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.
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.
I asked AI to do better:
Advil has harnessed the power of delectable sweetness to transform the pain relief experience for millions worldwide. This cutting-edge coating, meticulously crafted by our team of expert scientists and flavor engineers, is not just a tantalizing treat for the taste buds but a testament to our unwavering commitment to enhancing the well-being of humankind.
Advil’s Sweet-Flavored Coating is not merely a sensory delight; it serves a profound purpose in the realm of pain management. By seamlessly integrating the delightful essence of sweetness into our iconic pain relief formula, Advil has successfully elevated the overall experience of taking medication.
“We believe in pushing the boundaries of what’s possible in healthcare, and our Sweet-Flavored Coating is a testament to that commitment,” remarked [Spokesperson Name], spokesperson for Advil. “This breakthrough not only addresses the physical discomfort but also caters to the emotional aspect of pain relief, making the process more palatable and enjoyable for our consumers.”
Advil’s proprietary Sweet-Flavored Coating is meticulously engineered to engage the senses positively, creating a holistic pain relief experience. Whether it’s a headache, muscle ache, or any other discomfort, Advil’s innovation ensures that each dose is not just a remedy but a moment of respite and indulgence.
As the pioneer of this groundbreaking advancement, Advil continues to lead the charge in redefining the standards of healthcare, ensuring that the journey to relief is as delightful as the destination itself.
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.
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?)
I’ve never heard of sugarcoating pills, is it a US thing maybe?
I think you have a wrong image of how this looks/works. It’s not like there is a cany-shell or something. It’s a regular, smooth pill. You usually do not notice this coating because you don’t keep a pill in your mouth. If you were to, the pill would taste sweet.
If you ever have gotten a pill of some sort that dd not feel chalky on the outside but smooth and looked kinda shiny, that probably has been a sugarcoated pill.
I think you’re right then, and honestly I can’t say I’ve noticed.
many birth control pills are sugarcoated for example. Or anti-histamine allergy medication like Cetericine
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.
According to 1 FDA study, the mean difference for AUC values between test and reference products was found to be 3.5% in the 2-year period following the Waxman-Hatch Act, and 80% of the absolute differences between generic products approved since 1984 and the corresponding innovator products were within a 5% range.
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.
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.
Often made by the same.
Crunched the numbers years ago for cost per mg of a med in question, and unsurprisingly generics were the best deal, but Costco’s generics (Kirkland) specifically blew the competition out of the water. Comparing it to the most expensive options (name brands from places like Walgreens) was pretty comical - no exaggeration, some of them were literally over 100x more expensive per mg than the Kirkland equivilent. Comparing it to other generics, Kirkland still won by a factor of 5 to 10 sometimes.
Between that and gas, a Costco membership pays for itself before you even step foot into the food aisles or other random shit they sell.
Caveat: they do also sell a lot of fancy, stupid expensive shit, so don’t let the comment paint the picture that everything in that store is a super good deal - it’s not - but the things that are good deals, are crazy good deals, pharmaceuticals in particular.
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.
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.
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.
Yup, buy most things at harbor freight the first time, if you break theirs buy whatever name brand fits your color scheme.
That the Harbor Freight method. I agree.
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.
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.
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.
NGL I sometimes drool looking at a train and how it’s built.
I might be trainsexual
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.
Cheap cars definitely are more reliable if you pick the right brands. On all the other points it just doesn’t make enough of a difference to me to justify the enormous cost increase.
Our $10k used Camry is still kicking ass over ten years later and hasn’t ever needed work more extensive than replacing leaking struts. The reliability truly is astounding.
EDIT: But, let’s not talk about my camera-buying habits lol
let’s not talk about my camera-buying habits lol
Ah, that’s the perfect hobby if you really hate having money 😅
Our 2016 (new) BMW has never had a major issue. Our 2014 (new) Volvo - which cost half what the BMW did, has almost never not had something going wrong with it. We bought a new Altima many years ago that was less expensive than the Volvo; we had it for several years and it was fine, but it was still in the shop more than this BMW (but less than the Volvo).
The issue isn’t so much reliability, but what it costs when there is a problem. Fixing the Altima would certainly be cheaper than the same repair of the BMW. The Volvo TCO is higher than the BMW or the Altima.
I also think you have to be comparing similar years. My sister - who’s 20 years younger than me - is still driving a 1996 Nissan 240SX, and it’s in great chat wasn’t a “cheap” car when it was new, but still. I think cars from last century were more robust.
The repair cost is ultimately the most significant, that’s true.
We’ll have to see how statistics play out in the long run: that’s where the non-anecdotal evidence for Toyota’s supremacy comes from.
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.
Mercedes is an outlier. Try comparing Toyota with Lexus, Nissan with Infiniti, Chevy with Cadillac, or Ford with Lincoln. In all of these instances, the luxury marques have equivalent or better reliability than their economy counterparts.
Of course, whether or not the reliability and features are worth the cost is a different question entirely. (I generally lean towards no.)
Lol I don’t think the reliability difference between Lexus and Toyota is measurable. If anything I see way more old Toyotas on the road than I do old Lexuses. But that may be just because less were produced.
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.
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.
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 😂
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.
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.
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
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
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.
One of the benefits of living in the Nordics is tap water that can literally be of higher quality than bottled water (assuming you don’t have bad pipes.) The only time I’ll ever buy bottled water is if I get really thirsty when I’m on the go and don’t have a bottle of tap water with me
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.
Take two minutes and tin the ends with solder and you’re good for years… My favorite in ear monitor brand just was sold and they changed the headphone cord to ultra thin shite that is “more pure” I’m an audio engineer…it’s horseshit.
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
deleted by creator
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.
Though Lidl value beans are no where near as good as their standard ones.
Every time I eat baked beans I fill my knickers.
Good to know, SatansMaggotyCumFart
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.
The landfill thanks you.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There is a saying in Spain that says “el pobre siempre paga dos veces” that translates as “the poor always pays twice”.
Ah, the boots theory of socioeconomic unfairness.
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.
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.
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.
It’s digital so you need reclocking essentially over long distance. Buy a couple black magic converters, HDMI to SDI run a BNC to the TV and SDI to HDMI and you’re fine.
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 are major durability differences between different cables and many manufacturers offer additional features, beyond the ability to carry an HDMI signal, that could add value and cost” says Park.
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.
deleted by creator
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):
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.
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.
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.
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
I think you may have meant teetotaller
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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 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.
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’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’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 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.
My father fancies himself a wine connoisseur, and 75% of what he buys are in the $20-30 range if not less.
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 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.
Not their (organic) eggs, at least in my area. They have pale, tasteless yolks. Other than eggs, we get Kirkland if it’s an option.
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.
Yeah, it’s subjective.
Yeah, it’s subjective.
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.
Why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Medicine.
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.
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?
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.
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
