[fwipsy]

Reading this webpage, and then the other comments here, taught me something important about myself: I am a Philistine. I don't think I would notice any difference between this and a glossy plastic calculator costing $5. I actually assumed that this piece was for people who collect calculators, but it seems like it has broader appeal based on the other comments?

[enaaem]

That is because you have to see it in real life. I have never seen this calculator myself, but I have been to a lacquerware company called Hanoia in Vietnam. They als do lacquerware for Hermes. First thing you will notice is that the colours are super rich. If you see a yellow tea box, then it has the deepest and richest yellow you have ever seen. It is like going from a 2010 LCD to a 2026 OLED screen.

[bluebarbet]

>It is like going from a 2010 LCD to a 2026 OLED screen.

Revealing. I'll bet plenty still can't tell the difference (or don't care). I'm one. I've always used low-end laptops, mobiles, clothes, vehicles, anything else you can think of. I care that it functions (so I buy good brands and new) but everything else except price is a very secondary. When I read things like "rich, vivid colors" in a description of a screen, for example, or "clear, deep bass" for some earbuds, my eyes glaze over. Whatever. Does it work and will it last?, is what I want to know. I also don't care about (or even really notice) the taste of tap water. Water is water. All this must be related and I can't be the only one.

[cstrahan]

People vary in their ability to differentiate colors and sounds.

I’d be curious how you’d do on a hue test: https://www.xrite.com/hue-test

For me, each colored square is plainly, obviously different, and it is immediately obvious how they need to be sorted. But I also know people I’ve shown the test to who thought it was a trick - “there’s only 3 or 4 distinct colors, so how am I supposed to sort the same-colored squares?”

If one’s perception is particularly lossy, it makes sense that lower fidelity displays and audio will likely be indistinguishable from higher fidelity ones.

[Narishma]

I'm a bit like the parent poster and I scored 0 on your test.

It's not like I can't tell the difference if I see hi- and low-fidelity products next to each other. It's just that I don't care enough to pay the price premium, and I don't mind using low-end equipment. I also feel less apprehension about losing or damaging it.

[bluebarbet]

That was fun, thanks! I scored a perfect 0 but I admit that I had to stare quite hard. Some of the purple squares were not "plainly, obviously different".

But the real issue here is surely simpler. To me, when I buy a screen (or whatever), I know in advance that (A) I will not be comparing it daily with another screen, and (B) it will be - easily - good enough for my purposes.

You might say I'm depending on other, more perfectionist, consumers to do the quality control. Fair enough.

[reaperducer]

You're not the only one. There are millions of people out there who have no appreciation for art, craft, skill, quality, or finesse.

They're very base people who go through life seeing only price tags, and tallying worth only in dollar figures. They act like life is a video game and money is the score.

It's a shallow life, devoid of the appreciation of all the wonderful things available, and in my estimation, barely living. It's just existing as a robot does.

Why spend vacation in Fiji when there are sunsets in Fresno, too?

[thomascountz]

This is needlessly judgmental and draws false equivalences between expression, impression, and consumerism.

[dml2135]

I do think the mention of consumerism is apt. In my own encounters with those that seem to take pride in their inability to distinguish certain nuances, it does come off as a mental block borne of not wanting to feel like they are missing out on expensive things.

I think it cuts both ways though — there are those who will exaggerate or outright fabricate subtle differences in order to justify their expensive purchases, and also those that will deny real differences because they think everyone is just doing the first thing.

[II2II]

One can also look at distinguishing what is important to what is unimportant to a particular person. Personally, I look towards functionality over aesthetics. That isn't to say that I will completely disregard aesthetics, but I have certainly gone with those black bricks called ThinkPads over MacBooks in the past.

You are right about it cutting both ways though. I remember laptop shopping with a colleague in the past. They were trying to replace a barely functional laptop that they purchased because of its "design" with something they could get work done on. Unfortunately, they refused to acknowledge that functionality is an element of design. The whole experience was one of frustration.

This calculator appears to fit into a similar category. I'm sure it is a perfectly fine calculator, functionally speaking, if you are performing basic financial calculations. It isn't going to cut it if your working outside of that domain. When you consider that a calculator that is a tenth (or even a hundredth) of the price is going to offer a similar experience, I'm not even sure I would regard the nuances in its design a good thing. Yes, it says something about it's owner. I'm just not sure it says the right thing.

[majormajor]

Yeah, frankly I'd have more money and be happier when watching a lot of movies if I couldn't tell the difference between OLED black levels and projector/LCD ones.

I didn't ask for it and I don't want it, hah.

I feel no need to convince others that they should try to find the difference.

I'm happy that, say, cheap wine doesn't give me the same mental-twitch.

[bluebarbet]

Somewhat convincing analysis.

But I should add (contrary to the rebuttal my provocative take attracted) that I am in fact very finely tuned to esthetics. As a photographer I'm obsessed with getting everything right (composition, light, texture, color, details) and routinely delete everything that doesn't make the cut.

It just seems obvious to me that in consumer products, most of the differences are pretty small in substantive terms. Big economic interests are at stake in amplifying them, and conjuring up demand through marketing, and generally manipulating us.

[awakeasleep]

Valuing fancy material possessions is not much different than valuing the money itself

[etrautmann]

I have almost exactly the opposite reaction. By not caring so much about the minute details of physical things, or having the very best croissants or whatever, frees you up to enjoy anything or focus on interactions with people, ideas, anything else.

[throwup238]

There’s a difference between caring about something and being able to appreciate it. You can do the latter without the former.

[retired]

Being able to enjoy/tolerate a cup of coffee from my cheap machine at home saves me €2 and 30 minutes of my day. I’m happy that I am not a connoisseur.

[ornornor]

And what’s wrong with that? You’re rarely or never disappointed while enjoying most things. I’d say it results in a life well lived rather than nitpicking every single little detail.

[esafak]

And that blissful ignorance is the upside! But I would say it is a life not well lived; a life without contemplation, with appreciation of only that which is superficial and accessible.

[bluebarbet]

We're beginning to go round in circles here, but I'll just rhetorically ask: does contemplation and appreciation of, say, art or poetry or nature, count in order to "live a life well", or must it be only consumer goods?

[Computer0]

FWIW, I had the same opinion on tap water until I moved to a different area of my region and only after moving and researching did I learn my previous area had some of the highest water quality in my nation. The new area has converted me to filtered water.

[BigTTYGothGF]

> I also don't care about (or even really notice) the taste of tap water

Me neither until I moved to west Texas.

[Firehawke]

Yeah, try the water in most of Arizona, where it's so hard you could cut diamond with it. Only half-joking. You'll get an appreciation for places where you can't really taste what's in the water.

[onlypassingthru]

It may taste funny but it also slowly turns your shower door into privacy glass so it's not all bad.

[solumunus]

Water is water but tap water is not tap water.

[fwipsy]

I have used both screens recently and I only notice the difference when I'm thinking about it. (Or when there's not enough space to fit everything I want to see.)

[ornornor]

Well then consider yourself lucky and don’t try to fix what isn’t broken!

I have this for wine. I can tell an objectively disgusting wine but other than that I find most wines (I’m in Europe so it’s different) pretty decent. I’m working hard to keep it that way. I have friends who are almost always disappointed in their wine and have to pay a fortune for a bottle they’ll find decent. No thanks.

[etrautmann]

This is such an under appreciated point. I feel the same about wine but have ruined myself for coffee, bread, cheese, etc.

[hmokiguess]

> I don't think I would notice any difference

You may choose to reduce its meaning by not engaging or connecting with its story, but say you actually take the time to read through that page which bothers to talk about the tradition of the craft and even shows a picture of the artist, to still remain in that place is to deny it of any meaning behind all that was involved.

At that point, when you say something like that what others may hear is that you do not value the craftsmanship and artistry that accompany the product.

It’s okay not to like it and say it’s not for you, but to fail to recognize effort and deny craft is a bit rude, you don’t need to like it to be able to recognize it as something that exists in a different level than the status quo.

[bitmasher9]

I think there is something beautifully functionalist to value things only at what they can do, and not based on any subjective valuation such as narrative or aesthetics.

I’m not that way, but I wouldn’t put someone down who is that way.

[hmokiguess]

Oh don’t get me wrong I agree with what you said, I too feel the same way about this.

I mostly meant to say that sometimes it isn’t just about function (like this case), and then dismissing it by saying you don’t recognize the difference becomes alienation by choice.

[sevindob]

We all have things we don't "get". It has an appeal to aforementioned calc collectors (and there are a surprising amount in CS/Econ) but also collectors of craft + tech.

I tend to think of myself as a realist, not a Philistine. I have Echizen laquer bowls I picked up in Japan and a headphone with Japanese cherry tree wood + Echizen, and while they're very beautiful to see in actual daylight, your PoV is not wrong either - from a functional PoV, they might as well be a more delicate plastic in terms of function.

Like any art that you might get, or something else you're obsessive about that other people don't give a rats ass about, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

[TheOtherHobbes]

Classic price anchoring. The very high end limited edition justifies the price of the "mere" $350 premium model.

Some people here will be rushing to buy the latter because the former is no longer available, even though they don't need a very average calculator in a premium case. (And if they did need a useful premium calculator, they'd buy an HP.)

[dude250711]

Is this not meant for some ceremonial gift-giving to superiors to ensure better career prospects or something?

[reaperducer]

I can see it being used in very high-end, high-touch retail environments.

When you spending $75,000 on a new suit, the tailor shouldn't be using a Dollar Store calculator.

[Computer0]

I have a calculator at my desk that consistently gives the wrong answer, somehow the fact that it is so shite gives it novelty.

[reaperducer]

I have a calculator at my desk that consistently gives the wrong answer

CalcGPT?

[bluebarbet]

So $76,100 for a suit and a calculator. Imagine how many lives could be changed if that cash were used to, say, install toilets in rural India.

[satvikpendem]

Imagine donating all your money to charity too, do you do that? The thing about comparing spending is that there is always more one can spend, and there is always more one can give away.

[bluebarbet]

Sure. And there is always a better way to spend seventy-six thousand dollars. I suggested what I consider to be a better way. If you think carefully about it, you might even agree.

[satvikpendem]

The point is not everyone agrees with you, that's why one shouldn't try to dictate what others do with their money.

[fwipsy]

I was also thinking this, but I think shaming people for spending money the way they want is counterproductive. Same as with veganism, claiming the moral high ground (even implicitly) can be very galling, even to people who would otherwise agree. I think it's cool if people want to spend their money to help others. If they want to spend it on a nice suit instead, it's not my cup of tea but there are much more harmful ways to spend it.

[bluebarbet]

The "shame" is all interpretation.

[reaperducer]

So $76,100 for a suit and a calculator. Imagine how many lives could be changed if that cash were used to, say, install toilets in rural India.

Elon Musk could, quite literally, feed the world with his net worth. But he chooses not to. I'm not sure what your point is. I don't what it's like to own a $75,000 suit, but I do know the tailor.

If you want to walk your talk, sell the computer you're using right now and give the money to the poor. Then surf HN from the public library.

"Put up, or shut up" as they say.

[bluebarbet]

What a lot of assumptions this makes about my personal life and choices, which I need hardly point out you know nothing about.