What are some items that really aren't worth paying the expensive version for?
I saw this post and wanted to ask the opposite. What are some items that really aren't worth paying the expensive version for? Preferably more extreme or unexpected examples.
337
Comments419
Medicine. The house brands and generics are the exact same, tested the same, made the same.
But real Advil has the candy coating on the outside, and I haven't found a generic that does =(
Otherwise 100% identical yes.
A few years ago, I wondered why that was and googled it. I came to an Advil site with an expandable FAQ, and one of the questions was “why does Advil taste sweet?”
So I expanded it out to reveal this shocking answer (or something similar): “Advil tastes sweet because it is lightly coated in sugar.”
Thanks, I guess. I just closed the tab in mild irritation and moved on with my day.
That sucks for those of us trying to avoid sugar.
I asked AI to do better:
I loved every sentence of this meticulously crafted bullshit.
That reeks of chatGPT 4. It came come up with some pretty expressive nonsense prose.
Problem with the candy coating is you can't enjoy it, unless you want to suddenly learn what pure poison tastes like. It's such a tease. Doesn't help that they look like scrumptious little caramel-y morsels.
Oh I suck on them first. It lasts long enough.
Are you free tonight?
Yep
There may be a difference in things like pill shape, texture, release mechanism / time to absorb (if it's not very important for how the medication works)
So it's ok to have a preference for one brand over the other when one of those points is relevant to your situation. I know some people also prefer the generic brand version over the regular (even if prices were the same)
Wait, what? I have no idea what advil is, but sugar coating any drug is a recipe for disaster.
Sugarcoating pills is fairly common, especially for pills which are frequently ingested or target older demographics. It's because sugar coatings are much gentler on the esophagus (i.e.: less likely to cause esophagitis, "pill burn"). Advil (i.e.: ibuprofen) is a cheap, well tolerated, and non habit-forming pain reliever -- it's about as safe as such a thing could possibly be, so hopefully that helps to explain why a sugar coating might be warranted given the aforementioned upsides (for the love of all that is holy; always read the directions on the label, it's still quite possible that Advil is not safe for you specifically). FWIW: the bottles also have childproofing mechanisms built into the caps (... at least in U.S. markets. Not sure about elsewhere?)
Not exactly. Just a fun fact and disclaimer that I use generics if at all possible. But my pharmacology class taught that generics can have higher tolerance of error in % of active ingredient. Not usually a big deal unless the drug has a very narrow therapeutic range, meaning too little doesn’t work and too much will harm you. 99.9% of generics is fine. But if you ever wonder if one batch of your med doesn’t seem to work as well this it’s likely that batch was on the lower end of acceptable.
I think this depends where you live, having worked a summer as a trolley runner for blister pack production, we produced thousands of blisters, and at the end of the line half got pharmacy own brand foils and the other half got name brand foils.
Same pills, same packs, same factory same standards and testing, just different ink on the foils. But the pharmacy brands would have shorter contracts so they would only be identical to this name brand for 6 months, then try might get a contract with another factory and be identical to another name brand there.
I know with some drugs (Warfarin is the only one that's instantly coming to mind) it is important to pick a brand and stick with it because the slightest change can effect the therapeutic value.
For myself, I have allergies so sometimes a certain brand or manufacturing company will use a filler, binder or dye I can't have. And frustratingly there are no ingredients lists on pills for fillers and dyes.
That's true but the difference is exceedingly small.
Debunking a Common Pharmacy Myth: The 80-125% Bioequivalence Rule Jun 8, 2016
Depends on the meds. I take concerta for ADHD and as I understand it, the generic doesn't use the same release mechanism.
I'm also on concerta (ADHD highfive) and I've found lower efficacy with the generic... I sure wish it was the same though.
Often made by the same.
Aspirin and paracetamol I don't think are patented by any one company now. Supermarket brand is super cheap.
Also, a cheaper alternative is to eat less and eat healthier. I know we can't all afford expensive healthy foods but just simply cutting out excess fats, sugar and empty carbs from your diet will add years to your life and also add better years to your life.
Off brand Tums (and some newer flavors of Tums) is made with dextrose instead of corn starch. Sugar gives me heart burn, so generic and newer stuff does absolutely nothing for me.
I buy a lot of generic or store brand stuff. Usually I'm comfortable doing this with things that have been around for a long time like bleach, laundry soap, and basic foods. I assume that it is not difficult to do these things so anyone can make it and there's little if any difference between brands.
On this topic: I heard once that you should first buy cheap tools. Use them until they break and then decide what you want to improve about those tools and buy better ones. Often those first tools never break. This seems like pretty good advice for most things.
The tools is good advice most of the time, but not if the tool would fail dangerously. Don't skimp on car jacks, table saws, or other things that are likely to injure you if they fail.
Screwdrivers/drills/hammers/crowbars/etc. don't need to be expensive if you are going to use them rarely as the professional grade is mostly about being used all day every day and being able to survive rough handling by tired workers.
Harbor Freight is fucking awesome.
Milwaukee is awesome, but Harbor Freight is more than good enough for the needs of 95% of people
Sometimes, the store brand is exactly the same stuff from the same factory. They literally stop production from a famous brand, change packaging to a store brand and resume producing the same stuff in a different package. The price difference is mostly marketing and that can be a huge part of the budget.
For some other store brands, they do use cheaper ingredients. However, after the inflation we had, many fancy brands also started doing this to keep profits up so a famous brand is no guarantee for a great product.
And some brands just sell the same stuff but add some additional perfumes and whatnot to justify the cost. They give me a rash so I'd rather get the cheap ones.
As a person who has been buying cheap tools all my life... YES! Most of the tools I bought came from thrift stores and the bargain bin. If someone stole my toolset, it'll probably amount to $60 lost.
But they've lasted for 15 years now. Not because of quality. But because my frequency of usage is so low. I've used a hammer what... 20 times in my life?
I did replace my screwdriver kit and Allen wrench set twice, because I use them a lot.
I've used hammers a lot in my life. I came across a really cheap brand of hammer which made me realize it was in fact possible to make a hammer poorly. The head wasn't even hardened. Hitting nails literally left dents in it. I broke the claw trying to pull a nail that was less than 6" long. It's possible that someone in your situation would have found value in this hammer, but I think someone who did something more involved than framing a single wall wouldn't.
As someone who got hit in the face with the head of a hammer that flew off the handle, I don’t roll with cheap hammers. Also, I stand far away from anyone with tools. 👍
Yup, buy most things at harbor freight the first time, if you break theirs buy whatever name brand fits your color scheme.
I try not to use a lot of plastic wrap, but sometimes it's the right tool for the job. I will always spring for the good stuff, generic is basically useless and you waste way more for inferior performance.
I work as QA in packaging and it turns out that it's super important for a manufacturer to follow every little specification for consistency. There's some seriously small details that make a big difference.
Oh I bet the line between "won't stick to anything" and "immediately turns into a useless wad" is razor thin.
We use dimethyl sulfoxide to test for saran coating. We don't really make cling wrap where I work though. That's usually for anti fog or sealing layers.
Regarding tools, buy a good size 2 phillips screwdriver straight off. You will use it enough to justify it, and the cheapest brands will damage screws
Cars. Expensive cars require more frequent and complicated maintenance and repairs than cheaper cars. They over engineer them on purpose in order to make it unreasonable to maintain them in the long run. They don't want their brand sullied by old versions of their cars driven around by poor people.
When I was in college, I admired my boss and his BMW. He then told me that it was a hand-me-down, and he spends a few hours a month maintaining it because there's always something that breaks and he can't afford to bring it into the shop every time.
He joked on a few occasions of just giving me the car after a year, and after a while, it felt like a cry for help rather than a joke.
kinda reminded me of,
when i signed up for a "driving safety training" course.
we had a particapant, with a brand new bmw,
that went from exited to salty as the course went on
for example,
when we tested our cars traction control (breakin without steering while one side of the path was slippery)
his car was the only one, that didnt stay straight by itself.
Admiring a car is such a stupid thing to do. I'm not trying to attack you, just saying. I've done it in the past. It's just so stupid.
I mean there's a lot of engineering, design, and art that goes into a car. And I feel it's kinda natural to admire a high performance machine. I'll admire a tractor or a train also.
100%
What an insane point to make. If you're a car person then of course you'll admire others' cars, even if you're not, they're often great bits of design and good fun in the right setting.
It's only stupid if you then go out and try to get something to compete with it for more than you can afford to spend. I have no idea what the poster you replied to is talking about.
NGL I sometimes drool looking at a train and how it's built.
I might be trainsexual
I think the term of art these days is that you have a 'trains agenda'
The problem is buying a thing whose primary purpose is utility, then paying more for esthetics, while desperately trying to forget that 99% of them will not last 20 years. If I buy a high quality dining room set, it will also have a lot of artistic consideration and could reasonably last hundreds of years.
I'd 100% disagree. Aesthetics are hugely important, especially in things you use every day. It's dumb to go into debt for it or otherwise ruin your life over it but if you have to use it every day you might as well enjoy it.
Also 99% of cars not making it to 20 years old is an absurd thing to say. The average age of a car in the USA is 12 years. Vehicle sales per year haven't changed that much. That means about half the cars on the road are over 20 years old.
And a dining room set lasting centuries? Technically possible but like not if you actually use it every day.
I have never once thought to myself, "This driving experience is so much better because this car is so pretty!" Better handling, more power, smoother ride, more comfortable interior, sure, all those things improve the experience. I'm also aware this is an opinion, where people will have different experiences, but unless you live in your car I can't imagine paying extra solely because you enjoy what that extra brings. The reasoning that causes this simply doesn't make sense to me, although I acknowledge that it happens (a lot).
And while the 99% number is incorrect, it is about as absurd as the 50% claim. Upon actual research rather than my gut instinct, this site puts the number of cars on the road after 20 years at 24%. Note that the weather where I live is harsher and the average age of cars is about a year less than in America, and that the distribution doesn't follow a normal curve so that percentage could be a few points lower where I live.
That site is geo-blocked in my region so I have no idea what it says but I'd just like to point out that
A: the USA actually exports a huge number of used cars so the average life of a car sold in the US will actually be longer than the average age of a car in the US.
And B: without a significant number of cars way older than 20 years old, there's no way for the average age to be 12 years old and only 24% be over 20 years old. So a bunch of that 24% have got to be 50-60 years old. Either one of the stats are wrong or a significant portion of cars are lasting way longer than either of us were guessing.
Also you can appreciate the experience more just because of the aesthetics of a product. This is a well documented phenomenon. If it's not your thing fine, not everyone has to like the same things. I find for example fancy dinner sets to be ridiculous. Doesn't mean that I think people who own them are dumb for liking them. I have friends who break out their grandmother's china for Thanksgiving. I'd never do that but it makes them happy so good on them.
Edit: whoever wrote that blog post really doesn't want any darned foreigners reading it. They not only block non American IP addresses, but also Archive.org, VPN addresses, and Google cache.
I would argue that ultimately, the only reason we use money is to enjoy our lives more than we would otherwise.
Personal enjoyment over time is then probably the most important reason you could spend extra on a pretty or fast car. I threw in the “over time” because obviously plenty of people spend way too much on cars that they think make them happy in the short term, but make their life worse in the long term.
Cars as entertainment devices are super expensive, no doubt. Consider a $20K price bump for the performance vehicle versus a few grand for a gaming setup that will also last several years. But, for some people it’s still worth it. Like right now I drive a cheap sensible car (11 year old Mazda 3), but in a few years when I upgrade, in think I want to get a performance model. I prefer working in the office, and I work close to home with a fun windy hilly country road between here and there. I’m thinking electric dual motor sedan would be real nice.
Admiring in and of itself is fine. And I'm very much in the "FuckCars" camp (not in the sexual way).
People might take stupid actions or make stupid decisions out of their admiration, but that's a different matter than the admiration.
Hard disagree!
Are you saying that you've owned both cheap and expensive cars, and that your favorites have always been the cheap ones? That they've been more reliable, more comfortable, better-riding, and better-driving? Or, at least, no worse than the expensive ones?
Yes, more expensive cars are more expensive. They often have a higher cost of ownership. And, sometimes, brands really fuck up and cut corners they shouldn't, and result an reputational harm that takes years to recover from, long after they've fixed the production issues (c.f. Audi in the early 00's). But, IME, it's usually worth it, if you can afford it.
There's not going to be a huge difference between something like a Toyota and a Mercedes other than cost and reliability. You're paying for the brand.
I disagree as well. I think it'd be pretty obvious to anyone who's sat in each the difference in comfort, ride quality, material choice, technology, and drivetrain refinement between a Corolla and an AMG.
I would still buy the Corolla though for the reliability - or better yet, a Lexus which kind of has both.
This person has never driven a Merc.
There's a difference between Toyota and Lexus
You can buy a decent spec Highlander for $40k.
100% agree here. They all need maintenance, but higher end ones have pricer parts and less common, affordable after market parts. Cars are for the most part a utility and a cost center. You want to minimize your cost and maximize your value gotten out of it.
I despise cars as a status symbol, because again it's just going to turn into a rust bucket like the rest of them at the same or worse rates, but also it just sets people up for failure in the lives just tens of thousands down the drain, literal years of work, for something's that's nearly worthless by the time they pay it off.
Lolol you just going to ignore that brands like Porsche are consistently in the top 3?
Expensive cars mostly fail because people who can't afford them don't do basic maintenance. The only real German brand when any reliability issues are Merc.
Water. At least here in Denmark. Bottled water is less regulated than tap water.
In parts of the Alps, the stuff coming out of the fountains in the town square is cleaner than the stuff that comes out of the tap lol 😂
In the states, you always filter or boil stream water, because animals shit it it, and you can pick up any number of nasty parisites and diseases. Tap water should at least be treated.
Is there no dysentary in the Alps? No giardiasis? Cryptosporidiosis?
I'd sooner drink tapwater short-term almost anywhere in a developed country than river water. The former may cause issues long term, but the later can make you life-threateningly ill in hours.
Are you talking about streams and rivers, and not ground water wells?
Yah, exclusively. Wells (stagnant water, whether above or under-ground) are problematic because they tend to breed bacteria, but any out-flowing ground-spring is probably fine. Deep wells, such as aquifers, are alse safe, I think, but you're unlively to encounter accessible ones of those in the wild.
I'm suspicious of even mountain springs, although they can be utterly delicious and safe; my issue is nhen you don't know what's upstream. There are lots of farmers in the Alps who let their sheep, goats, and cattle forage in the mountains. Which is perfectly fine, except that they poop, and that gets into running water, often after having sat out and having had plenty of time to build up bacterial populations, hosting parasitic worms and such. People also contribute, but less so. I'm not worried about drinking someone else's diluted pee, which is sterile in any case.
But, yeah, ground springs are fine, and those are far more common in the Alps than most of the ranges in North America.
Depends on altitude really. If you're higher up it's freezing meltwater, which might have a non-zero chance of containing disease carriers but it's probably extremely unlikely.
Of course. It's animals - including human ones - that introduce the parasites. No animals, no problem!
There's natural sources everywhere, literally filtered water pouring out of rocks. So much so that the overflow from water treatment plants gets pumped to the fountains, and troughs in the countryside for walkers to use
Stuff coming directy out of the ground is probably safe. I'd still avoid streams and rivers.
Nobody mentioned rivers or streams, High-Fructose-Syrup-Boy 😂
No need for that sort of insult. We're talking about water here for fuck's sake.
When in a trip to Europe when I was 16, my grandpa and I visited Switzerland for a week. We got e-bikes for our time there and would take them everywhere we went around the country (absolutely gorgeous countryside, with bike trails literally all over the place). One day we went up into the Alps to visit and check things out. Our plan was to ride from one town on one side of the mountain, ride up over the mountain, then catch a train ride home.
I rode on ahead because I was impatient, ended up getting lost so I had to make that ride myself (and it took literally all day). At one point I stopped to take a break and I saw a large tub filled with water, which I assume(d) was for some animals or something. Well anyway I was tired and thirsty so I just went right up to the tub and dunked my face in for a drink. I could see bits of grass and whatnot floating in it but I didn't care cause I was so thirsty.
I've been fine ever since.
That's a great story, and it sounds like an amazing trip.
It's not a "will", it's a "might". It's a game of Russian roulette; 5 times you might be fine, but is it worth it if the 6th isn't, and you spend the rest of the vacation puking and crapping your guts out?
For me, the question is: are there any such parisites in the Alps? Maybe not. Giardia in the new world is spread largely by beavers, as I understand it, and those don't exist (much) anymore in Europe.
I mean I absolutely wouldn't do it again lol. Nowadays I carry a water bottle with me anywhere I go
Good habit! I'd settle for even one of those filtering bottles; the biggest concern in streams is parasites, and those filters are fine for those. Cautious, not paranoid!
You can absolutely 100% safely drink water from the spout in a trough in a field in Switzerland or France. If it's not drinkable it's labelled "non potable". If there's no label it's fine
Not everywhere is the US
I wish you'd shared this anecdote sooner. Think of all the money that could have been saved on water treatment if people had only known that one time you drank from a semi questionable water source and didn't get sick.
There's nothing questionable about a water trough in Switzerland. It's safe unless otherwise labelled
NOT SAFE FOR DRINKING
In the UK, baked beans.
In my work we did a blind taste test of 10 different brands of baked beans, with participants ranking them in order from best to worst. The name brand options such as Heinz, HP, and Branstons ended up in the middle, with the cheaper options from Aldi and Asda being the best. The most expensive beans were from Marks and Spencer and were voted the worst ones.
If you're paying more than 50p a can its not worth it.
Got to respect the dedicated UK baked beans eaters.
Does that not just prove which ones have the most salt and sugar in them?
Aldi UK beans aren't as good as they used to be. I think they changed about 6 months ago. That said, they are still decent and my beans of choice.
Every time I eat baked beans I fill my knickers.
Good to know, SatansMaggotyCumFart
Heinz is apparently not what it was. More sugar, less tomato.
Though Lidl value beans are no where near as good as their standard ones.
Speaker wire. Expensive speaker wire will not sound any better. You could use a coat hanger and get great sound. Tip: every few years cut the wire ends and expose fresh wire to use. Over time the wire can oxidize if I recall correctly.
The stuff in the audio world is mind boggling. I think LTT did a video on a network switch that made sound better or something.
Yup. That was Grade-A bullshit from the seller. People will say anything to try to sell you a “superior” product.
Can confirm, I bought my speaker wire second hand and the stuff is probably like at least 30 years old and sounds fine
Yep. Bought thin speaker wire at the dollar store 15+ years ago. Still using it in my living room. Bought a house and the basement stereo was included and had 'good" speaker wire for the connection. I cannot hear a difference
I partially agree. While there are a lot of useless upsells there still are supported standards and features to considder.
Dogs, rescues are just as doglike and mostly free compared to the Hapsburg simulator known as breeding
My rule of thumb: Buy the cheap one. If it wears out or breaks, buy the good one.
Note: this advice should not be applied to condoms.
If you're a climber, you shouldn't follow this rule also.
Also skiers.
For me actually the other way Around. There is a saying in Spain that says "el pobre siempre paga dos veces" that translates as "the poor always pays twice".
It refers to the fact that you buy something cheap that barely covers the need and after it breaks you are forced to buy the good one. This is specially important for hand tools or similar.
In my opinion, for using it a couple times is better renting/asking someone to let you use theirs. For several uses it is almost always better paying more for a better use and higher resell value.
On the other hand, if you are buying cheap it's usually because you aren't familiar with the product and it's characteristics. So you can take it as the price for learning about said product and what you really want from it.
For example, I got a cheap electric scooter for my wife on her birthday. We are new to these things, and didn't even know if we would use it at all. Fast forward a year and we have used the crap out of it, even the kids can't stop taking it out for a spin, and we now know what to look for and what sort of power and features we want when it comes time to replace it.
That might be the perfect example for what I said. You have bought a cheap product that you ended up liking and when it tears up you are paying literally twice for the same product.
It is not that tou took a bad decision or that the buying twice applies to everyone everywhere and everything, it just says you are in fact paying twice for the same thing while some research might have saved that.
Don't take me wrong, this is not criticism, I've done it a thousand times but in my experience, for something I consider might REALLY need, get the good (not the best) option first.
Ah, the boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
Very much depends on what kind of things you're speaking of.
For example, the rule works very well with most tools; if you end up barely using it, it's not worth paying more. If it breaks, it's because you've used it enough or to warrant an expensive one, or because your needs exceed its use.
The landfill thanks you.
the amount of trash generated by food production, the medical industry, and the construction industry trump personal waste by so many orders of magnitude I no longer give a shit about the waste I generate, especially if it's in the pursuit of BIFL.
That "if" can apply to the high price brand as well. If you know you won't use the item a lot, going for off brand is a reasonable approach.
Good point, I Wasn't thinking about waste. I have several cheap tools from Harbor Freight that I've had for years. I've also had good name brand tools break down in the middle of their first job.
That's one way to never get the best experience out of something, though.
Buy cheap shoes to go running, and you'll probably quit after a few weeks.
Buy cheap tools, and you'll end up rounding off nuts and stripping screws.
Buy a cheap bike and you'll end up hating cycling.
Etc.
Better would be to buy the best quality for your budget, assuming it's something you'll be using more than once or is something that isn't critical to have as decent quality.
Digital cables, like HDMI and USB. If they meet the spec, they should operate identically.
ETA: It's a digital signal: either it works or it doesn't. There's no "higher quality" version of the same image. Sure, if you have a 4K 120hz HDR signal you might need an HDMI 2.1 spec cable, but as long as it meets that spec, it'll either work or need to be returned. The signal won't be washed out, or crackly, or static-y (all the concerns we had with analog video cables back in the day); the signal might not work, or it might drop out from time to time, which means it doesn't meet spec.
Same with USB-C. If it doesn't charge your phone correctly, or have the transfer speeds you want, because you bought it at a Dollar Store and it isn't in spec, the problem isn't USB-C, it's the fact that the manufacturer sold you an out-of-spec cable.
I personally do not find expensive wine and liquor worth it. That obviously don't mean all cheap wines are good, but I find the percentage of bad wine I had at $50 - $70 range is pretty much the same as wine around or under $20.
I find the best way is to research online before you buy or go for couple known-good brands. Most of the results actually tend to be on the cheaper side (around $20 for wine, around $35 for liquor).
I'll agree on the wine front, but I also don't care for wine much. Never developed a palate for it.
But liquor, very much disagree. If you're one to enjoy a scotch on the rocks or something, there's a huge difference in taste once you splurge and get the good $100+/bottle stuff. And the cheap liquor always gives me a bad hangover.
under $20 for 1.75 L is the one of the better vodkas out there. Very smooth, little to no flavor, its actually like drinking water
hop on that cheap danish shit
I'll disagree to a point on liquor.
I like single-malt Scottish whiskey. I like Islays the most, followed by Speysides, Cambelltowns, Highlands, and Lowlands (in that order). I've found that, generally speaking, the longer a whiskey has been aged, the better it's going to be at mellowing out the harsher flavors in a given distillery's offerings. Compared to blended whiskeys--which are usually cheaper--single malt, and single barrel are a better experience in my opinion. I'm usually paying $50-200 for something that I'll really enjoy, with most being in the $100-150 range.
But $5000 for a 40yo bottle of Macallen? Absolutely not.
I heard whisky can be quite expensive, so I retract my point on whisky. The liquor I had in mind is mainly tequila, which is generally rather cheap.
FWIW, whiskey is expensive because the market had grown sharply, and production runs a minimum of seven years behind demand (for Scottish whiskey, due to laws on aging). Ten years ago you could get a perfectly decent Laphroaig for $25-35; now it's more like $60 for the same thing.
I will say legit well crafted tequila I had in Mexico, was so tasty you could drink it straight. No clue the price, but there are def differences and pretty much all of the cheaper tequila in America sucks ass.
IMHO, there are two price bands for wine: under-$10, and over. I have an unsophisticated palette, but I can tell a cheap wine from a not-cheap one. I can't tell a not-cheap one from an expensive one, though. Some really expensive wines taste like crap to me, worse than the mid-range ones. That's the only time I can pick out on expensive wine: it might taste bad, but it doesn't taste cheap.
There were some often-quoted tests in which even professional sommeliers could not tell the difference between super-expensive wines and much cheaper ones. See this article on The Guardian for instance
I am picky but it doesn't correlate directly with price. Wine, no. I don't like wine enough to like bad wine so just saving money by drinking it rarely(maybe 6xa year) but buying the ones I actually do like works better. They are between 30-50 USD but again, maybe 5 or 6 bottles a year at most.
Liquor - I have favorites but they are mostly not high end stuff. Evan Williams bottled-in-bond is fantastic and so cheap. ABK6 cognac and vodka are great. Tequila, I like a few and none are too spendy.
Liqueurs though, and mezcal- paying more does seem to make a huge difference in these. The good ones are better than the cheaper analogues.
See The Judgment of Paris or Brochet's study.
I'm a classic ____ and coke person myself, and I've settled with Evan Williams White label with RC Cola, almost indistinguishable from Jack and Coke for well under half the price at probably twice the ABV. And the more I drink, the less I care.
When I see people say stuff like "rc cola is almost indistinguishable from coke" it blows my mind. Do you actually mean you can't taste the difference? Or that you don't think the difference is worth the extra money?
I'm more curious where these people all get RC Cola, I haven't seen that stuff since the 90s...
I only had it a few times in Australia but I didn't like it, it tasted very different from the other colas.
My father fancies himself a wine connoisseur, and 75% of what he buys are in the $20-30 range if not less.
There used to be a book that would come out every year in Canada called Billy's Best Bottles. It's premise was exactly what you just said: that we basically are living in a golden age of wine, where even cheap bottles of wine can be incredibly good. Not only are many cheap wines good, but he also identified that the upper end of wine, for most people, need never exceed about $35 a bottle because the vast majority of people in blind taste testing can't tell the difference between a good $35 bottle and anything more expensive than that.
HDMI cables. . The cheap ones and the expensive ones have the same specifications
This used to be true, but unfortunately, like USB-C the game has changed completely.
The downside to standardization is that if you keep the same physical form for multiple iterations, the internals can change. The specs of the source and receiving ends have gone through tons of changes since 2015 and old HDMI 1.4 Cables don't have the same standards to transmit high speed signals from things like PS5, Xbox, Apple TV etc.
Additionally because they require programming and HDCP (a verification handshake between the 2 devices it connects) when companies cheap out they may not properly program them.
That being said, you don't need spend an arm and a leg, but don't get shit either. Generally speaking, buy the cheapest version HDMI 2.1 from a reputable brand or vendor. Definitely not from Amazon anymore, a TON of products labeled 2.1 are actually 2.0 or worse, 1.4.
USB is a nightmare.
I only realized recently that my steam deck wasn't charging as well with any old wire. And that's when I learned that different wires and adapters have power limits.
I'm not a expert at these things though.
The steam deck won't pull past 3A anyway (all usb C cables are rated for 3A), so unless you're using a USB-A to C cable, you should be getting full speed, unless the cable is damaged.
This is true, specs between different versions are different.
That said, it's definitely NOT a reason to buy expensive. I can find 1.3 HDMI cables being sold right now at over twice the price of a legit 2.1 cable...
OK, this one is true until it isn't.
HDMI 1.4 and arguably 2.0 specs were straightforward enough that it was rare to encounter a cable, no matter how cheap, that did not support all the features you wanted if it listed the right HDMI spec. That... is no longer a universal truth with HDMI 2.1 if you need something that will do 4K120 with HDR. There are cables that just don't like some ports, particularly on PCs.
Length is also a way this can be wrong. Go above 2.5-3m and you may start losing the ability to hit some of the spec. I have a HDMI setup that requires a longer cable and there are basic cables that work and some that don't for the application. To get a better chance on longer cables you end up having to go for powered cables or HDMI over fiber, which are both more expensive than normal cables and it can be luck of the draw even with expensive cables whether they will like your devices and be compatible with what you're trying to do.
So console plugged directly to your 60Hz TV over 1.5m? Sure, cheap cable will do. Longer distances or higher bandwidth requirements? Be prepared to shop around and try different options, potentially getting very expensive.
I don't know if you're joking or not here, but yeah, that's a 200 bucks solution, so hardly support for "cheap HDMI cables are fine", and for the distances I needed to cover a working HDMI fiber cable was a fraction of the cost (and it doesn't need to be powered on both ends, either). If you're trying to wire a whole house (or a studio, which is what those are for), then sure. If you just need the one long cable for home use... well, yeah, that's the point of good cables. Still finicky and requires trial and error, but if you buy from a place that allows returns it's more cost effective and it'll do the job once you find the right mix of parts.
To a degree. I once bought HDMI cables at Dollarama thinking the same thing. For $4, it should work good enough, right? It took me a while to realize that the random interference that was pixalating and distorting the image was the cable and not my media PC, but not before swapping the video card to test.
You can buy cheap cables, but beware that not all cables are the same quality.
This was pretty close to being true for 1080p and lower resolutions. If you get a 4k 120hz HDR display then bandwidth and signal integrity start becoming very important. The article you linked is rather old and really only considers media up to 4k 30fps. Cable quality especially matters at lengths above 4 ft for uhd and higher.
There's a lot of snake oil so you can't just trust marketing claims. I've had terrible luck with cables that claim to support high resolutions from amazon and even monoprice. I've resorted to buying cables from actual electronics suppliers like digikey since their speed ratings should be accurate.
Oh, amazon is absolute fucking shit for quality these days. It's embarrassing how shitty their store is at weeding out imposter products.
Oh for sure. I do my best to avoid Amazon because most listings are full of made up lies. I know marketing is full of half truths and exaggerations, but I despise shopping at places that try so hard to deceive me.
I just brought up Amazon since Amazon and monoprice are the most common options I see mentioned when people ask for alternatives to the overpriced options at best buy or whatever.
Industrial suppliers can be more expensive, but the time and aggravation saved by shopping by specifications you can trust is frequently worth a modest price premium. I've switched to Digikey and McMaster for a number of personal purchases after realizing how much of a mental toll deceptive marketplaces carry.
There can still be a difference in physical quality, even if signal quality is relatively unchanged.
Sure, but not enough to justify monster cable prices.
I would agree if not for the fact that I have had the same Monster HDMI cable for nearly a decade now while other brands during this same timeframe have been periodically replaced when they stopped working.
Twisted Veins is my go to. Great quality and durability, much lower price than Monster. I have lived in 9 homes in the last 8 years, and the 4 pack I bought 8 years ago has held up perfectly. These things are outliving TVs, computers, Ethernet cables, you name it.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'm sure I'll need to replace a cable before long and I'll try to keep them in mind.
Yeah, it's the same with USB cables. Technically they should all be equal. But after having all 3 cables in a pack of 3 fail within a few months of buying I only get one of the at least recognised brands now. Considering some of the higher power charging modes available now, you want a cable that really can handle the currents it says it can.
HDMI it's generally the case, you want a decent brand for build quality. But when you see the "audiophile" rated stuff for digital signalling cables, then it's time to move on.
I think HDMI cables is a rabbit hole subject you can really lose some time with. I don't know how everyone is feeling about Linus these days (I never heard how his independent ethics audit went), but he did a big deep dive on this and found result all over the place. Some cables costing WAY more than they should being total garbage, and some cheap ones being relatively OK and meeting spec, with no real way to know who is safe without either 1) testing them yourself OR 2) finding someone doing a wide batch of testing.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
big deep dive
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Absolutely not. I finally got a 4K 120hz OLED TV which needs a HDMI 2.1 cable. Ordered a certified one and I couldn't get 120hz to run whatever way I tried. I managed to force it one time and the TV screen black screened every two seconds. After doing everything else (reinstall GPU drivers, messing with settings) I finally ordered a different HDMI cable.
Plugged it in, set 120hz, it worked. Both cables are certified, but one was trash.
Even with the new cable I sometimes get a short black screen now, but I have no clue if it's the cable's fault or the TV. HDMI cables are a total mess when you actually want to use the full bandwidth :-/
I switched to 4K 60hz for now as I don't really game on the TV anyway, it also allows me to use TrueMotion again (which seemingly doesn't run at 120hz). Either way I get anxious about HDMI cables now, lol.
Can %100 say that fiber optic HDMI cables makes a difference. Especially over length.
Cheap pregnancy tests work just as well as expensive ones do. Theyre highly regulated either way.
Dish washer soap. Gotta rep technology connections for teaching me that not only is the powdered stuff cheaper, it's also just straight up better. Also store vs name brand shouldn't make a big difference either, at least not from my tests.
When I buy dishwasher soap now I just compare price per gram and grab the cheapest option.
Two things that have been very relevant to me recently:
Car washes. If you want the best outcome, wash it yourself. If you're just trying to knock some grime off, the cheapest one will do. The finishing sprays don't last a week.
Also beverages when hosting a party. No need to buy name brand when store brand is half the cost and will get drank the same anyway.
People will drink it, but they may also remember. I have a cousin at whose house I turn tea-totaller, because the beer & wine they offer at parties is literally the cheapest stuff available and it's fucking horrible.
I think you may have meant teetotaller
Huh. Cool stuff. Today I tee-totally learned something new.
Nice. Although someone only ever drinking tea does humour me. They're being a tea-totaller XD
FWIW I was mainly talking about things like soda. The difference between store brand and name brand drinks is almost unnoticeable in taste but costs half as much. I agree that the cheapest beer is borderline undrinkable though
Fair enough I can see that.
The difference between soda is very noticeable to me. Some store-brand sodas taste almost flat.
I can't tell much a difference between wines of the same type. They taste slightly different, but I can't say which taste "better."
Cheap liquor seems "harsher" than more expensive liquor; even with vodka, which doesn't really have a taste. The difference in taste of say, the regular Jim Beam and a barrel-proof bourbon is pretty noticeable.
I've noticed no difference in 100% fruit juice by brand. Well, except for orange juice.
Tea quality is very noticeable to me, but I'm a heavy tea drinker.
Even different water brands have different tastes. But, as long as it's not my tap water (which is very hard and smells like a swimming pool), I don't really care.
He can bring his own then
I had this issue. I buy generics and had a couple friends literally complain that I didn't have anything to drink. Less of an issue as we actually grew up, now less people bitch and mostly got over it.
People live for those brands, though, man.
I make beer, and I take suggestions of friends of different styles (if left to my taste it would be English and Irish ales, and heavily hopped pale ales)
I am disappointed when people suggest "something like VB?" (Victoria Bitter is a mass market beer tuned to be inoffensive. It's boring.)
Beer drinkers are as bad as wine drinkers for being fussy
For me it was kind of the opposite. I care less about getting shit faced and more about flavours. Getting buzzed is just a pleasant side effect.
Some people will absolutely know the difference.
Used to do this in college all the time... drink the good shit myself then bring the shit that tastes like paint thinner to the party in the same bottle. Just make sure you pour the first drink so no on realizes it's open already.
Bro it was college. You could've brought the vlad bottle and people would still drink it.
This is borderline KenM. I almost want to upvote you.
Anything made by Kirkland
Kirkland frozen pizzas are the exception, they may come three to a box but it’s straight cardboard with bland toppings and sauce. Plus they don’t reheat worth a shit, might as well get 10 totinos
Their pepperoni tastes like rejected Lunchables meat.
Their Detroit style pizza is a lot better.
I agree about reheating but I quite like the cracker crumb crust when it's fresh.
I'll object to their tequila, but everything else I'm totally on board :)
And sometimes coffee, they are great if you are into consistent generic dark roast, but kirkland coffee is not for people who are not into that.
Phones.
100% the other way around for me. My phone is the one thing I own, I use the most. To have a more fluid experience is worth a couple of hundred dollars. The hourly price difference is minuscule.
Agreed. I've gotten expensive android phones, and I know plenty of people with expensive apple phones, but they all go to crap. A cheap phone last about as long and does 90% the same stuff and into photography or gaming, both of which have better alternatives at the high-end phone price ranges.
Or get several models previous, bought used. I had a Pixel 3 I bought for very little on ebay.... Now I have a Pixel 7, from a deal with my wireless company (which will of course cost me over time). And at least for my use, I can't say the 7 is any more useful or nice to work with than the 3.
I bought my pixel 4xl at the end of 2019 used and it's still going strong. There was an issue that affected the batteries that Google fixed under warranty, but other than that I see no reason for me to need to get a new phone for a couple more years. It's plenty snappy and the camera is still good enough.
The only argument would be software support. Getting newly discovered flaws fixed would be ideal, but many manufacturers don't do that for nearly as long as we should reasonably expect them to.
I think the same about my pixel 5, minus the battery haha
This is true. You can get an almost equal performance out of a cheap phone. But I learned that more expensive or high-end phones recieve more software updates than cheaper entry-tier phones.
For instance, I own an LG K8 (Model LG-M200E) from 2017. The battery still holds enough charge (although it is designed to be replaced), the camera works, the touch display still responds properly - but it only recieved one update (Android 7 --> Android 8) in 2018. I wouldn't consider it secure and I certainly don't have my online banking on the phone. Meanwhile it gets very hot and slow when I use Google Maps. Unfortunately, there is no way to replace its operating system with an alterntive OS, linke Grephene OS or Lineage. None of the many alternative operating systems offer suppert for this specific model.
My next phone will propably be mid-price ranged.
Edit: typos
I guess with all things, depends on the financial position of the customer.
If you're stretching yourself to get any phone, then yeah, diminishing returns for forking out $800+ for a flagship.
That being said I've owned multiple phones in each price category, and can say that the best phones are unfortunately among the most expensive.
I've owned phones across all price ranges and had a different experience.
Don't get the cheapest one, but a used Pixel or OnePlus that's 2 years old works the same way as the newest Galaxy 12345.
Why?
I think we need to define cheap.
Cheap as in a used iPhone that still works. Agreed
Cheap as in a new Android phone with Android Go and the bare minimum specs that will keep it going. Hard disagree unless you are using it as just a dumb phone.
I agree. I use like a $20 flip phone.
Youtube premium
Video games, there's thousands for free online at itch.io and even on steam.
You can always buy games discounted if you wait, and paying for microtransation games is a recipe for wasting money.
Okay, and some are really good, like DF or CDDA or OpenTTD... But you're never going to find a free Dark Souls, a free Baldur's Gate 3 or a free Return to the Obra Dinn.
So I think it absolutely makes sense paying for quality games like those.
To be fair, they did say you can buy it discounted if you wait. To me, as far as the original question goes, pre-ordering the game or buying a marked up "deluxe" version isn't worth it when you can get it a year later for 50% or more off. If you're willing to wait a few years, you can easily get them often 80% off or more, and they're often less buggy because they've been patched already. Dark Souls 3 has already gone on sale for 50% off a few times, as has Return of the Obra Dinn(never heard of this, btw), and Baldur's Gate 3 has already gone on sale for 10% off despite having been released August 3rd.
I don't know how my brain skipped over that part, but you're totally correct!
Well, to add to the OP then, don't buy always-online games either.
I love Hitman, but fuck IOI for their business model, honestly. They don't even say they're going to patch the games to fully work offline in the future, so I don't expect that to happen.
What is DF and CDDA?
I'm guessing Dwarf Fortress and Cataclysm: Dark Days Ahead
Yeah I agree.
At this point you should never be in a situation where you cannot buy games that are in the genres you enjoy that are 1+ years old, as a result patched up, and on a 30%-70% sale if you're willing to wait at most a few weeks for the next sale.
And since there'll be more than 1 such game, you can always have one on backlog while waiting for the next one to go on sale. There's 0 reason to buy the buggy full-price on-release version.
Phones
You don't really need an 8-core CPU and 12 gigs of RAM for making calls and browsing the web, which is what 95% of people use their phones for. Not even buying such phone for the sake of longevity is worth it since most manufacturers drop support for their phones after 5 years at most.
kids
A lot of generic foods. Safeway's in-house brand, for example, has better crackers, pasta sauces, a handful of other items than the expensive name brands do. And yes, that includes Rao's. I'll never understand why that brand is so popular when Safeway Select exists and tastes better with perfectly good ingredients at a fraction of the cost.
Safeway has some of the best generics for sure. I've never been let down with any of their stuff, and that doesn't only include food items.
I often see people say to buy the expensive toilet roll but I always go for the low end of the midrange rolls. I don't need 4ply, scented, quilted shit, I just need two pieces of paper stuck together.
There is a balance, you don't want to get the 1ply stuff you'd find in a stingy office. But just look at the label and price-per-sheet
(If you can afford it, buy a year's supply in bulk from the company)
Buy a bidet and suddenly the ply won’t really matter. Plus you’ll spend way less on TP long term.
Our bidet doesn't have an air dryer, so we did have to upgrade our paper from the cheap 1-ply stuff that turned to pulp on contact with any moisture. That said, we go through way less paper post-bidet.
Bidet dryers suck anyway. I get the best top-tier TP available no matter the cost, and it takes my partner and myself FOREVER to run out now. I’m usually only using two squares.
Bidets are the best.
Unfortunately I haven't been able to find a bidet attachment that fits my toilet. When we move, I'm getting one for sure but I'll still use toilet roll at times too
That being said, I'm not sure the cost-benefit really fits here. The initial cost (£100-500, depending on quality and type) plus fitting (£100-200 depending on plumbers in your area) would take about 10 years to break even when spending £40 on toilet roll per year. And by then, I'm sure I would have moved house or the bidet would have broken or something
Hmmm you might have an unusually shaped toilet, but Brondell makes easy-attach ones - they should be £20-£50 absolutely maximum. They fit any style of toilet, even portable.
You shouldn’t need a plumber unless you’re getting a Japanese, Rolls-Royce level bidet with angled shooters, heated seating, and twirl pattern. It’s really just - turn off water, disconnect hose from toilet, connect bidet hose, connect old hose to bidet hose… water back on. Overall if you’ve ever built something from IKEA, you can probably attach one of these bidets.
But I’m just speaking from preference. Got one during the great TP assassination of 2020 and haven’t looked back since - mostly because I have a sprayer so I don’t have to look back anymore.
That said it’s pretty hard to beat £40 a year price wise - comfort wise though, it’s all down to preference.
Yeah, it's an adapted toilet for a disability and also built into a wall (old house, weird architecture), so the easy attachable ones don't cut it. Even if they did, I'd still prefer the separate bidet unit, tbh. Just personal preference and what I'm used to, which would require someone to fit it
Yeah, I'm sorry, I'll always hard disagree on this. I get where others come from, but I will always shell out for the better tp.
Yeah, I would get by just fine using sand paper.
Soap. My mom and sisters always complement my hair and skin, asking what products I use. I just use 2$ Yardley bar soap for skin and hair. I also like them because they smell nicer than other cheap brands that just have a generic detergent smell.
Razors. For all shaving I use a safety razor. The initial investment is somewhat expensive but after that each blade is mere cents. Also much less wasteful. Make sure to store your used blades in an old medicine bottle to dispose of them safely (and for the garbage man's safety). Also find these to be way nicer on skin, 5 blade or whatever cartridge razors don't make a closer shave and remove and irritate skin much more.
Kitchen knives. Most cheap knives (and a lot of expensive ones) suck because of bad design. Most knives today are way too thick and chunky, to make them look more robust etc. what you need is a thin blade and a sharp, long lasting edge. Victorianox fibrox ($35) is excellent for the money and for most people you don't need any more performance. You can also use kiwi knives (10$). They are super cheap, perform well, but dull fast, a good cheap option if you know how to sharpen and hone. If you want more performance than the fibrox you can get a Japanese tojiro basic. These aren't very fancy but have excellent performance, being made of laminated vg-10 steel and having a much longer lasting edge. These are around 50$
If you cook and chop a lot and want a knife to take pride and pinnacle of performance then you'll want a hand forged Japanese knife. DO NOT fall for Japanese knife scams and do lots of research on YouTube. These will be around 200$ to 500$ (more expensive knives are for prettier, or famous blades). They are very thin, highly polished (it'll glide through food) and made of extremely sharp, extremely hard, hand forged laminated steel.
Yes, kinda. That is use a brand that is certified by your country's health service. But use generics not the named brand drugs once available.
I disagree. This is really a case by case basis.
As a medical doctor I strongly object to this. Generics are tightly regulated. The substance is the same. What can vary is the binding materials and alike. In very, very rare cases a patient can be allergic to a substance that is specific to a certain brand (and not part of the active substance). This has happened to me only twice. In some countries anticonvusants are the exception where generics aren't used, but that is not practiced everywhere.
Might depend on country of course. But yeah in my country medicine is so tightly regulated that the brand stuff is chemically identical to the generics anyways, they kinda all have to be.
Do you object to the statement that generics are equivalent to brands, or that they aren't?
There are a lot of things that go into medications, as you pointed out, and allergens are the most severe - and not dismissable! - differrence. When a drug goes out of protection, the company is only required to release the mechanism of action; they aren't required to release the bindings you mentioned, or the coatings. They aren't required to release packaging info, which can affect the ease of which an arthritic patient - or a child - can access medications. Bindings and coatings affect release rates, which affects how the medication interacts with the body.
There is a substantial difference between formulations and packaging that affects some drugs. This isn't to say name brand is always better, but that there are differences.
I'd guess that you do not personally have a chronic illness for which you've been taking a medication for several years - am I right? Is your experience with generics all second-hand, through your patients?
In the US, the common experience of sufferers of chronic conditions is that pharmacies switch out generics every year as they jockey for higher profit margins. These people will confirm that there are definitely differences between formulations that affect percieved effectiveness. Should we write this common experience off as imagination?
I've had issues with generics when time release is involved. It is common enough that the pharmacist involved knew exactly what I was talking about, when I raised it. They've found that a good number of patients notice the difference. Some prefer the generic, others dislike it.
I agree with you, It's generally true, but they can have significant differences. I'm on a meditation, and had the brand changed to a cheaper generic, there was a significant difference. It turns out, while the dose is the same, the delivery profile isn't. It was akin to a straight vodka, followed by a coke, Vs a vodka and coke.
Paracetamol etc, however, have no real differences.
Generics and name brand drugs can differ in how the active ingredient is released i.e rate that they're absorbed but if that isn't too important (for most people it won't be) active ingredient is active ingredient no matter where it is from.
Exactly. Although in some cases the active ingredient can vary a small amount which might have a difference
Stuff that is used and immediately disposed of like trash bags, paper towels, and toilet paper. You need to be a little more careful with the cheapest trash bags and toilet paper, but it will still get the job done.
Space heaters
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V-jmSjy2ArM
salt
table salt, iodized salt, himalayan... they're all the same for me. I don't think my taste buds are adapted to the subtle differences so cheaper ones are better.
show-off jewelry, wallet, purses
showing off jewelry is an invitation to be mugged (again, imo. ymmv) so the cheaper ones are the better options.
coffee
if only you're fine with cheaper ways to wake yourself.
wax-based lip balm
anything beeswax is good. then again ymmv since people can be allergic
pure or as-is things like land, electricity, internet, water, oxygen cans, gas/ heating, alcohol (disinfectant)
I buy good brands from China for my professional tools, phones, laptops, and gadgets. The key is knowing which brands in China are good. Nothing else can compete in terms of value for money.
Motorbikes (for commuting). My midrange motorbike cost under 2k USD brand new, and it gets me to work at the same speed as an expensive one (Asian traffic, haha).
I would be careful with gadgets that have software on them like phones and laptops. God knows what kind of Chinese spyware they come with.
Actually, that's super exciting! I would have a fun time taking it apart, analyzing it, and publishing it. Would be great publicity, and would probably make me more money than the laptop/phone/whatever cost me.
That being said, the USA has the most established history of compromising cryptography and security. It's not so much that I trust China or don't trust the USA, it's that I don't trust any superpower, am fairly wary of nations in general, and in fact don't have much trust for organizations of anything over a handful of people.
And the rest of the world will say the same with respect to American spyware.
As a foreign nation, why would you use a core piece of software on all your government computers? I'll never understand why Windows is used in any secure government installation, let alone non-American ones.
Cosmetics. Maybe not women cosmetics, but the expensive moisture cremes and so on only add stuff you don't want on your skin. Btw, "natural" marigold cremes are really bad there.
Mascara.
I have to disagree here. Some brands of mascara (especially the cheap ones but some of the expensive too) have chemicals in that are terrible for your health in the long term. It’s been a long time since I read the research but I remember that it caused local issues like cysts in/on the eye but also global issues like hormone imbalance
Edit: I found a recent link and it looks like there’s less company’s using them than when I first learnt of this. The health issues this article mentions are birth defects, thyroid issues and cancer. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/makeup-urban-decay-cancer-linked-forever-chemicals-b2261555.html
Interesting! I wonder if the formulas differ from country to country (I'm in the US). I use ELF, which I think is free from a bunch of that stuff and super cheap. This is a good reminder to always read labels. 🙂
Drugstore makeup is perfectly fine, if not superior. I get my makeup from CVS and Target. Works great every time.
Right? I use a mix of drugstore and mid-range cosmetics as a makeup enthusiast. Drugstore has stepped up their game!
My favorite foundation that I keep going back to over and over again regardless of anything else I try is the $5.99 Wet N Wild Photofocus Foundation. It's just so...perfect. I've had to have exceeded 10 bottles at this point.
Same with eye primer, brow pencils, eyeliner, and mascara. So much that ELF and Essence put out in these categories are so good.
wrapping paper
This dude hasn’t wrapped with the good shit. Serious creases. No unexpected rips. Scissors glide smoothly for the cut.
Spend a few extra bucks and be a wrap god.
Worth it just for this 🤤
Assuming you followed the other threads advice and bought a decent pair of scissors. I remember one Christmas Eve where I could only find a cheap pair of kids plastic safety scissors.
I got a somewhat fancy pair of origami scissors form a little Japanese market near me. The wrapping paper glide is amazing. I've never had so many near perfect edges before this pair of scissors.
Aren't scissors...... Against the rules of origami or whatever?
You'll have to take that up with the origami council. I don't actually do any paper crafts.
https://gigworker.com/can-you-use-scissors-in-origami/
My best guess is that I misremembered Kirigami as origami since Kirigami was not in my vocabulary.
I worked retail enough to say that there's a skill barrier to both the cheap and expensive stuff, and so to the difference being relevant.
Man, I hated gift wrapping when I worked retail. I sucked at it and as a customer you don't consider that you're just sitting there watching somebody do this thing live until you have to do it while being judged by some random stranger that has nothing better to do than stare at you.
One asterix to this, if you buy wrapping paper for "cheaper" at a dollar store, you are likely paying much more per square foot. So if you have space to store it and intend to wrap things again, probably worth it to buy a proper roll.
Yeah cheap is one thing, dollar store is bottom of the barrel for more cost per unit most of the time. Dollar stores are also just awful in general, awful to their workers, their customers, the communities they are in, etc.
So, uhhh, did you watch that John Oliver bit too then?
Yep lmfao
Costco wrapping paper rolls have years worth of paper on one role and they are reversible with two different print’s. Nearly everywhere else I have purchased wrapping paper it is 90% tube not paper.
I haven't seen Costco wrapping paper, but being a frequent shopper there, I can only assume they sell 2 packs of 20 pound rolls.
Close, a four pack of 10 pound rolls.
Bought a giant 250 meter roll of plain brown butchers paper a few years ago, it was like $45AUD from a wholesale packaging company.
Bought a "celebration" set of rubber stamps, and a few different colours of ink pads.
Now I just cut off the amount of wrapping paper I need, slap it with a relevant stamp a few times, wrap the gift, and voila, "custom" wrapping paper.
It's come in handy for all sorts of things, not just wrapping. Sewing patterns, arts and crafts, emergency table cloths for family BBQ's, grab 10 metres and roll it up to take to work for programs (I work in a community centre).
Which play or movie are the roles for?
::: spoiler V *rolls :::
There are only a few things, I find, worth shelling out a bit for. British tea brands (British émigré), boots, and ale come to mind. Some other things you're taking your chances a bit if you don't spend a bit more, like bikes, electronics, and musical instruments. Otherwise I'm a stingey aul get and it does me fine.
Headphones/ear buds. It really comes down to your use case. If you listen to podcasts and audiobooks 90% of the time then you only need good enough which is typically around $40.
rewritable cds.
Back when they were common the single use discs were enough cheaper than rewritable ones that it was cheaper to use WORM* discs
*Write once, read multiple
makeup removing coton pieces
Medicine in a pharmacy, similar to the pregnancy tests.
I'll go with shoes and clothes (not the work kind)
That does not mean that I'm going out to buy the cheapest I can find. I just mean to say that I don't buy expensive ones.
And my definition of expensive is $100+ I always make sure to not spend more than $50 on a shoe or any item of clothing (shirts, t-shirts, shorts, jeans)
There's a famous example of the poverty trap that uses boots that fall apart every season vs quality boots that last, and I think there is a quality level that is so bad it's more expensive in the long run. So I do buy shoes that cost money. But I'm not buying fashion shoes or luxury brand shoes which I think is what you're saying too.
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that’d still be keeping his feet dry in ten years’ time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."
Yeah, you don't want top of the line, but you don't want bottom of the barrel, either.
That's exactly my point as well. I've got a pair of shoes that I got for $40 around 5 years ago and I still wear them everywhere.
For men, or for women?
A well made pair of shoes will last far longer than a cheap pair. And a besboke pair of shoes is a treasure, more comfortable than any trainer and absolutely capable of outlasting the owner.
It matters with T-shirts, as well. It's harder these days, with online shopping driving down the bottom line, but a T-shirt made from quality fabric and good stitching will also last longer than a cheap one.
Price makes a huge difference in men's suits, as well. Again, fabric and stitching at the most basic level, but tailoring, custom, or bespoke has a massive impact on how comfortable it is, and on how good it looks.
Now, women's shoes and clothes? Maybe you're right. With fast fashion and a larger influence of branding on price, you may be right. Although, here there are exceptions. A quality jacket or overcoat - like mens' jackets - will look better and last longer than a cheap one.
Many people do pay a premium for branding alone, and there I agree with you: that's not worth it.
My point was about myself actually. I didn't mean to generalize to any group as much.
Also, I do agree that super cheap t-shirts don't really last very long. And my point wasn't that I'd buy t-shirts only if they're under $5. But rather that "I'm not spending more than $50 on a t-shirt".
Yeah, this is all subjective, for sure. And I agree that there's a sweet spot for cost for almost any product: under a certain amount, it's going to be really crap quality; and over some amount, you're probably just paying a premium for branding.
Bespoke boots are amazing especially if your foot width is out of the norm. Very few brands have width options. But I have 2 pair of boots (one pair tall, one pair below the ankle) custom to my foot shape and size and they fit so well. I expect them to last, though I expect to replace the sole several times.
Absolutely!
Having a set of footwear that you can replace the soles on is incredible. Not having to "break in" a new pair of shoes is fantastic. Knowing that you're not only contributing to craftsmanship, but also greatly reducing your landfill contributions is priceless.
I wish I could buy cheaper shoes. I have fairly wide feet. I've only found one pair of shoes for under $100 in the last 15 years that even fit properly. If I buy cheap runners the sides blow out in less than a year. On the other hand, I bought a pair of dress shoes for about $200 over 15 years ago which would look a lot better if I gave them a good polish, and the only real problem is the rubber soles are getting worn out.
I'm lucky in the sense that I'm bang on average. So most off-the-shelf stuff fits me good enough.
If you want to keep those dress shoes, you can get them re-soled. They'll be good as new!
They really only need a new outsole (?), and I have thought about it, I'm just not sure if it's worth the effort. They still look okay as long as you don't see the bottom of the soles, and it really only affects me when I'm on slippery surfaces.
When I typed that out, I realized I could get them resoled with something that has more traction and they would be better than new.
I had a pair of leather sole dress shoes. I wore the soles out enough and had them re-soled with rubber. Best solution ever
Incidentally we have the word "revamped" meaning renewed. That comes from shoe repair, where the vamp of the shoe is replaced
My problem is the opposite, my foot is about as narrow as they get. I can get runners that fit (but laces are always pulled nearly as close as possible), but boots are impossible except from the custom boot companies, though my dad's 1960s leather navy boots for me fine - I guess they sized width and length
Shaving foam: its so much worse for the environment and always with horrible perfume. Shaving soap is amazing, like in the old days.
Safety razors: the old one-blade ones are sometimes more of an investment (10-15€) but the blades are way cheaper and standardized. You never need to buy overpriced stuff again.
Agree on Soap. All the fluid stuff with perfume is money waste.
New tech. Wait 2 years and get some used ones for ⅓ the price.
Clothes: there are cheap quality brands, but expensive ones are often made in the same factories. Nike, Adidas, Gucci, LV, ...
Toilet paper: simply buy recycled. Its the last process of paper recycling (lol) so why?? Why would you buy brands that have weird contracts with logging companies and destroy forests?
Conventional Food brands doing fruit Joghurt, dairy products, meat, with only fake seals. Its literally the same bullshit in there. Same for Crisps, ...
Flour, sugar, electricity, coffe, ... they are all different cathegories. If you buy ecological, full-grain etc. they have different growing standards, so its a huge difference.
Often its about investing more one time, and then keeping it. Capitalism prevents that, as it doesnt make much sense for companies today, to survive.
In my experience... computer mice.
I can pay 80 dollars for a gaming mouse that dies in 6 months or I can buy a 7 dollar walmart mouse that dies in a year. Realistically how your mouse settings are configured matters more than the type of mouse you have and I have had bad experiences with more expensive mice dying under the strain I put them through. i.e usually the middle mouse wheel/button dies first because I use it A LOT. And if the damn thing is going to die in 6 months to a year anyway I may as well buy them in 6 packs and not bother throwing 10+ times tge money at them.
Phones; the latest and greatest is the middle range phone in just 2yrs and half the price.
Pet toys
Largely have to disagree with you there. The more expensive toys usually last a lot longer with my dogs.
I can just crinkle up some paper for my cats.
My cats always loved the cheapest toys, like those little twisty ties that come with trash bags, but my dogs never did.
They still make those sort of trash bags? I’ve never not bought the draw string ones
If you buy small trash bags, such as for a bathroom trash can, you're more likely to get them.
That makes sense I’ve always just used grocery bags for those
Or give them a laser dot to chase
I don't have any laser dots in the trash
You could buy a set of dots online. They come in tubes and you can dispense them everywhere!
But trash is free
I agree, I’ve got a large dog and he can demolish cheap toys within hours but the good quality ones will last months
What I meant was not cheap toys as an alternative, but random crap like socks or a twig are usually more exciting for my golden retriever instead of some great toys which last a few mins of excitement and then he's done
Totally depends on the pet then. My cat is not a good predator, so breakage is not a problem, but she's very picky with what she wants to play with and most new toys can't keep her interest for longer than 2 weeks, so it's absolutely a waste of money to spend more. The only toy that she consistently plays with is still a random piece of rope 😅
So the pet's personality plays a part, but seeing the other comments, I also see a cat vs dog difference.
cheap rabbit toys use A LOT of glue, which is obviously not good for any animal.
Plus rabbits love cardboard. Toilet rolls and plain boxes get your surprisingly far with two rabbits! The only toys I'll buy are the edible ones - willow tunnels for example. Watching them play with something you make is part of the joy.
This is mainly true for cats.
Expensive toy = zero interest
The box the expensive toy came in = hours of fun.
Dish soap. Joy cleans just as well as dawn, but doesn't leave any residue.
Taxes.
Shoes.