah but you can't tell what good is because you was not exposed to enough good TV. Taste and perception is much more of a developed skill than people realize.
Most often, people deliberately choose not to pursue a special interests area because of limited time / budget rather than a lack of perception for what is "good".
tldr ignorance is bliss
No shade! I have found the exact same thing.
And like the author, I agree that taste is acquired through tinkering and trying to be able to discern the qualities of one approach or one design over another. You can't have good taste in anything without having tried lots of variants in that domain -- wine, sushi, furniture, color, style, etc. Having this quality now is more important than ever for senior devs and mid-level devs that want to reach the next level.
When anyone can vibe code, it is the ones with "good taste" in the design of systems that will thrive. Anyone can use an agent and code fast; few will be able to do it fast and well and build systems that do not eventually collapse under the weight of their own tangled mess.
How to acquire it? Have a folder called `sandbox` and just build small projects in there and try new ideas, new techniques, new libraries you come across. Used a particularly interesting package? Go check out the GitHub repo and see how they did it; learn something new. Good taste can be acquired; it just surprises me how few devs actually care to seek it.
Having a distinctive style is also going to become increasingly rare in the age of LLMs. I see it with people at work already. They have no style. They learn very little. They get something to work but have no ability to discern whether it is a “good way” of doing it or simply “a way” of doing it. They have little interest in how or why things are built. I get the sense that they have little or no enjoyment or interest in deep understanding.
As a concrete example I just reviewed a PR for a feature that someone wanted to add to a flask app. It had a ton of terraform code, an aws api gateway, a lambda, etc. then on the flask app frontend they added a page with a call to this new API. I asked why they didn’t just add a route to the flask app. Blank stare response.
The Daily WTF is going to enter a new era soon.
(For those not familiar https://thedailywtf.com/)
I know exactly that blank stare response.
Very sad to me because the building and solving puzzles is the fun part.
Distinctive style is actually bad. You want your code to be uniform, readers should not be unable to tell who wrote what.
Otherwise you run into the danger of having parts that are peculiar and or obscure to everyone except the one who wrote them. That's if you are lucky, if you are unlucky the person who wrote them won't be able to decode them either.
Obviously there’s a line to draw somewhere so that your code doesn’t end up looking like a YouTube comment section or have half of its API with Spanish names. And if by style you mean that overly “clever” or dense code without detailed comments and formatting for readability ought to made digestible by those who lack context about the why/what of it, or that “dangerous” or unsafe practices like rust’s unsafe/python’s exec/C++ UB ought to be only permitted in exceptional situations, sure.
Everything else is so inconsequential that it truly pains me to see people spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars of their time having to indent, comment, or space things in a certain way just to get CI to pass or merge a PR.
I don’t give a fuck that Jeff wants to use 4-space tabs and I cannot tell you how much I resent spending tens of thousands of dollars of Google’s time pleasing the fucking Go linter or trying to figure out errors like “ERROR: const/var” that I can’t turn off because some master artisan truly finds it meaningful and important to make me declare const blocks before var blocks, and their OCPD and fulltime bikeshedding is more important than whatever actual work I’m trying to do to get them paid.
> Everything else is so inconsequential that it truly pains me to see people spending hundreds or even thousands of dollars of their time having to indent, comment, or space things in a certain way just to get CI to pass or merge a PR.
I generally agree with that sentiment, but the solution is to use automated formatting and lint fixing.
I as a mostly python developer have my gripe with mypy. The powers that be decided all code must pass mypy which means I have to spend hours of their money typing out trivially inferable types because myph can't infer the type of the empty dictionary I just defined when just two lines below I proceed to initialize it. Or it can't infer the return type of my function that returns true in half the return statements and false in the others.
If I wanted to write down types I would use another language. And if I didn't want duck typing I would write somekind of ML. In short I would never write out the types because that's compiler work. But nooooo All the cool kids use mypy and typescript so we have to as well.
You say that, but sufficiently advanced automated formatting and fixing can be its own kind of footgun. The unsung heroes behind making absolutely sure my code passed Go linting also enabled an automatic formatter that would constantly remove imports immediately after adding them, because they were now imported and not used.
However a normal person might actually handle auto formatting in their CICD still requires spending a decent amount of upfront time and ongoing maintenance on running scripts/containers that convert true tabs into 4-spaces tabs. Most of the time, anything that’s fully automatically formattable into something that passes linting is so trivially superficial like reordering or replacing or spacing out things, so if it’s necessary for anything more important than that I’d be questioning things.
I can actually see value in encouraging explicit types for most of the kind of stuff I work on, but I’d never choose Python for them to begin with because of that. LLMs make some of this stuff a lot easier to handle in one shot, but the ceremony and constant implication that you can’t be trusted to good work without being forced to wear a monkey backpack with a leash just wear you down when you run into them consistently over long periods of time.
A drive to simplicity and elegance can be a distinctive style.
I wouldn't get caught up in the word "distinctive" to the detriment of losing the larger point about creators being thoughtful and opinionated.
Simplicity is the most underrated attribute of a well-designed system.
There is a tendency for smart people to want to build complex solutions when often, the best solution is one that simple.
We had a dev recently write a whole source generation library to verify configuration at application startup. I pointed out that it would only save -- at most -- 14ms over a reflection based approach and that our application at startup is rolling over nodes in K8s and not a serverless function where cold starts matter.
It went from a 1600 line PR to a 60 line PR.
"Style" here isn't about "formatting"; it's about construction and technique.
I think you're conflating the look and feel of the website/app with the code itself
I don't think so, the parent is taking about the code.
I'm kind of confused by your post, as if you didn't read your parent poster at all and wanted to use the chance to write a lecture about CS101 concepts. Can you explain how your uniform code argument fits in at all with their example of introducing multiple other system components in a PR because they lacked the knowledge to add it in the correct area? Every piece of code they brought to that PR could have followed a uniform standard and still be considered a failure at understanding proper system architecture for their app, which is the discussion everyone else is actually having.
Within a module, yes. But it's ok for one module to be different from another because, you know, they are different modules that do different things (the difficult part is deciding what level your modules are split at, of course).
I absolutely agree.
If you look at my github, you might think I don't program all that much.
If you look at my ~/Code folder on my PC, you might think I program too much.
Tinkering with fun little projects has made me a better programmer and understand my language (Ruby) much better.
I put many of these into GH anyways because who knows when someone else might find it useful.
https://github.com/CharlieDigital?tab=repositories
Thanks for this, it's very timely for me: https://typescript-is-like-csharp.chrlschn.dev/
:-)
Which direction are you headed? C# -> TS? Or vice versa?
I'm curious to learn C# for a hobby project, and I know Typescript well enough so this feels like a good place to start if you use it as a reference?
It's the perfect place to start!
How do you deal with issues and feature requests? I used to put stuff on github, but nowadays I keep one off things mostly to myself. I don't want to do any support to strangers for things I have no interest in.
It makes me happy! It means people are using it :)
> When anyone can vibe code, it is the ones with "good taste" in the design of systems that will thrive. Anyone can use an agent and code fast; few will be able to do it fast and well and build systems that do not eventually collapse under the weight of their own tangled mess.
This.
Exactly. The best writers all have one thing in common: they’re voracious readers.
“Not all readers are leaders, but all leaders are readers,” said Truman…
Apparently not all 'leaders' ...
~ Michael Wolff, Fire and Furyhttps://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/america...
from his vocabulary you can tell he's at most semi-literate
I think that's a sign of senility more than anything else. There's been articles which show clips of his speech in the 1980s and 1990s. His vocabulary was much more extensive, and he used more complex sentences than the word salad he spews out these days.
"I was elected to lead, not to read"
Mostly unrelated, but XKCD is relevant here I think [0]. Taste doesn't just require a broad perspective; a broad view of a category produces taste.
[0] https://xkcd.com/915/
Never seen that one, thanks! Alt text: "Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit."
(And obligatory https://xkcd.com/1053/)
I used to resonate with the word "taste" as a distinguishing factor between good and bad quality, but a comment on HN some months ago about one of the many blog posts that talks about taste really nailed it:
"Taste" is just the degree to which two people value the same things.
When someone is rated as having "good taste" it just means that the person rating them values a lot of the same qualities.
The more I thought about it, the more that applies everywhere: Food, wine, clothes, architecture, software design, etc.
I would argue that taste is the ability to reason about one's own preferences.
A person who doesn't consider themself to have a taste in music and listens casually won't really be able to reason about why they like the music they do other than "I like the band" or "I like the song."
A person with taste in music is going to have listened to a larger variety, be able to speak passionately about it, and justify why they like and dislike particular music.
One is a boneheaded consumer, one is a fanatic.
Similarly with wine, you can't claim you've got taste when you've been drinking only red your whole life.
I struggle with the music one. I listen to a lot of different music, used see live music at least once a week, and have some strong opinions. I still struggle to explain music to others or why I enjoy certain artists/songs.
It is like the details don't register in a usable way, where one of my good friends will tell me he likes a band because of the guitar tone or the drummer's technique or something else that I struggle to explain or even pick out of the music. I wish I could explain my preference better.
What music do you listen to?
Software is a bit different from music or wine because taste can mean “has the right function and attention to detail and aesthetic and interface and data model and conforms to my expectations and has a certain kind of API and has documentation with actual examples and uses the right JavaScript framework and”, whereas taste in wine can mean “has a blend of flavors that I particularly like” and taste in music can mean “pushes the boundaries of its genre and introduces genuinely new sounds”. Most but not all of what we want out of software is about function and utility and intuitive UX.
But wine and music and other subjective consumption-hobbies that enable snobbery are much less grounded in practicality and tend to become arenas for novelty/pure experimentation (charitably) or countersignaling and identity-building (uncharitably). So you end up with situations where the people who “have good taste” consistently associate themselves with music that sounds legitimately bad to regular listeners or never gets popular enough to be recognizable because it’s about being better than casual music listeners more than it is about the music to them. Or, proclaiming that no taste preferences for icecream products are worthy of respect unless they come from someone that regularly consumes pistachio ice cream - it’s not about the ice cream to them.
That’s why we can say “this UI needs to be collapsible and expanded by default” about software - we want it to be a certain way. The type of people who relish in their taste in music and ice cream don’t tend to say things like “maybe cut the bridge 10 seconds and add some kind of duet with reverb” or “it used too much nitrate fertilizer for loamy soil and ended up kind of woody (for ice cream)” because they want themselves to be a certain way.
There's plenty of room for creativity, and therefore taste, when developing software that meets functional requirements.
I don’t dispute that. What I’m saying is that functional and even non-functional taste in software tends to be grounded in how it can more effectively serve our needs. In a way that’s actually a more profound kind of creativity and taste than something that tries to just look cool.
OTOH music and anything else snob-adjacent aren’t grounded in serving our direct needs to some other end the same way software tends to be, so to them “taste” could be reducible to just a favorite flavor or becomes a kind of status/value/oneupmanship. The products are consumed directly as ends unto themselves so people who have strong opinions on their comparative tastefulness care about that for different reasons than they do software.
Taste is fashion, baby.
Taste has nothing to do with your awareness of your preference, and cannot exist in a social vacuum.
Taste has everything to do with others opinions of your preference: If your preferences, on display, are enough to bring many others to agree that your preferences are similar to their preferences, you have good taste. If your preferences, when encountered, are enough to bring others preferences into alignment with yours, you have excellent taste. If you can recognise what is the new hotness before anyone else does, you have even better taste. You don't have to be able to justify it, you just have to know it.
You don't need to be aware of this to be happening. You can have incredible taste while just sitting around and doing your own thing.
You can have incredible taste in only red wine without ever tasting white. You can have good taste in only hip-hop and not jazz, or in impressionist art and not abstract expressionism, or any other number of things.
If I know that your recommendation for a category is going to be good, then I know you have good taste.
no, taste is ability to evaluate. You can still consume trash even if you have taste.
There are two definitions of taste:
1. How good or bad something is relative to some standard.
2. How well you're able to understand the medium and identify the differences between things.
That's not true. The best evidence that somebody has taste is that they introduce something to you (a band, a movie, etc.) that you've never encountered, but they are correct that you love it. But whatever they chose to share might not be their favorite work of art. They just knew that you would like it, because not only do they have a well formed sense of what they like and why, they can read other people the same way. They can find enjoyment in a huge range of art, because they can tap into what about it is enjoyable rather than reflexively labeling things good or bad. That is the definition of people with taste.
I think a distinction can be made between bad taste and different tastes.
One of the greatest developers I've worked with, who I learned a lot from and respect immensely, has extremely different tastes in software from me. To the point where I wouldn't say I think he has good taste.
But, his work still has a distinct style and intention. I can tell anytime I come across libraries he had a hand in. I understand what the code is doing and why is is correct, even when I disagree with it.
And I think that is what is important. When working with more junior people, I'll ask them why they did things a certain way and will generally me be with a "well, idk" of some variant of path dependence.
I think developing that intentionality as a developer is important. Which does come with some amount of aesthetic, and I think taste is a defensible metaphor.
I actually see no difference in the two definitions unless you also slide in the idea that things are more relative and less clearly good/bad with the second. That seems to be the natural implication and the real difference, more so than the shift to "valuing."
- a distinguishing factor between good and bad quality
- the degree to which two people value the same things
If we don't also accept that implication, then its just the same thing. People thinking good things are good vs people thinking bad things are good.
I understood “taste” here to mean opinions. It’s not “good taste” it’s just “some taste”. IMO there are many ways to express taste that are not tinkering, such as preferentially selecting things and my personal favourite, complaining :) Nevertheless I think he means opinions rather than some universally good taste.
Haha, "complaining" reminded me of someth that made me laugh a few years back, along the lines of:
Always loved this Michael Caine line from the third Austin Powers movie: "There's two things I can't stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other peoples' cultures, and the Dutch."
I'd like to refine this a bit because I agree, but in a slightly different way.
> I understood “taste” here to mean opinions.
Good taste is the ability to have nuanced and specific opinions.
This comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45740478 said it well:
> 2. How well you're able to understand the medium and identify the differences between things.
Combining these two ideas: Taste is the ability to understand the topic/craft/medium well enough to have a strong opinion about what good is, and usually that opinion is similar to other well experienced practitioners.
In software engineering it's the ability to recognize an elegant solution that avoids pitfalls that the observer may have experienced in the past.
In other fields it might be that someone with good taste can better understand and appreciate the process or journey to get to whatever $thing is being evaluated, and they appreciate the $thing more because they can empathize more fully with the creator, compared to a layman.
I agree with you. But taste is a skill that should be learned. People who have better taste can select better stuff by their skill.
I feel this is kind of missing the point that was being made. “Better” is subjective.
If taste is being learned, who is the teacher? Are you learning about your own tastes or adopting the tastes of the teacher?
Who has better taste, the user of spaces or tabs? There is no right answer, just those who agree with you and those who don’t.
I just want to work with someone who can clearly articulate why they chose tabs or spaces (in this example), not someone who gives a blank stare. E.g I want someone with their own tastes.
I agree fully with this. I was on a project once and the manager leading it would tell me to do things I thought were in pour taste. I gave him a list of reasons why I thought a different direction would be better. He couldn’t backup his opinions at all, but thought he was right based on his title. Eventually he got sick of fighting with me and installed a PM to deliver his baseless and tasteless opinions. That PM said he thought my design was better, but his job was to be the mouthpiece for the manager to push the worse design. He didn’t have any power, so me pushing back on what he said was a waste of breath.
People with strong opinions, who can’t back them up with reasons why they hold them, is a huge pet peeve of mine. This project was the most clear example of that.
With the above scenario, I eventually just made what he wanted, then secretly made what I wanted as well. This was an internal product. I told a few people about my secret page. Over the next couple months, 100% of the team was using my secret page and no one wanted to use the manager’s design. Once he was no longer paying attention to the project, I swapped out my secret page for the main page and it’s been that way ever since.
Some tastes are acquired.
Absolute aesthetic relativism is the complete opposite of "thinking about", it's giving up to the cult of modernity, an intellectual shortcut to avoid the complicated and controversial question of "I instinctively know that objective good/bad exists but what is it, to what extent can it be formalized and separated from my opinion, how does it interact with subjective qualities?".
That shortcut leads to a dead end that only contains the rotting corpse of truth and integrity.
Some of the worse engineers I've ever interacted with had too strong of a "taste" for what they felt were right and were completely unable or unwilling to work outside of that. Developing a superiority complex because you think you have "taste" is a great way to torpedo your team.
Coding for others is not art, it does not have much meaning in of itself. Your users won't marvel at your choice of language or your usage of design patterns - they care about how the end product looks and works.
In a world like that where you have to work in a team, why you ever wear your inflexibility as a badge of pride? The ones who are the most useful are the ones who can code any way, any how, and can plugin anywhere - "taste" be damned. If you want to be a net positive on the teams you work on, stop thinking it's about you, because it's not.
> Coding for others is not art.
It absolutely is, and I think it's what separates good from bad and junior from senior devs.
Most devs can produce an artifact that more or less works. But one that has an internal consistency others can understand and extend, one which accurately captures the problem as it exists and ways it will likely change, is much more of an art form.
A big part of that is knowing which situations are worth making a stand. Every you write code or leave feedback, your doing it for your team current and future.
Nothing that you talked about pertains to art. Writing good code does not mean you're making art.
You shouldn't strive for internal consistency with yourself, you should strive for external consistency with the other developers in your team. If someone reads your code and immediately knows it was you, you probably aren't doing a good job.
And that's the difference. If you are doing a good job as a software engineer, no one should notice you. If you're making good art, everyone should see you. And that is the difference between devs who think they're good, and devs who are truly good.
Code can be art but not all code should or even could be art. Like there is just zero utility or elegance in formatting your bash script with pretty comments and some elegant data model if it’s just something you run to manually pull metrics from a staging environment or whatever.
I see code more like rocks, nails, planks, tape, shards of broken glass, and a pile of signs that say things like RADIOACTIVE - DO NOT ENTER. If you need to do something cool with that stuff you probably do need to create something that looks pretty interesting and elegant in spite of your choice in building materials. But sometimes you just need to take a NO TRESPASSING sign and tape it to a plank that you jam into a pile of rocks. Don’t need to find a hammer if you don’t use nails, only need it up for a day, just one of a hundred things on your plate to do something of bigger scope and impact - just make sure the rocks are big enough to keep the plank standing, leave and forget about it.
Spot on! The real difference between having great taste and just thinking you do lies in understanding the user's needs deeply. Good design isn’t just about looking pretty; it’s about nailing that value. And yeah, it’s no walk in the park!
> Your users won't marvel at your choice of language or your usage of design patterns - they care about how the end product looks and works.
Yeah, but if the patch is unreadable slop, some tasteful choices that make the code more maintainable will make features and bugfixes come faster for users and number go up for the business.
Unreadable slop and "tasteful" choices are independent of each other. You can make "tasteful choices" that makes code unreadable (I know from experience).
Readability also has some level of objectiveness to it. There's only so many ways you can abstract a concept, and so many ways you can express logic.
In that sense, readability has way more to do with skill in abstraction, than taste. In fact picking bad abstraction layers or expressing logic in odd manners because of taste is a great way to write unreadable slop.
> ...there are two kinds of people, those who do things only if it helps them achieve a goal, and those who do things just because. The ideal, of course, is to be a mix of both.
This is related to what Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance calls the romantic (subjective, "artistic") and the classical (objective, "scientific") understanding. He, too, points that the ideal is to enjoy both. Not because there are both useful and have their place and time, but because this is a false dichotomy to begin with and, ideally, one should refrain from defining the splitting and abandon both concepts (after all, the Zen in the title is there for a reason).
This is the second article I've seen on taste here. It seems to me the author's definition of "tinkering" is primarily describing hyperfocused, repetitive behaviors found in neurodivergent individuals, potentially even a complex form of stimming. I think this is unrelated to taste.
I think good taste in engineering comes down to a mix of skill and knowledge. It isn't just about how you can reach a goal, but rather about having a solid internal map of the world and an understanding of which parts of the map you are unfamiliar with. To those lacking knowledge, the map can deceptively appear much smaller. Skill allows you to effectively find your way to the places you know you can go. With knowledge and skill, taste comes naturally. Those with bad taste, I've found, are those with limited knowledge of the vast universe of tools available and/or the lack of skill needed to utilize those tools effectively.
I think the author has a point, but his examples are bad. He talks about mouse sensitivity, windows manager, keyboard switches, and vscode. All those things were made to be tweaked. He's not so much exploring as he is playing with a toy the way it was intended. The stickiest learning comes from getting things wrong, and that happens when you're using things the way you're not supposed to. For example disassembling a microwave. Not the keyboard switches.
The world has become so comfy that even tweaking has been packaged and monetized by some company. That's right, I'm gatekeeping tweaking, sue me.
> For example disassembling a microwave
Getting this wrong will not be a learning experience, because it will kill you. This is an incredibly dangerous thing to do and should only be done by people who already know what they're doing.
That's not just a tangential tidbit -- you don't learn well when you are completely out of your depth. You learn well when you are right at the edge of your ability and understanding. That involves risk of failure, but the failure isn't the important part, operating on the boundary is.
Yes, disassembling and tinkering with microwave is almost the only easily available thing I would not recommend at all because it seems so ordinary but actual danger is way too high and hidden. Even if you know exactly the dangers, it takes only one distracted move, just being tired or too complacent to end really badly. Like even some medium time disconnected and expectedly safe units can have real nasty shock in them when discharge resistor is faulty, that failure mode does not usually kill but not recommended.
I’d like to tinker with that font, it burns my eyes to try and read the words styled like that, maybe that’s the intent?
Not gonna lie, but I liked the vibe, maybe that's what author meant by different tastes :p
It sent me back in time, very nostalgic. I even took a few minutes to sit and enjoy the moment and remember what it was like to explore the internet on a pixelated CRT in the 90s.
I suspect it's a generational gap.
I’m in my mid 40’s, and have been using computers since the mid ‘80s. What generation are you from?
Yours. I can't explain your frustration then, or why the author's intent escaped you. If you use Firefox there's a little reader-mode icon in the address bar you may find convenient.
Yeah I'm not finding it compelling to listen to someone's ideas about "taste" when they think that font is tasty.
i am the author! apologies, i will be adding a toggle to disable the scanline effect
I imagine the intent is to simulate the look of an old CRT monitor
the entire page has horizontal lines washed over it
At the wrong refresh rate so did my monitor at one point.
I adore the font and the vibe. Maybe age or something but I love it.
the real tinkerers skim through that shit in text-based browsers - using their choice of a font and a color theme.
i am fascinated with that effect and turned off every CSS rule on the page I could find but did not identify how you make that effect
I love it too. Appears to be accomplished with this CSS, which you can tinker with by finding the :after element at the bottom of the <body> tag in browser devtools:
i figured that's what it was, but i didnt know how to find it in the browser tools but i missed the "after" part, so yeah it's in the "pseudo-elements". nice!
I think the problem, for me, is that people turn tinkering on something INTO the hobby. People will spend years tweaking their 3d printer to have the perfect settings and have a bunch of weird plastic things attached that make it look like something from Tron but will never design and print anything useful. Same with so many things, the guy mentioned neovim and it's the same there. I am not here to judge people's hobbies but I think a lot of people have too much taste these days based on discussion on reddit. It's annoying, you can barely find a community that isn't just overly toxic about each aspect of their hobby.
Try going to any random hobby subreddit. Browse for a little while and try to not find like "The community favorite" (which is actually just the most expensive, well-marketed option) that everyone swears by and will make others feel like, if they don't have that, they don't have anything.
This has sometimes been my problem.
Most notably, for example, instead of having fun playing video games, I spent time benchmarking my hardware, making charts and graphs comparing the different hardware I owned. (There's a place for that, but I was no Anandtech!) And then I'd buy a new video card, run benchmarks for a week, and then forget to play any games.
I also spent a LOT of time making a French cleat wall in my workshop. And building a workbench. And making a mobile table for my miter saw. The tools all saw more use making the workshop than they did building the things.
On the other hand... when my spouse said "could you build a bed frame for our mastiff?" I made a beautiful, very functional, perfectly fitted bed frame with a latching gate over the course of a few hours, assembled and in use. I was ready. I had tinkered so much I was pretty good at the final pursuit. (For deeper context for those that care, we would totally let our mastiff sleep in our bed, but she kicks while she dreams. Without the fencing / gate on her personal Twin XL bed, she would just hop in the bed as soon as we fell asleep, and we'd wake up to her sitting on us or kicking us. She happily goes into her personal bed space at night when she's ready to move from sleeping somewhere else to sleeping in her bed for the night.)
I don't know if taste is the correct word here but I agree with the spirit of the article, especially the parts on tinkering being a form of practice. Play (in the form of enjoyable tinkering) is such a powerful motivator in learning. In saying that I've found two big limitations with this style of play-based learning:
1. It can easily devolve into meaningless tweaking (see author's point about touching dotfiles) which can still be satisfying but not very impactful. 2. It's hard to maintain motivation when something stops being fun. This is where external motivators like bosses, clients and scoreboards (e.g. Advent of Code) are actually valuable...
I moved away from tinkering, ever since I had to juggle family, job, chores, and social contacts. I don't want to spend the little free time I have fixing broken configs. Instead of rolling my own self-build NAS / home server like I used to, I just have a Synology now. I moved back to Windows after I fcked my graphics driver on linux and didn't have enough time to fix it in a day or two.
Still, I love the tinkering spirit, and it still is a part of me, but it's not very pragmatic to implement in my life nowadays.
For many things, tinkering is a hobby. Obsidian note keeping strategy is another one I see a lot. No thanks. I'll just brain dump into files in a flat directory and use search if I ever need to. Do whatever works for you but I'm not going to take notes in a way where my ability to take notes requires maintenance.
You can literally use Obsidian as a plain text dump with search, nobody is forcing you to use advanced features.
Sure. But that's specifically not what I'm talking about.
As a person who doesn't do much tinkering the thing I dislike about this article is it doesn't really get across to me why the author likes tinkering so much or why I should either. Not saying that the article is bad but I was curious about the author's mindset and felt he didn't talk more about the appeal of tinkering.
> is it doesn't really get across to me why the author likes tinkering so much or why I should either
It's literally stated in the second paragraph: "It’s how I learn." You can learn how the things around you work by tinkering with them.
Of course, you can then ask why someone would want to learn things, or why they enjoy learning, and I honestly don't know how to explain that, but I feel like it's the sort of thing that shouldn't need to be asked.
I used to tinker with fonts, colors, etc but as I’ve gotten older I just accept the defaults in most things. You can waste any number of hours on that stuff and in the end it makes very little difference.
Fonts are like my dotfiles, I fucked with fonts.conf a decade+ ago and have just lived with that since then.
So I get to be very particular, but also not have to care about tweaking, I did all the work back when I had time for that.
I will argue that if you stare at a screen for hours a day, might as well make it pleasant with good hinting/anti-aliasing/features and a professional font instead of Dejavu Sans lol
I wish this viewpoint were more common/well-known. Somehow people get it in their head that people are tinkering with all their stuff constantly and never working, but just as TFA says, you'll have configs that haven't changed in over 6 months and are customized to your liking so you can work more efficiently and comfortably. Get a new PC? rsync configs over, or git clone your dotfiles repo or whatever. The work you put in doesn't disappear.
I wish I could tinker with the font on this website. It flickers as it scrolls and does my head in!
It's the scanline effect, here's three lines of JS to disable it from the developer console
I maintain a personal dotfiles repo on github, and when I start at a new job etc, I just git clone my dotfiles repo and then run ./setup.sh and everything is set up nicely with my fonts, colors, and stuff. It didn't take much effort at all and I get to use what I like. And I haven't tweaked my dotfile in years.
And from an accessibility standpoint, default fonts and colors are very safe as well. They tend to be easier to see and process.
I still tinker as I get older, except instead of fonts I'm buying a dual monitor setup with a 6-foot standing desk.
My life hack for switching fonts - buy a Berkeley Mono license so I cannot possibly use any other font bc I’d be wasting money. Nice font too.
Feeling the same. I used to have a highly customised Liunx setup, then I got a macbook from work and hated everything that was different from what my linux desktop did. But eventually you just get over it and realise it's all fine and works. Being unfamiliar with something is different from it being bad.
^^^ this, with life coming more to the ending part you start to value your time that you got left
tinkering is good when you're < 30 or maybe even < 25
> No time spent learning, is time wasted.
From TFA.
If you don't want to tinker, don't! But it's absurd to suggest that it's only something for children to enjoy. (30 should not be considered near the end of your life btw.) Please don't tell others they should feel bad about learning for fun because they're adults.
Tinkering is good no matter how old you are, this is weird gatekeeping
Or in this case, tinkering with fonts simply reduces legibility.
Tinkering with fonts is the only way to get fonts that improve legibility by replacing ambiguous glyphs with unabiguoius. ie programmer fonts. Every day it boggles my mind that password managers use fonts that don't distinguish 1Il| 0O etc. cut & paste does not help when you need to speak them into a phone or type them into some other device. Same applies to simple part numbers, serial numbers etc, just all data.
Something I say about complainers applies here:
In the entire history of the world not one thing has ever gotten better by accepting something as it is.
Go ahead and never tinker, but don't delude yourslef it's a virtue. It's merely something you're free to do because it doesn't actively harm anyone else.
The irony of an article about taste displaying little of it.
The fact that the author went out his way and styled it very uniquely displays that he does have taste :) It is just that your taste is different. Like another commenter pointed out, I liked the style (though I hated the pixelated font to begin with)
I don't mind any color palette or font or anything as long as it keeps text readable. But this choice is just user unfriendly. These horizontal black lines across the display just render text unreadable. Not to mention that sans serif for a longread is also a bad taste
Funny part is he points out at the end that it's highly subjective...
I actually really liked the look of the blog. It gave me a retro vibe, which is obviously what he was going for. But I'm also reading on my phone. Maybe the choice was more annoying on a larger screen.
Once one gets over the infatuation phase one realizes how subjective taste really is. I thihk there are some common points though that one can tell someone has refined taste without necessarily liking it
I just came here to say I think the blog design had a really cool look, it brought me back to my early days plugging away on old Apple IIes and IBMs.
Could someone here pitch me on neovim?
I'm a VSCode user and when I hear people talk about neovim and it customizability or its productivity, I think to myself "VSCode is also very customizable and there's a lot of ways to get a lot of productivity out of it, why would I use neovim?".
Surely there's something I'm missing? Does it help you stay more in the flow or something? Is it because it's faster? Maybe it's because it's an editor you can easily use while ssh'd into a remote machine? Please enlighten me!
Most of the things I do with Neovim I could probably also do with VS Code (not sure about autocommands and macros though, I haven't used Code in years). I don't use a mouse much, I have a very keyboard-centric workflow. I was a Code user for years, but did most everything else in the terminal. I figured I would give it a try and I ended up just liking it. I like to tinker. I like to tweak my configuration. I like how I can set autocommands for things, pipe text into Vim and manipulate it, or record a quick macro for some repetitive task. I like that there are "Vim keymap" plugins for things like Firefox, so learning basic Vim keys has helped me outside of Vim. I like that I keep discovering new things Vim can do (and then promptly forgetting them most of the time, but still). I also like to spend 2 hours writing something to automate something that saves me two seconds.
It's absolutely not for everyone, though it looks like some of the pre-built configs (NvChad, LaZyVim, etc.) are decent enough of the box now that you don't need to go on the endless-customization journey if you don't want to. To me though, that's the appeal: tinkering, tweaking, refining. Generally when people ask if they should use Vim, I tell them probably not but try it for a few weeks and see if it clicks in your brain. I had a great VSCode setup, everything worked great, I was productive, but something about Vim just made more sense to me once I got over the hump of modes and all the keymaps you need to turn into muscle memory.
Edit: I also like that I can do abominations like:
("def" @keyword (#set! conceal "ƒ"))
("if" @keyword (#set! conceal "?"))
("unless" @keyword (#set! conceal "¿"))
("else" @keyword (#set! conceal "∶"))
("elsif" @keyword (#set! conceal "⁇"))
("case" @keyword (#set! conceal "⟨?"))
("when" @keyword (#set! conceal "→"))
("begin" @keyword (#set! conceal "⌊"))
to make Ruby look absolutely insane. Is it useful? No. Do people hate it when I share my screen? Yes.
I'll second the enjoyable parts of Neovim shared above, and add a few more of my own: - vi uses most of the same default keybindings, which is available across most distros (in busybox). Meaning I can use the same keybindings in a docker container, appliance server, etc. - With the conform[1] plugin, I can add any CLI code/text formatters that might not be available as a vscode extension. As long as it takes a file/stdin and outputs a file/stdout.
[1] https://github.com/stevearc/conform.nvim
In the end, it's still just a text editor. Don't expect that you will get things done n times faster than in vscode without extra effort added.
I think it's more customizable than vscode, but you need to learn some lua or vimscript to customize it. Back then I tried to create some custom keybindings in vscode and realized you can't add new ones, only modify what exists. While (n)vim provides you with out-of-the-box flexibility and more if you use something like LazyVim. What I retroactively like about (n)vim is that, after the initial learning cost, it turns out the default nvim keybindings are transferable to many UNIX tools (less/more, man, journalctl, etc). It feels much more comfortable to write some code in nvim, open up a terminal, and then `man X` without mentally switching the keybindings. Actually, rather than nvim itself, it's more like vim is already preinstalled in many popular server distros. It's sometimes a huge time saver in cases where you're unable to install additional packages to edit some config/code/text files, just type `vim`/`vi` and you're good to go.I did convert myself from a minimal vscode setup (disabled everything & only LSP extensions) to LazyVim nvim a few months ago. I had to tweak my .config/nvim, relearn Lua again, and read the manual. It took me about a week to settle things down and get used to basic nvim bindings.
After another week of suffering trying to fix JDTLS (Java LSP) integration, I'm enjoying my nvim setup. Unlike vscode sync which requires you to login, I could just git clone my `.config/nvim` and I'm good to go.
If you dislike the terminal or aren’t comfortable there, you should try using the vim keybinds for VSCode. They’ll get you most of the way there, and the rest is a lot of customization to get things how you like. The vim motions are the best part! They take a while to get used to, but they’re incredibly convenient.
Thanks! I've also heard this advice before elsewhere.
Also question: is there much of a reason to switch to neovim after learning vim motions in vscode?
I don't want to sound like "advising", because long-term recommendations often carry the personal weight with them- whatever I tell you worked (or didn't) for me had an effect on me - it's never guaranteed to have any implications on someone else's life.
But here's what I learned after a long time trying different things and what's worked.
Don't try to find objective reasons for making big shifts in your workflow - be that a change of your major tool, language, technique, or paradigm. What I mean is: don't try to decide if any concrete tool would be good for you. Instead, try to understand the big underlying idea behind the tool. Once you comprehend the abstraction, choosing a concrete implementation of that idea wouldn't really matter - you can carry the big idea with you regardless of one concrete implementation.
In practice, here's what I mean: the idea of vim-navigation is absolutely beautiful, pragmatic, and fantastic, and it's positively worth every minute of the initial learning curve. It's really not that hard - it only requires just a bit of dedication and discipline. I honestly don't understand programmers who choose to be in this field, yet outright reject the mere idea of it after trying it for like six minutes.
Just go with it - you probably will hate me, everyone else in this thread, and yourself for a few days, but then it will grok. Once you have a good understanding of its tenets, you could easily take it to whichever medium you choose to stay in and it doesn't even have to be neovim.
Neovim might be great for you, and maybe not even as a concrete tool to achieve defined goals, but even as a head-start medium to understand the 'big idea' of vim-navigation.
Finally, whenever picking up a new thing, maybe don't try to find elevator pitches. After the initial acquaintance - Wikipedia, GitHub pages, etc. - google instead: "Why does [that thing] suck..." and maybe try instead to find compelling reasons to remain skeptical. Trying to remain unconvinced may help you find perspectives for why a certain idea is a matter of fact might be a good one to have in your pocket.
> the 'big idea' of vim-navigation
What is the 'big idea'?
"The Idea" here I think is in the revelation of the ultimate preeminence of text in a programmer's life. Plain text deserves our utmost attention, yet many programmers overlook its significance and rarely give it deliberate thought.
"Text can convey ideas with a precisely controlled level of ambiguity and precision, implied context and elaborated content, unmatched by anything else."¹
Vim-navigation provides a mental and spatial "language" that enables efficient text manipulation through keyboard input. Rather than forcing your brain to process raw character chunks on the screen, it allows you to reason about text in meaningful units: letters, words, paragraphs, tags, nested structures - e.g., "delete everything between parentheses" - and more.
Sadly, we keep moving away from plain text conventions, making our work increasingly complicated. Have you ever tried quickly extracting text interwoven with code from Slack into your editor? Ever gotten mad when websites won't let you copy the content or use colors and fonts that make it unreadable?
I implore every programmer to reject the status quo and reclaim agency over text interactions - always find ways to deal with text on your own terms. For instance, I'm reading this thread and typing this very comment in my editor. Why wouldn't I? It has all the tools I need for it - vim-navigation, thesaurus, dictionaries, translation, etymology lookup, LLMs, and tons of other tools.
Final point: do not assume code is somehow different. Code simply is structured text. Don't try to find perfect "code editor", prioritize plain text. Good plain text editors are the best code editors, but even the most sophisticated IDE at some points brings mostly frustration if it cannot nicely handle the simplicity of plain text.
___
¹. Graydon Hoare. Always bet on text - https://graydon2.dreamwidth.org/193447.html
When using vscode or its derivatives, I find the customizability is very limited. You have a couple of settings, but any new functionality basically requires writing a whole new extension and nobody really does that.
Meanwhile with vim I often add one or two lines to a local vimrc script which adds some project-specific command or keybind. For example - take ioctl name under the cursor, translate to the handler function name and open corresponding driver file in split view. It only saves a couple seconds but makes it so much more natural to analyze code. I have no clue how I would go about doing that in vscode.
I used vim for decades and the sensation is that I can hold the code in my hands and manipulate it directly. Other editors feel like I’m wearing thick gloves, can’t move correctly.
but it’s like learning to play the piano, it only feels natural after years of practice
nowadays I’m faster with Cursor so it doesn’t matter as much
So you use Cursor now? Do you at least still use vim motions there?
no, emulated vim motions annoy me because they’re always slightly wrong, especially for the interesting stuff like multi-line selections. Or, worse, I’ve got stuff in my muscle memory from the `surround.vim` plugin that isn’t emulated. Easier to just open vim in a terminal if I want to do surgery on a file.
Used to use VSCode. There was a point in time where it felt clunky on Wayland due to electron.
Neovim worked the same just about everywhere and I could choose my terminal. Especially with tiling, for me it's just feels better.
If you like using VSCode and are productive in it, keep on using it.
The big advantage of vim/neovim is that you can do everything in the keyboard and it can be very efficient. It is also lightweight.
However the learning curve is massive IME. I don't like either and pay for Jetbrains tooling.
For one, you don't have to figure out how to remove whatever random AI UI element and integration MS decided to introduce and turn on by default every update.
I don't think "taste" in UI-adjacent things is important.
Tinkering habit is kind of important as even small interactions help to build an internal model of how things work, how to operate them, etc. And this model might generalize.
If you're going to make changes, make big changes. Learn to squat 100kg. Finish a triathlon. Learn intermediate Chinese. These are all impactful goals you can hit in a year, worth way more than colors and fonts.
Web designers with good taste in colors and fonts often make more money than weightlifters, triathletes, and the average Chinese speaker.
Nobody who is raising children is able to do those things in a year.
Raising a child well is also an impactful goal.
Millions of people with children do those things every year.
Increasingly many aren't raising children either. I'm trying to move to a saner country.
What exactly does "taste" mean in this context? Taste is about artistic quality. Aesthetics is generally a tertiary concern when it comes to software or hardware tinkering. That assumes it's a concern at all.
And while I'm talking about artistic quality on HN, I have to take some obligatory potshots at the website in question. When I have to use Safari's reader mode to see what you wrote, something has gone terribly wrong.
I know everyone is busy but the author provides the definition explicitly:
> And what I mean by taste here is simply the honed ability to distinguish mediocrity from excellence. This will be highly subjective, and not everyone’s taste will be the same, but that is the point, you should NOT have the same taste as someone else.
Concisely, discernment.
So your comment about “artistic quality” may apply. But from your ends sentence It seems you equate “artistic quality” to aesthetics , and I don’t think that’s what the author intended.
That's on me, I missed that.
If you could indulge me a bit, the author in me wants to be pedantic about this. :)
In my defense, changing the definition of a term at the end of the article is begging to be misunderstood.
> GitHub desktop rather than the cli (at the very least)
I keep hearing this same "GitHub Desktop bad, git cli good" take, but I just don't see how the cli can compete terms of things like being able to go through each changed file, see a clean visual representation of all my changes, and to choose exactly what lines I want to commit just by clicking on them.
I've spent an inordinate time tuning my home nas to what I want to do. e.g. NPM reverse proxy with all kinds of docker apps and configuring it securely made me appreciate how tough cyber security is. My latest venture was to create several docker images for whatever environment I want: VsCode Remote SSH server, a docker image with a custom LLM, sync thing for obsidian notes across all devices
My goal is to de Google with home nas hosting a bunch of services. I want to take all my Dropbox photos and recreate what Google memories does using off the shelf AI tools on my nas. Then email and finally maps with great PoI data.
Probably not all of what I did is a differentiator that put my learning beyond mediocrity. But a good yard stick is if what I built is useful to someone and even better if one would pay me for something.
I’m starting to believe that taste in code isn’t something you’re born with. It’s something you build after getting burned by your own mistakes again and again. I used to think some code just looked nice, but now I can explain why it works.
How did you develop your sense of taste in code? Any stories or lessons worth sharing?
I think there is too much associating taste with quality. We can see it in many of these comments and in the post as well:
> And what I mean by taste here is simply the honed ability to distinguish mediocrity from excellence.
And I say, maybe. But more than quality I think taste is a way to discern what’s unique and novel. In my mind it doesn’t necessarily mean that it has to be “excellent” because, as the post mentions, everyone’s “excellent” may be different.
Why do I think this distinction is important? Because if taste is about seeing the nuances that make something interesting instead of what makes it “good” then getting to good taste promotes open minded exploration (healthy exploration) over status seeking.
You don't have interesting taste if you write articles like this.
People are just figuring out taste matters for product, so at this pace in 10 years they'll figure out that having novel tastes that aren't just a distillation of the echo chamber you live in matters just as much.
I love tinkering but I'm very minimalist as far as tooling is concerned. I don't like to use too many tools. I only use tools to automate activities that I do frequently. I don't try to micromanage and automate every aspect of my existence. Some stuff is better left uncounted and unplanned.
A lot of other people who like tinkering seem to have a kind of obsession with using all the latest gadgets to solve the tiniest problems. IMO, there's a point when you're so into automation that you end up looking for problems to use your tools on. You end up introducing new problems into your life, just so you can solve them using your tool of choice. Your life becomes like a Rube Goldberg machine.
Tinkering is a very demanding activity, especially when you are total newbie at a new domain. The first steps are very intellectual-draining. [and that is probably why so few people learn new things, when adults].
Having good mentors [on Youtube, among your friends, or a vendor at a localshop] can really help you figure out things much faster, that will have taken forever to discover by yourself.
So don’t fear to ask !
Tinkering is the ultimate satisfaction of a hacker. When you love perfecting your tools, shaping your terminal, your Emacs, your Neovim, or whatever tool you use, exactly the way you want it. You spend hours doing it and feel enormous satisfaction from every small improvement.
That is exactly what a Japanese swordsmith, a chef, or a craftsman does. Perfecting their work, finding joy in refinement, and taking pride in the process itself.
I used to see tinkering as a form of procrastination. But not anymore. What does that even mean? That we should be doing something else, and devalue this activity? What if this very activity, and the results it produces, bring me deep satisfaction? In that case, it is not procrastination. It is the perfection of the art.
This is not what a Japanese swordsmith or any craftman does, they obsess over the end result, polishing it until it reaches perfection.
Riced out Neovim/emacs setup doesn't and hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will.
If it did, world would be full of polished, high quality software, what instead we have is endless sea of garbage produced by these cough, cough "craftsmen" - that obsess about everything else, but the actual end product.
Well, very valid points you made. I must admit.
Edit: But why do you believe that my super polished and streamlined WezTerm is less worth than a japanese sword? :) Which value has a perfectly made sword in a world today? Which value has a perfecly made machs tea? And other things only the maker or a few select people value?
> why do you believe that my super polished and streamlined WezTerm is less worth than a japanese sword?
Because people are willing to pay roughly 0$ for your riced terminal and dot files.
A polished japanese sword made by a master craftsmen on the other hand - people are willing to pay good money for.
So you think money is the indicator? I have to disappoint you: There's a ton of things that have zero monteray value, yet an enourmous value for the person who creates it. One example: Open source software. Another: Art you create for the fun of it.
I'm sorry to disappoint you. Money is proxy for value. Or atleast the closest thing to it.
In fact, it has so much value, that people will bend over, creep and crawl just to get it. And sell their waking hours for it.
Yes, you can have a lucky-pet-rock that you've always had with you, that holds value for anyone but you. For everyone else though - it's just a rock.
> Riced out Neovim/emacs setup doesn't and hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will.
Hmm... excuse me?
Linux kernel - most contributors use vim/emacs extensively, with some deep customizations.
Git - Linus developed it in his own heavily customized Emacs fork
Rust - Core team members use various customized setups
Postres - core devs use vim/emacs
Kubernetes - vim/emacs
What the fuck are you even talking about? Majority of high quality shit we use today - probably 90% of all C - from networking stacks - nginx, HAPoxy, OpenSSL, drivers; to compilers and languages; databases; web infra; cryptography; build systems, basically everything written before ~2010 that's still critical infrastructure was likely built by developers in vim/emacs.
All that stuff was developed by those craftsmen you're so dismissively mocking. Do you think they never customized their environments? Spending weeks perfecting configs instead of shipping is a discipline problem, not a tool problem.
"Most is software is written using a some text editor."
What an astute fucking observation you've made, mate!
And so it happens, that webdevs and web infra people (which is the extent of your understanding of "high quality shit") tend to use unixes and consequently vim/emacs as their text editor. No fucking way!
Perhaps, you can even tell just by looking at a piece of code - oh, this is beautiful, clean and clear, bugfree, this surely must have been written vim OR emacs?
Or maybe, just maybe, you're just making shit up on the spot and thinking backwards and attributing software quality metrics and outcomes to choice of a fucking text editor and how riced it is.
I'm not making shit up on the spot nor am I attributing any metrics to vim or emacs specifically or how riced should they be, I'm simply telling you the facts to counter-argue your point of: "hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will".
Most software is not written using "some" text editor, I would love to see maniacs writing kernel patches in notepad.exe or nano. Tools are tools - disputing that vim or emacs are not great tools is plainly dumb, obviously there must be something about them for why they've remained a popular choice among highly skilled pros for decades.
Of course, simply picking up a tool isn't enough - I can perfectly write shitty code equally well in Emacs, InteliJ or VSCode, yet saying good stuff never ever got done there is just disingenuous - it was, it is, and it will be. Of course, ricing the editor and terminal doesn't guarantee amazing shit, but the opposite is also equally true - you can't magically build some awesome sauce by paying for proprietary, sophisticated IDE that "just works" either.
> facts to counter-argue your point of: "hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will".
Your line of reasoning is something akin to - there are some skilled programmers that have shipped high quality software and wrote the code using lubed mechanical switches.
Therefore there MUST be something about lubing your switches and obsessing over clacks and thocks that contributes to quality of software somehow.
It's some weird bizzaro cargo cult reasoning.
Unix/webdevs often tend to use vim/emacs -> therefore this absolutely must contribute to the quality of software somehow (it has to!)
Except there are absolutely no basis for this claim, as there are high quality software that is written using neither vim nor emacs nor lubed mechanical switches.
> > facts to counter-argue your point of: "hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form, neither it ever will".
> Your line of reasoning is something akin to - there are some skilled programmers that have shipped high quality software and wrote the code using lubed mechanical switches.
No, I can second that the claim of "hasn't ever led to quality software in any shape or form" has been pretty solidly invalidated by GP. You may be able to claim many other things, and some of them might be true, but that point above won't be.
> has been pretty solidly invalidated by GP
How exactly has it been invalidated?
By pointing out that SOME widely used software (mostly web/web infra with unix heritage) has been written using vim/emacs as the text editor?
Now, you can find endless sea of garbage software on github that is written using riced vim/emacs setups - would you therefore conclude that using vim/emacs leads to garbage software?
The only thing you can conclude here is that to write software (either good or bad) you generally speaking need a keyboard and a text editor.
Claiming vim/emacs leads to or directly contributes to "quality software" is the same and about as meaningful as saying that keyboards and text editors lead to "quality software".
Cargo cult insanity.
> would you therefore conclude that using vim/emacs leads to garbage software?
I cannot conclude that "it leads to garbage software", but I can definitely conclude that "it has ever led to garbage software" at least once, and in some "shape or form".
> Claiming vim/emacs leads to or directly contributes to "quality software" is the same
This (or the alluded opposite) was not the original claim. The original claim was the total impossibility of vim/emacs to have ever led to quality software, in any shape or form. That is the only claim being contested here.
Don't tell me what the original claim was.
You contorted it to mean that it's literally impossible to write "quality software" in vim/emacs.
I did NOT claim this. Nobody would claim this either.
I wouldn't make such claim even about nano or notepad or any text editor (of which there and hundreds and thousands) for that matter.
What an insane thing to contest even.
Would I attribute quality of software to - in any shape or form - to the text editor it was written in - whether written in nano, notepad or vim or emacs or god knows what else? No, I would not. That WAS the original claim.
> I did NOT claim this. Nobody would claim this either.
Regardless of what you wanted to convey, I hope the responses make a bit more sense now.
> What an insane thing to contest even.
We just simply thought so too.
> I have come to understand that there are two kinds of people, those who do things only if it helps them achieve a goal, and those who do things just because.
There are two kinds of people, those that think it is clever to split people into just two groups, and everyone else.
> This will be highly subjective, and not everyone’s taste will be the same, but that is the point, you should NOT have the same taste as someone else.
Lost me here. If tastes don't converge in the limit, then there's no point and you're just justifying a hobby.
Wrong. ;P
In my day, we'd say that as kids we'd take apart all our toys to see how they worked. We didn't necessarily call the end goal "taste"; it was to understand how things work, and to learn which results require which trade-offs.
agreed, tinkering in my experience is either understanding how something works, or fixing something that is broken, or, building something new entirely (and in my mind all of these are hardware based) and usually involves disassembling things into their constituent components, whether or not you're supposed to. I also don't think tinkering is required for taste, I think being exposed to things, exploring things you're interested in, and questioning things is how you develop taste, which is also highly subjective.
This applies to fashion as well. Hackers should tinker with their clothes and jewelry more.
My coworkers are shocked and confused that I own/use a sewing machine and see at as some legacy old timey thing. It's true that you certainly don't need to own one anymore and you won't save any money making your own clothes. But you can modify and make loads of custom cool stuff that are impossible to buy new.
I've got a few things I made that just bring a lot of joy knowing it's the exact thing I wanted which you can't buy, and couldn't justify paying someone else to make either.
> In fact, the last meaningful change to my config was 6 months ago.
I know that's supposed to convey restraint, but it seems too much fiddling to me. But I've been using Vim for decades, so I only touch my .vimrc when something breaks.
can one really formulate a consistent philosophy of whether to get the mass market thing that "just works" or the power user thing that the author of this article describes as the path to good taste?
(and by "just works" - i mean about 80% of the time)
some of these are even represented in the hacker news front page: iphone vs fairphone, tesla vs corolla, macbook vs framework, vscode or helix, sora vs comfyui etc etc
This sounds nice, but I'm busy trying to escape the permanent underclass. Perhaps I messed up by not tinkering more earlier in my life.
If anyone's wondering, author makes no attempt to demonstrate the veracity of the title, he just talks about being a tinkerer and why it's important to have taste nowadays, and lets the reader make the connection.
edit: I lied, the connection is that if you don't try many things, you won't know what's good and what's bad, and if you don't tinker, you won't try many things.
Ah yes, time for the daily article of the form "If you don't do <thing I frequently do>, you aren't <a good person>"
Reminds me of the Steve Jobs biography. He was a notorious tinkerer. He obsessed over the design of Macintosh, the NeXT step cube, and a bunch of other products.
He also valued taste a lot. It seemed like the worst insult Jobs could have for someone was to say they had no taste. Other insults may have used stronger language, but it always felt that him saying someone had no taste was to say they were worthless and he had no respect for them as a human being.
I don’t think he tinkered much himself. He let others tinker until their output met his vision.
No he definitely tinkered. Yes, his primary tinkering mechanism was "having others execute his vision," but like if that's not tinkering then neither is editing config files like the article author mentions, because you're directing other peoples code into configuration.
There's one story from Macintosh era where he spent weeks harassing one engineer over the calculator app: "it looks too bloated, it looks afwul, these lines are terrible.." until the engineer got fed up and said "here this is the Macintosh Calculator App: Steve Edition. You get to pick your font, your layout, your color theme." And Steve sat there for hours literally tinkering on a calculator app until he got what he wanted.
He tried to get Paul Rand to change the colors on the NeXT logo--who promptly directed Steve to go have s*x with himself.
There was one point in the Apple Store's inception where they had basically reached done, and Steve decides that he didn't like a certain aspect of it, which was essentially going to require them to redo the entire thing. So he did, and they started from scratch. I think it might have been the Carrara marble floors but I can't remember for certain.
I'm not saying I have immense respect for the guy as a human being, but he was absolutely a notorious tinkerer--a complete menace of one.
I'd make a weaker statement - tinkering helps aquire (your personal) taste - not necessarily a good one.
In what’s becoming a monoculture world because of the internet, that seems like a good thing.
The best object for comparison you all are missing here are camera lenses.
The author gives several examples of tinkering. Tweaking mouse sensitivity in FPS, installing a linux distro, experimenting with windows managers, changing mechanical keyboard caps etc.
Then he looks at one specific example of tinkering, the IDE, and sorts people as tinkerers based on that.
>There are plenty of people who still use the VSCode terminal as their default terminal, do not know what vim bindings are, GitHub desktop rather than the cli (at the very least). I’m not saying these are bad things necessarily, just that this should be the minimum, not the median.
Couldn't someone not tinker with an IDE and still tinker with other things? I mean clearly you dont have to tinker with everything that can possibly be tinkered with, right? What is it about the IDE that makes it necessary to tinker with?
It seems like this was the main motivation for the article and then it got a bit over-abstracted.
Agreed, although I'd characterize it as more closely related to curiosity. Some people can select particular items that make themselves look good or are high-quality for example, but are surprisingly some of the least curious people, whereas I don't think the same can be said of tinkerers. People lacking this type of curiosity get frustrated easily if you want to discuss ideas or hypotheticals, nebulous intangible problem solving etc..; they want the right answer and an authority to point to. People with this type of curiosity want to discover why it might or might not be true regardless of whether it's a solved problem for others. The former type of person wants to look up what the viewpoints are like before they agree to go on a hike, getting frustrated when they're not there yet, and the latter just wants to hike and see what it's all about, enjoying the process.
Consequently, maybe taste can be acquired by impersonation or purchased, but could be more superficial than taste acquired through deep iterative tinkering and repetition. Much like someone watching a youtube video that tells them so and so is the correct way to do something, therefore it is, and it may be true, but they didn't necessarily learn that organically or in a way that they could analytically discuss.
Incidentally, the person without this type of curiosity is extremely dull to engage in conversation with from the perspective of the curious person, and in the reverse the curious person would seem to be wasting the incurious person's time because they aren't getting to the point and there's no tangible benefit in the conversation.
Incurious people seem like they're the typical tourist or the consumer, eliminating as much inconvenience as possible but not necessarily interested the exploration of the what or why of either the problem or solution, making it hard to identify where the depth is. Good at delegating, but terrible managers.
It's hard to take seriously anyone who unironically says "there are two kinds of people".
That, and the judgmental humblebrag tone leads me to believe the author is young. I suggest they focus more on learning than writing these vapid articles.
Why was the title of this changed?
Just noticed that as well. Isn't this strictly against the rules here? It has a completely different meaning from the original title and actual article content.
Except "taste before skill" is a well known issue and source of frustration for starting artists: They can already see what's good and they know what they want to do, but they don't yet have skill in measure with their taste and get locked in a feeling of inadequacy. They resolve that if they stick with it. So, taste looong before skill.
So...
> If you don't tinker, you don't have taste
> Acquiring good taste comes through using various things, discarding the ones you don’t like and keeping the ones you do. if you never try various things, you will not acquire good taste.
No. That's not how it works.
Unpopular opinion here probably but: Tinkering is also a great habit to be disappointed and unhappy. I love software and programming, but the apologetic requirements that can come from users mean adding a lot of complexity to software, that leads to many bugs and very slow programs. Everything has a cost attached.
I feel like this is true as ever, yet the current environment seems to be going towards the opposite, I.e. not about taste but just doing as much as possible, as much hours, as many responsibilities, just shipping out slop as fast as you can, don't waste time on stuff, all about being a 1000x AI engineer etc..
I'm tired boss
I despise the word "taste" for preferring specific software and workflows. Why are you selecting for aesthetic experience over usefulness?
I do get satisfaction from the results of my work, not through the mechanical process of arriving there. Tools are useful or not and this is the category by which I decide to use them or not.
Can the aesthetic experience improve usefulness? A million years ago I had an MP3 player with all of my mp3s on it. I listened to it every now and then. But when the iPod came out, and I put my same MP3 library on there, I listened to it all the time because it was super nice to use and interact with
Is the author doing that over usefulness or doing that in addition to usefulness? Some people would also enjoy the journey with the tool, along with the results. Just because someone enjoys the 'taste' of the tool doesn't mean that they don't care about usefulness.
Also usefulness is very subjective too depending on the context and scope.
> And what I mean by taste here is simply the honed ability to distinguish mediocrity from excellence. This will be highly subjective, …
It is not about aesthetics , from my reading. You brought that connotation into the conversation.
Good for you, some people enjoy the journey.
Not only that but a tool is only useful in a specific context
> Have you ever spent hours tweaking the mouse sensitivity in your favorite FPS game?
Ah yes, the true shibboleth of taste-havers.
That's just OCD, not taste.
It’s also not OCD.
Maybe tinkering is a necessary but insufficient condition for taste
Do you think it is?
No. But I also don't think tinkering is required to have taste.
Why did you say, “Maybe tinkering is a necessary…”
If you think tinkering isn’t necessary?
I was presenting what may be the OPs opinion
Thank you for your service
the dabbler's expertise
The examples given are not what I would consider "tinkering." Changing editor configs? Tuning mouse sensitivity? Really?
God I hate how much this reads like I wrote it about me
If you have to wtite blog post about how you have taste and other don't, you clearly haven't got it either.
[deleted]
[dead]
[flagged]
How about the Reddit style feigned offence?
Taste is real and a question of subjective alignment with objective reality. Hence, we can speak of the objectivity of beauty, but the bad taste of an person. That is only possible if both exist and an misalignment exists between them.
Whether the author knows what he's talking about is another matter.
And that font of his could use a few treatments from the taste bat.