The Best

This is empty madness. It is, very literally, a celebration of total materialism.<p>What is ultimately important in life are people -- messy, filthy, bacteria-and-disease-laden, imperfect, emotional, sweating shitting cursing crying screaming laughing farting people and the connections we build to them.<p>This celebration of spending insane amounts of time choosing the perfect flatware or the perfect wallet is sick. Steve Jobs spent <i>eight years</i> discussing furniture with his family before buying a sofa etc (<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_gladwell" rel="nofollow">http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/11/14/111114fa_fact_...</a>). I will never do that, and I will never have flatware as nice as Dustin Curtis', and I will never have sound as good as an obsessive audiophile, or the perfect car.<p>I won't even write a particularly convincing Hacker News comment on this very topic. I've got to go. Life is too short for this shit.

It's almost beyond parody: "when you have trust in everything you own, you don’t have to worry about anything. It’s liberating and an amazing feeling. My life was markedly better because of it."<p>Right, because sane people would otherwise spend a lot of time sitting around worrying about their <i>stuff</i>.<p>It reminds me of a Louie CK routine:<p>"I need the best Blu-Ray! What are you, the King of Siam? You deserve the absolute best everything? These machines are all the same, made by the same Asian suffering."

Dustin thinks he's discovered something new, instead he's just a product of this generation. The generation new york times once characterised as "Would rather own one pair of $100 jeans than ten pairs of $10 jeans".<p>Our parents are mystified. Their parents much less so.

This is the age-old debate of maximizers vs satisficers:<p><a href="http://happiness-project.com/happiness_project/2006/06/are_you_a_satis/" rel="nofollow">http://happiness-project.com/happiness_project/2006/06/are_y...</a><p>In a nutshell, Dustin is a maximizer.<p>Regarding flatware, my views have changed as I've grown older (I'm 26). A few years ago, I didn't care. Now, for some reason, I always reach for a specific knife/fork combo: I like the weight (most are too light for me), the balance between the handle and the blade/tines and the industrial design. Eating with them <i>just feels better.</i>

Finding "the best" of a product is an obscure hobby. And I'm all for finding joy in an obscure hobby. But I have a hard time believing that Mr. Curtis is any more liberated by the flatware that he spent 6-months researching than I am by the set I happened upon at Crate and Barrel.<p>I wholeheartedly admire people like Sori Yanagi who work hard to create "the best" of anything. I also wholeheartedly believe that trying to pin virtue on the process of being a consumer of "the best" of anything is little more than pretense

In the past week, Dustin has posted a few articles [1,2,3] that have gained a massive amount of attention here, which all try to drill home the point that we should be out there living our lives as if they're going to end tomorrow. We shouldn't put off decisions, we should act on impulses that will make our lives better in ways we won't even realise. In summary: Life's too short, so get on with living it.<p>Now he gives us this. Cutlery.<p>He should take his own advice and get out of The Waiting Place, get back in The Fight and Do more than obsess over subjective things that even his own opinion will change about in time.<p>[1] <a href="http://dcurt.is/the-fight" rel="nofollow">http://dcurt.is/the-fight</a><p>[2] <a href="http://dcurt.is/the-waiting-place" rel="nofollow">http://dcurt.is/the-waiting-place</a><p>[3] <a href="http://dcurt.is/do" rel="nofollow">http://dcurt.is/do</a>

Perfection is meaningless when it comes to material goods. They're always a means to an end.<p>Dustin would probably argue that finding a well-designed product is a better means to the end (of forming relationships, living, loving, friends, experiences, adventures). It's a plausible point, but it's empirically wrong.<p>No one in the history of the world has ever gone, "the one thing I regret most is not spending 40 hours researching to find the perfect set of flatware."<p>Following this advice is difficult for me. I usually find it very difficult to not do the same: obsessing over the best bed sheets, the best cutting boards, the best computer, the best Linux distribution, the best jeans, the best bike, the best books, the best newspaper, the best way to cut onions, the best suit, the best $MATERIALGOOD.<p>Because of a recent housing disaster, I lost virtually everything. It has been very liberating. All those hours spent obsessing over stupid shit? Worthless. The friends, family, and relationship that helped me get through it? Worth everything.<p>A shopping list, Target, Ikea, and Amazon can get you everything you need to live a materially comfortable life in 10 minutes. Everything else is just a means to playing an unwinnable status game.

Mr Curtis could do worse than watching Gladwell's Ted Talk from a few years back:<p><a href="http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.ted.com/talks/malcolm_gladwell_on_spaghetti_sauce...</a><p>tl;dr when one asks a question involving people, and you want the most fitted data, then you need to consider grouping/segmentation of the population into clusters of preference.<p><i>What is the best spaghetti sauce?</i><p>It's a flawed question, as it contains an invalid assumption.<p>Thus what Curtis seems to be describing is a (great/awesome/very good) etc set of knives, but not 'the best'.<p><i>Very good</i> = a maximization of universal requirements<p><i>Best</i> = maximization of universal &#38;&#38; local requirements (population segmentation preferences, spacial and temporal context etc)<p>Example: Those forks may be best for <i>Curtis</i> at his dinner. They are certainly not best for me, on my camping trip. Or best for a tribe in Africa with different shaped mouths and habits etc. Or best for someone eating Chinese takeout. etc

This does not belong in the top spot on Hacker News. Quality stuff is nice to own, woop-dee-fucking-doo.<p>Just because Dustin Curtis wrote it, doesn't mean you instantly gotta hit that tiny little triangle. I very much doubt this little article would have collected more than 10 upvotes if it were written by some 20-year old that happened to stumble upon r/minimalism.<p>I've seen a few of his articles now that are upvoted mindlessly and don't have the slightest relation to technology or startups. It makes me a little bit mad.

I think this kind of obsession (about things that don't matter) was best portrayed in American Psycho's business card scene: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoIvd3zzu4Y</a>

I like Dustin, and I <i>love</i> what he's doing with Svbtle, but he has this – as I see it – irrational need to own and experience "the best". Maybe there is such a thing as the best cutlery, and maybe the cutlery he bought is it...but it seems like such an empty, odd, materialistic goal. 'First world problems' writ large.<p>I first noticed it from this tweet (<a href="http://twitter.com/dcurtis/statuses/246843440179056640" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/dcurtis/statuses/246843440179056640</a>) where he asks about "the best ramen in Tokyo". Anybody with any cultural, historical, or indeed culinary understanding of ramen can see that this is totally missing the point.<p>My question is, why continuously talk about and seek "the best" as opposed to, say, "really good"? There's a kind of arrogance entrained in such a mode of thought.

I wonder how Dustin would react if he discovered that the company he bought the cutlery from was actually mass producing them and floating the whole "Japanese product designer from a family that made Samurai swords" story to help sell their product. Would it matter to him? Is he buying great silverware or a great story?

Impressive. Dustin Curtis has now developed the ability to praise Apple without mentioning Apple.

“Who are you the King of Siam, you got to get the best one? Who cares? They’re all the same these machines. They’re all made from the same asian suffering.” - Louis CK

When I was in fourth grade I bought a tri-fold leather wallet from target. My older brother wanted me to give it to him because he would need one for his permit some day but I refused. I've went on to use the wallet for 20 years before I finally retired it. It held my money and cards perfectly every day of those twenty years and I spent maybe 2 minutes picking it out. I paid around $20 for it.<p>The point is, almost everything we buy these days is of pretty high quality - even the cheap stuff. Far more often do we throw away of give away perfectly good objects because we want to upgrade or because we no longer have a use for them than we do because they have stopped working.<p>I can see the appeal of owning what you perceive to be "the best" of a particular item, but you're kidding yourself if you think it's somehow fulfilling. It's just stuff.

Some guys just don't realize how artifical the problem is they pursue.<p>I'm wondering how much time will they devote to try to find the perfect coffin.<p>I mean, "some of the things that matter in coffin design are obvious, like the material and weight. Other things, which are arguably more important, are seemingly never even considered, like how the wood feels against your bones and skin, for example, or how the weight balances under the tombstone. The long term durability of each plywood is also important."

I have never even given flatware or towels any thought. They both have minimal impact on my life and thus don't need optimization. My laptop has a great impact on my life, so I think it's reasonable to spend time researching what you need and paying for the best if that makes sense. My wife is a terrible premature optimizer. She pinches pennies on the most obscure things like toilet paper, just to turn around and spend hundreds on a bag. My view is that I would cut that bag out of my purchases, and then it doesn't matter if I optimize my toilet paper or not.<p>Oh well, people are different.

This reeks of pretention and arrogance. It's fairly obvious and intuitive that expensive things are nice and that you should pursue them. However, the overwhelming majority of people have neither the time nor the means to spend hours researching silverware or dropping $50 per set.<p>Finding and paying for the best of anything requires more time, patience and income than most have. To me, it sounds as though Dustin has way too much time and way too much money, and hasn't a clue how to productively spend either.<p>Upsetting.

Can't help but think of that scene from Fight Club.<p>"It's just, when you buy furniture, you tell yourself, that's it. That's the last sofa I'm gonna need. Whatever else happens, I've got that sofa problem handled."

There is no best in everything, only tools that meet specifics requirement.<p>For example, there many kind of hammers for so many different purpose. One doesn't just use a hammer for everything that a hammer could do. Some hammer you use for smashing, others for driving a nails in, some to shape objects, and some to bash the opponents' head in battle.<p>Likewise, there's no perfect single piece of flatware. The Victorians, for example, loves to buy tons of silverware just to make eating elegant and perfect for every single dishes. They could have solved the problem of eating by merely washing their faces and their hands afterward, but custom dictates. Instead, they spent thousand of dollars on the many variations of fork, spoon, knife designed to meet different challenges of each particular dish.

While I try very hard to own a minimum set of possessions, always buying "the best" rings very true for me. Here in The Yukon we have 20+ hours of daylight for activities in the summer, and regularly see -40C/F in the winter.<p>Quite simply, if you don't buy "The Best" of anything, it will break or fall apart very quickly.<p>Kia cars last at most 2 winters up here.<p>Cheap canoes and kayaks won't last one summer.<p>I bought $200 hiking boots that were destroyed in one month walking to work at -40C<p>Gore-tex? freezes solid, cracks and is destroyed after -35C<p>The motto is very simple. Buy it right the first time.

I agree with Dustin's point that life is "markedly better" by having the best available. In saying that, I'm often happier to outsource some of the responsibility for deciding what is the best product to someone else than do the leg work myself. I just can't bring myself to get excited about televisions, cars, and most household appliances.<p>Would I find a product that better matched my sensibilities by carefully researching the market? Sure, but buying a product that's a 97% fit for twenty minutes of work is better than buying one that's a 99% fit for twenty hours of work. Or at least in my head that's how the cost-benifit analysis works out (this sort of thing is deeply personal, and I'm prepared to accept that other people's values are different).<p>The Wirecutter is great for this sort of thing (<a href="http://www.thewirecutter.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thewirecutter.com</a>). Need a set of headphones? What's your price bracket? OK, get this pair.

Props for the URL - <a href="http://dcurt.is/the-best" rel="nofollow">http://dcurt.is/the-best</a><p>My bet is he dreamed up the title and then wrote an entire meaningless post just to sneak it in. Y'all just been trolled good.

Dustin and I walk similar paths. Last year I got rid of everything I owned, sans a medium daypack of stuff, and traveled for 6 months. A year later I own more things than can fit in my backpack but am very much a minimalist.<p>My philosophy of ownership is simple. If I need something I'll almost always get the best I can afford. Why not understand what you own? Why not own quality? I don't mean spend hours researching every small purchase but certainly spend a little time looking into something you'll use over a period of time.<p>I don't need a cabinet full of plates or a closet full of clothes. Why not own higher quality, fewer items?

I think the author is getting at something, but I don't think he articulated his thoughts too well -- or at least not well enough to be analyzed by the HN audience.<p>To me, it came off as just pure garbage, spewing from a wealthy and/or insane person who cares more about the things he owns than what he actually does with those things, with a means of not necessarily communicating with others, but a way to convince their own self that it's OK to spend many hundreds of dollars on a flatware set.<p>The type of thinking the author seems to be making an argument for can consume you. You will NEVER be happy if you filter the world like this. Sure, there's a time and place for it, but don't try to convince me that it was "liberating" when you spent $50 or whatever for a fork.

Man, those times my cutlery failed were <i>rough</i>. Glad someone's figuring out the big problems of life.

Is this an advertisement for cutlery?<p>Tune in next week when we will be told what the best toilet paper is.

I have the completely opposite experience. I find it much more stressful to own things that are high quality and expensive because I tend to worry more about such things. In general, I prefer to buy cheaper things knowing that I can easily afford to lose or break them.<p>Anecdote: as a kid, I hated going over to some of my relatives' houses - the ones that owned a lot of expensive stuff. They always seemed so stressed out about me breaking something and got pretty angry when it happened. I don't want to become that kind of relative I guess.

Not sure if this is helpful, but I wrote a long response to The Best: <a href="http://blog.chewxy.com/2012/11/08/the-best-really/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.chewxy.com/2012/11/08/the-best-really/</a><p>In this I raise the point of "the best" being a meaningless measure as we're actively bombarded by lack of information and other factors that make us terrible in making calls on whether something is "the best".<p>I think it's rather hollow to claim that one wants 'the best' and yet doesn't discount in factors that makes one perceive something as 'the best'

I love the idea of having very few things, but getting rid of the stuff I already have feels daunting.<p>I'd be happy to donate most of it, but I'd have to sort through everything, figuring out if each thing is worth selling, donating, or throwing away, then figuring out where to sell, donate, or throw it away, then actually doing it.<p>Anyone who has gone through the process, do you have any suggestions?

i respect a guy who doesn't give a shit what he owns about a million times more than this example of privilege and loneliness run amuck.

I'm sorry for you Mr. Curtis whoever you are... guess you'll never be able to learn how to play the violin.

&#62; These might seem like stupid things to worry about, but when you have trust in everything you own, you don’t have to worry about anything. It’s liberating and an amazing feeling. My life was markedly better because of it.<p>Partly I agree, but I would simplify the statement: “You don't have to worry about anything. It's liberating and an amazing feeling.”<p>While <i>not worrying</i>, if you notice your wallet falls apart, you may momentarily feel uncomfortable and next time buy a better wallet to avoid losing money.<p>Should that be a reason to worry that you're using <i>not the best</i> wallet?<p>That might be true for certain things. Losing money can make you significantly uncomfortable, depending on various factors. There's probably a <i>good enough</i> wallet, but buying <i>the best</i> might just save some time.<p>Otherwise, IMO in the end it's up to you whether you worry or not. We can choose to alter the environment to be happier, or alter our outlook to achieve the same. I think it's mostly under our control, although may be limited by environment a person was raised in.

I was going to say that not everybody can drop $200 on 4 table settings worth of flatware...<p>But yeah, that's pretty much it. People living paycheck-to-paycheck really just can't afford the best because they have needs that pop up and make it next to impossible to save a lot of money when you can just as easily buy flatware that will last for years for $10 from a thrift store.

My ex-girlfriend developed this obsession for having "the best" of every possible thing... I realized it by the time she dumped me...

He died in 2011 but his flatware lives on. A whole year. OK.

What is this, dcurt.is week? There were two on the front page yesterday.

I like to optimize, but also optimize on price. In ~2007, I felt proud to buy a $21500 new Lincoln LS V8 (loaded) which I bought for $23k less than sticker the day they got discontinued, in UAE, since it was essentially a Jaguar S-Type. It made me happier than buying a $45k stripped BMW would have.<p>I also put a lot of effort into getting great headphones, great keyboard, etc., and a chair that I like.<p>I didn't put weeks of research into buying bowls. I saw they were cheap on slickdeals, noticed I needed bowls, and bought some on sale. I don't really research who makes the best bottled water at Costco, I just get whatever is cheap at the time.<p>Pick your battles.

He should post a list of such things.

This post makes me think of many of the concepts from "zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance".<p>For those who haven't read it, it focuses heavily on the nature of quality (how it is both somewhat universal, and somewhat a matter of taste) and the spiritual nature that quality can contain.<p>to mapgrep, the first poster, I would suggest that not all things concerning or focusing on physical objects are materialism. One could even argue that dcurt is attempting to _avoid_ having to think about material objects once he has bought them, that this is what he means by "trusting" the things he owns.

Couldn't someone have editoralized that title? It's not very informative.

I don't understand why there is so much talk of this article being so very materialistic. It's kind of the mentality of a good number of individuals who did or are wanting to try a very minimalistic style of travel (others exist obviously: ignore certain needs (for me: don't bring a computer; for others: only the clothes on your back); buy and throw away each time you're somewhere new (only works in certain areas of the world with certain high budgets); etc. This however is the majority view point for vagabonding. Invest in key items that meet your exact needs (knowing your needs is an important aspect of this). If you do this beforehand you won't be stuck in some country without a passport because it fell out of the hole in your siblings old backpack.<p>If you ignore the anecdote about flatware you realize that the article describes minimalism at it's core. Ensuring all your needs are met with the minimal amount of goods. There is one flaw with this concept of "The Best" that individuals who follow this mantra tend to lose sight of another very important aspect - time. While Daniel Curtis clearly showed his obsession by buying 20 different sets to determine which is the best for him. I imagine that others don't have that amount of time to invest in this decision.<p>I am this way with most purchases; if you have something that will significantly improve the quality of life you have or something that while not necessarily a need but has moved to a desired addition to your lifestyle, spend the time to find the best fit for you. If it is not worth the time to look for what is the best fit for you; don't purchase it because you merely want it.

As an aspiring minimalist, I agree with Dustin's premise but not in his universal application. I believe the goal is to maximize the utility of a purchase, including the cost of information.<p>Spending an amazing amount of time researching features and the subsequent benefits and the combinations there of are extremely valuable for objects or services upon which we thoroughly rely. For anything less, it is just as important give equally less energy, if any at all.

Buying the best stuff, i have no problem with that. Being the guy who always buys the best stuff, reminds me of that phrase about the things that end up owning you.

I also think it's a consumer's responsibility to seek out the best and do a little research. It sends the wrong signals to competitors if consumers do not do that.

American Psycho.

Or: you're gonna lose it anyway, so don't sink too much into it.<p>The only things I'm willing to spend serious money on are shoes and teeth.

Call me crazy but imho "most functional set of flatware in the world" will not have 2 forks and 2 spoons.

I bought some flatware... A spork made of titanium. Why? Because I saw an ad on a nerd gear website. I've had it for years, and eat everything I can with it. But I don't have a strange obsession with everything being the best. But I love my titanium spork.<p>To each their own I guess.

Made me think of something that I havent in years. Kant's 'purposeful purposelessness' - a definition of the aesthetic purpose.<p>Buying 20 sets of cutlery is most definately hyperbole (or no tit doesnt matter) - I think mapgrep is mistaken to link this idea to Steve Jobs and the couch... It is one thing to be an audiophile to have the best stereo; it is another altogether if you love sound.<p>I like the idea from the article. Made me think of the process of selectign a 'go bag' but not for emergencies, for eternity.<p>I am glad such madness exists and I am not insulted by it. I am no there but I get the impulse.

I don't know what all the fuss is about. Dustin is clearly a minimalist and his essay flies in the face of our modern disposable economy. Maybe he didn't spell that out explicitly but it's implicit in his argument. I too won't own a product unless it markedly improves my life and I know it will last the test of time (maybe not socks). I think people are confusing a pervasive cultural obsession of having to own the latest and greatest of EVERYTHING, with Dustin's idea of owning the perfect amount of the perfect thing.

Wow, polarizing. Seems like the opposition is mostly reacting to the idea of intensively researching to find 'the best'...but why not let Dustin and those that think like him do what they want with their time? Once you find someone like that, you can take their advice instead of doing the research. And all this grief is pretty ironic considering the love for tech fetish sites like anandtech and tomshardware.<p>Moreover, given the option, why _wouldn't you_ want to surround yourself with art that you appreciate at every glance?

Eh, I prefer the cutlery from Pott. (<a href="https://pinterest.com/pin/278519558175121239/" rel="nofollow">https://pinterest.com/pin/278519558175121239/</a>)<p>Guy DeGrenne does nice cutlery too. (<a href="https://pinterest.com/pin/278519558175121407/" rel="nofollow">https://pinterest.com/pin/278519558175121407/</a>)<p>The worst? (<a href="http://pinterest.com/pin/278519558175126518/" rel="nofollow">http://pinterest.com/pin/278519558175126518/</a>) - this abomination.<p>Pinterest links used because, let's be honest, that's the best place for this kind of stuff.

I love the philosophy! Many miss the point because they take the article literally. It's not about materialism, the article is about the benefit of cultivating a behavioural trait regarding the process by which one attains knowledge. It can pertain to something as simple as the craft of a fork or to a more abstract and complex idea such as the structure of industry. Thanks for the read.

That flatware has design issues. I went through a lot of knife/fork combinations. The little "nubs" on these serves a few important purposes.<p>1. It gives an easier point to grip, particularly for people that have problems gripping.<p>2. It stops liquid (e.g. a juicy steak) from dribbling down the fork on to your hand.<p>Of course, it doesn't look at cool...

232 comments and counting, I never knew $10 utensils could be such an intriguing and polarizing subject.

It would take an extreme amount of time and quite a lot of money to apply this philosophy if you have a family with small children (like me). I am quite minimalist and selective in my work, but do not (and cannot) apply the same philosophy for my life.

<i>Buy the best, cry once.</i>

Reminding me of that Motorolla Droid add with the guy living with his devices and bed in an open concrete square house. Thoroughly optimal design is neutral, soulless and impersonal, it is frightening.

i tend to agree with this philosophy. although i don't spend as much time as OP in selecting the perfect item, I do agree that finding something of great quality will pay dividends for years to come. My dad bought the very best Sony tv he could find when he came to America in the 80's, and that thing was still in use (and looking good!) up until a few years ago. In this example it actually saved us money, but in other cases (i.e. my first nice car), it just brought lots of joy to use it every single day.

I like the loosely follow this philosophy without it taking over my life. finding a person/source you trust a ton and buying what they say is helpful, for example thewirecutter.com

Am I the only one who has seen this article before?<p>Maybe it was a draft or not public (doubtful, because Dustin isn't close to me), but I'm sure I've read it or a similar version about a year ago.

i think this is an incredible post. We rarely embrace the art and quality it takes to build things that we use everyday (toothbrushes, wallets, backpacks, forks, etc.), but in search for them, you encounter people that built them and an incredible story behind them.<p>Very inspiring to strive to surround yourself with best of everything.

I would be wary of your 'intrinsic side effect' carrying over to your relationships and human interactions.

&#62;What is ultimately important in life are people<p>What's important in life is whatever you define is important.

Neurotic materialism. Or a joke.

The best is usually expensive.

Is anybody else surprised by the hate mongering in the comments and losing the essence of the post altogether?

who is upvoting this? why? hackernews has gone to shit.

hn algoritm...

"The result–being able to blindly trust the things you own–is intensely liberating."<p>It seems somewhat pathetic that psychological liberation should come from choosing the correct personal possessions. I think a better form of liberation would be to shift focus away from possessions entirely.

If one attacks the OP for being materialistic, then one misses the entire point.<p>This post is about minimizing hypocrisy. Too often we do not pay attention to the things that others have built for us. We, the builders and the makers, do not pay enough attention to the builders and the makers that influence our lives! Don't we wish that our customers would pay close attention when they are deciding whether to use our products? Of course we do.<p>Dustin's materialism is the symmetry to the Hacker ethos of making, and if you think he's doing something wrong than you sir are no hacker.