Natural diamonds have value in terms of luxury. Synthetics do not, hence why they are cheap. If you want to buy a diamond because you think they're pretty, buy a synthetic one. If you want to buy a diamond as a luxury gift, buy a natural one.
Rolex doesn't put synthetic diamonds on watches. Cartier doesn't put synthetic diamonds on bracelets. Tiffany's won't put synthetic diamonds on rings.
If you think that natural diamonds are trending towards no longer being a luxury item, then don't buy them at all (why purchase a synthetic one if you think the diamond market is just a marketing ruse anyways?)
I've never met someone that bought a synthetic diamond that didn't immediately try to justify it. I think that says a lot.
Why though. Like, genuinely, why bother with the mined ones?
"This diamond caused untold human suffering and exploitation to acquire, and that makes it rare and valuable." It's just a weird flex at this point. It marks you out as someone who doesn't care about the wellbeing of others.
But every time someone gets excited about natural diamonds they try to justify that synthetic ones just aren't the same. I think that also says a lot.
> "This diamond caused untold human suffering and exploitation to acquire."
Dude, the copper in your phone required untold human suffering and exploitation to acquire.
You want to profess some grand moral judgement about purchasing mined minerals, but I guarantee all of that moral judgment goes out the door when it comes to products that you can afford and want to buy.
Are you arguing for a nihilistic worldview where one should abstain from caring about suffering and exploitation, or just calling OP a probable hypocrite? If the latter, what position do you take that isn't hypocritical?
Are you asking me for a non-hypocritical position on the diamond market? My position is simply that natural diamonds are a luxury item. Claiming that there's suffering involved in obtaining natural diamonds and therefore you should only purchase synthetic (non-luxury) diamonds, is a view that is inconsistent with the way most people live. Otherwise, we'd all stop buying clothes, shoes, cell phones, coffee, etc. Essentially every product you use, unless you take extreme care, involves human trafficking at some point in the supply chain.
Thanks for clarifying. I think this is a degenerate, self-defeating way to view your relationship to the purchases you make.
By stripping away any agency you may have and shifting both blame and responsibility onto the market, government, or other amoral greater power, you shrink yourself. You are capable of agency, even if some acts are harder than others.
In between the absolute poles of absolute moral asceticism and nihilistic indifference to suffering, is a massive spectrum. On that spectrum, blood diamonds are a very, very low hanging fruit for anyone seeking to demonstrate even the smallest shred of moral agency.
A few reasons this is so easy:
1) An alternative product exists, and is cheaper than the one produced by forced labor. You save money by not paying extra for suffering.
2) The purchase is infrequent. Unlike food or clothing, you aren't constantly required to buy more of it and thus have to research suppliers and production practices over and over.
3) The quality of the alternative is as high or higher. Unlike with any number of technology products where you are cajoled by unique feature sets and a higher level of polish that comes part and parcel with grinding through humans, lab diamonds do the main things a diamond does as well or better than the alternative. They reflect, refract, scratch, and cleave exactly as one wants them to.
Just because we accept it in one place doesn't mean we should blanket accept it everywhere. This isn't some inductive proof of human suffering where we can just k+1 cases where people do bad things.
Whataboutism isn't a useful or helpful way to discuss an industry with unbelievable human suffering.
Start a post about copper mining if you want to discuss copper mining. We're talking diamonds here, which have a demonstrable human cost.
> Whataboutism isn't a useful or helpful way to discuss an industry with unbelievable human suffering.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. My point was not that there's not human suffering in the diamond industry, nor that it isn't bad. My point is that you, a person that cannot afford expensive natural diamonds (speaking statistically here, I don't know you personally), probably should not cast moral judgments on others that can and do purchase expensive natural diamonds. This is due to the fact that you, a person that can afford a cell phone, chooses to purchase a cell phone, despite that industry experiencing similar levels of human suffering. Therefore, I am forced to believe that in the counterfactual world where you can afford expensive diamonds, you would buy them.
In the case of diamonds, you have the choice of buying the exact same product with human suffering involved, or without. If there were a lab-grown iPhone on the market, of course I would choose it
> "My synthetic diamond is functionally identical, if not even better than your mined one" is factually true and not a justification...
Except they're not functionally identical. Natural diamonds function in society as a luxury item. Synthetic diamonds have always functioned as a utility item (used in chainsaw blades, for example). Synthetic diamonds certainly do not function as a luxury item and they're not marketed to people with money.
Look, I have no problem with synthetic diamonds in the same way that I have no problem with reprints of Salvador Dali paintings. But, the market for original Salvador Dali paintings is very different than the market for reprints even though they might appear "functionally identical."
Maybe for now. But I think there's a good chance the market for diamonds goes the same way as the former status symbols that became common, like purple dye[1], or pineapples[2]
Wrong, read again. No justification for buying natural diamonds. Just stating the facts: current market dynamics make the distinction that natural diamonds are a luxury product while synthetic diamonds are not. I clearly stated that people should buy natural vs synthetic based on those market dynamics and their own personal preferences.
I'm genuinely curious why you bought a diamond at all then? Isn't the diamond itself a marketing gimmick, or do you and your wife honestly find them more beautiful than other stones?
I bought Moissanite. It was a reasonable price, the ring is gorgeous, my wife loves it, and it helps with family / cultural pressure around diamonds.
(It also leads to interesting situations with people who don't understand Moissanite. My wife used to get a lot of "what does your husband dooo???" questions before people understood the changes in the jewelry market.)
It won’t wear. That’s what was the cool part for me. A diamond won’t scratch and if set in a platinum band, the band essentially won’t tarnish. It’s as close to a “forever” item as one can reasonably get. Oooo and very shiny.
I would ask your soon-to-be wife whether she'd be ok with a lab grown diamond vs a natural (and let her come to her own conclusion without mansplaining to her that only morons would prefer naturals).
Some women would honestly prefer a 0.5-1.0ct natural vs a 2.5ct synthetic.
In any case, the ring is for her, so I'd recommend making sure she's on board with what you're thinking.
I don't see demand for natural diamonds going anywhere. There's a reason that Rolex, Cartier, and other luxury brands don't use cheap, synthetic diamonds in their products.
I know a jeweler personally that sells synthetic and natural diamonds. He can spot the difference from a mile away between a synthetic and a natural diamond (synthetics look extremely pure and have no flaws). His wealthy clients buy natural diamonds. Not because it's a "better investment" but because they can.
If you can buy a knockoff Louis Vuitton for 5% of the cost of the real one, great, go for it! Most people won't be able to tell the difference (I certainly can't). But the market for authentic Louis Vuitton isn't going anywhere, and the people that can afford it will buy the real ones, and the people that can't will buy the fake ones.
As long as there's a distinction between natural and synthetic, synthetic diamonds will drop to a dollar a carat while naturals only become more of a status symbol.
EDIT: changed real to natural when referring to diamonds
> I don't see demand for real diamonds going anywhere.
Calling one "real" and not the other is the wrong. Synthetic diamonds aren't an imitation. The distinction is "natural" and "synthetic".
> Not because it's a "better investment" but because they can.
From my experience it's to show off (that's the whole point of jewelry) and they'll be happy to tell you about their real diamond anytime the conversations ventures to anywhere near anything remotely related. I'd imagine the only people impressed are other suckers who happen to be poorer.
Perhaps. But I see one of two things happening regardless: (1) the market maintains a distinction between real and synthetic or (2) the market doesn't, and diamonds become irrelevant as a luxury item.
If case 2 happens, it just means that diamonds get replaced with something else like gold, and gold luxury items become much more expensive. In any case, your future wife probably doesn't really want that massive synthetic diamond. It's a human thing, whether we (the HN crowd) think it's ridiculous or not.
Yes but Satoshi is very strongly a _name_ in Japanese - yours might be comparable to the question “Donald loosely translates from Gaelic to world-ruler?”
> When you borrow money in a high inflationary environment, it's highly advantageous because you are using cheaper future money to pay back older expensive money.
This is only true under the assumption that the *source* of the money that you are paying back the loan with appreciates.
For example, consider taking out a loan that requires $1,000 monthly payments over 30 years. Assume that you pay back this loan with your labor (i.e., income from your job), and let's suppose you make $100K/yr. Most people can think of their jobs as an appreciating asset as long as they are receiving standard C.O.L. raises. However, suppose that 30 years later, you are still making the same exact $100K salary. Then, although you are "paying back your loan with cheaper dollars," the impact of making those loan payments is actually the same in terms of your buying power.
Year 1: $1,000/month (inflation-adj. salary = $100,000; relative impact on buying power = 12K/100K = 12%)
Year 30: $1,000/month (inflation-adj. salary = $36,254; inflation adjusted payments is $4,950; relative impact on buying power = 4950/36250 = 12%)
^ this is assuming a 3% inflation rate.
Note that almost everyone is getting C.O.L. raises, especially over 30-year time spans. However, this point is especially relevant for shorter term loans, and for people who may not experience wage increases.
You have sharp financial skills. I predicted this comment, so I added a disclaimer that one should be providing high value to society, which isn't replaceable. If one does that, the source of funds will go up more than inflation.
The effect of inflation is only relevant for home loans or for infrastructure projects like building bridges, buildings, factories, etc.
I never assume a 2% inflation rate. I live in India, so I add/subtract 2% from the government's declared inflation numbers. If the government says inflation is 4%, I will use 6% for assets and 2% for EMIs.
I have two indoor bins: one for plastics/recycling and one for garbage. I line both with trash bags.
Unfortunately, the city gets very upset about the recyclable materials being in plastic bags (something about it messing up their machines). I like it better this way because I don't have an indoor bin full of loose, used plastics and paper which feels unorganized and dirty.
I feel like these small, yet annoying, inconveniences hurt participation (in addition to the countless stories of plastics and garbage just being thrown into the same hole in the ground, or into an ocean patch off the coast of some other country).
Well yes, that's a lot easier than trying to do it at the recycling facility. Do you expect the garbage man to do your dishes? The easiest time to rinse off the container is immediately after it is opened. By the time the container gets to a recycler the residue will be caked on. You use plastic bags to protect yourself but you aren't thinking of anyone else.
> Do you expect the garbage man to do your dishes?
Why would the garbage man do my dishes?
Look, I throw away my trash because it's super convenient and the city provides a wonderfully helpful service of hauling my garbage off for me. But if the city comes to me and says "Hey, we want you to come out here and help us dig the landfill, because it's actually easier if you do it" -- then I'd probably just light my garbage on fire or toss it in a river.
Here's a video from my state Department of Ecology explaining why you shouldn't do this, and why you are actually making it worse for everyone. Cursory web searches on the topic say the same thing. Bagged recyclables can't be sorted so they just get diverted to landfill.
You could actually make the world a better place by throwing your bagged recyclables in the trash because then you aren't actively harming the recycling process.
That's awesome, I will look into that to see if my local grocery does the same! Now that I think about it, there's probably paper-based bin linings that you can buy from Amazon
I own a EV and I love it. But it was pretty expensive (60K+) and from what I've seen, the trade-in value for my car is effectively half of what I bought it for after just 1 year of ownership.
I'm not complaining too much since I plan to keep this car until the wheels fall off anyways, but it does seem like the accelerated depreciation of EVs versus gasoline cars is a good reason not to buy at the moment.
EDIT: I should clarify, my vehicle is a PHEV. I couldn't commit to giving up gasoline given the added convenience of being able to quickly fill up on gas for long road trips. That being said, I drive less than 10K miles a year and probably only use ~1 tank of gas every 2 months.
After calculating fuel vs. electricity costs and analyzing my driving patterns I got pure BEV. I have real 200 miles highway winter range and it’s ok for my trips. It’s very important to do some basic research and don’t trust 400 miles WLTP range advertising. I would call this advertising basically a scam. A road trip with one charging stop is no big deal.
My car only gets 26 miles to the charge, which, believe it or not, is more than enough for my daily use (I live within 5 miles of my work). That being said, I'm not actually convinced that I'm saving money when I look at my electricity cost vs cost of gasoline. Still, the added convenience of just plugging in when I get home and hardly ever having to stop at a gas station is nice.
Have electricity cost of <7€ now for 100 km. Petrol cost was close to 20€. Plus I save a lot on repairs. Previous car was old and I got tired of lying under it.
I guess car choice and calculation behind it is very individual. I never wanted Tesla, but got best trade—in conditions there.
It's costing me roughly $4.50 per charge (we pay ~$0.30/kWh and it takes roughly 15kWh to fully charge). My MPG is ~20mpg, and gas costs around $3.50 per gallon, so I have roughly the same fuel costs whether I'm charging or putting gas in the tank.
I am saving a bit on repairs as well. I was spending close to $1500 a year on maintenance for the old car (but it was 8 years old and had 100K miles on it). We also had a nice tax incentive for buying EVs/PHEVs, so that helps.
Where are you located that you’re paying $0.30/kWh but also only $3.50/gal for gas? Is this at-home charging? Some kind of seasonal or peak time of use rate?
I'm on the east coast of the US in a large metro area. My last electric bill was $585 and I used 1800kWh for the month, so my costs are roughly $0.32 cents per kWh currently.
Gas at the closest station to my house is currently at $3.40 (according to Google Maps)
EDIT: I don't see anywhere on my bill that I'm paying a peak rate. I do charge my car at night though, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm paying the electric company extra just to do that.
Long road trips are awesome in a Tesla. I've done 4 2000 mile trips in one. Stopping for a bathroom, meal or sleep every 250 miles is something you'd be doing anyways, and the trips are invariably mostly well covered interstates.
It's the medium distance trips that are more annoying. On a 400 mile trip you'd normally just drive that straight. Adding 20 minutes for a charge is sometimes annoying.
I don't disagree with your premise, but I also don't fully agree with it as a comprehensive explanation. Overeating seems to be a uniquely American problem, and independent of a nation's food security status. For example, the obesity rate in Japan is much lower than that of the US and I don't think that's due to them (a) not having enough food to over-indulge or (b) somehow having evolved a shutoff mechanism that Americans have yet to develop.
To me, it seems almost entirely explained by culture.
You could add "without using multiplication or division" as a less arbitrary constraint. Early microprocessors (and some really cheap microcontrollers still) didn't have the circuitry.
That said a fixed-factor mutiplication can probably be done faster AND [more] precisely as a sum of some shifts. Or many other ways with a lookup table.
Rolex doesn't put synthetic diamonds on watches. Cartier doesn't put synthetic diamonds on bracelets. Tiffany's won't put synthetic diamonds on rings.
If you think that natural diamonds are trending towards no longer being a luxury item, then don't buy them at all (why purchase a synthetic one if you think the diamond market is just a marketing ruse anyways?)
I've never met someone that bought a synthetic diamond that didn't immediately try to justify it. I think that says a lot.