Diamonds Suck (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://diamondssuck.com/ <comment><USER4> I'm the OP - surprised to see this at the top of HN today, but happy to post a quick update:

My wife and I have been happily married for ten years now. She loves her ring, and it has held up extremely well. (She just had the band resized, absolutely no issues with the stones.)

No one has ever thought it was anything other than a diamond ring, which includes several years of daily scrutiny from crazy New York City brides in her role as a bridal gown sales manager in a high-end atelier in Midtown Manhattan. Those who know about the stones think they're beautiful and love that there's a good alternative to diamond.

I stand by everything I said in this essay, and would 100% recommend moissanite to anyone who is (or will soon be) in the jewelry market.

<comment><USER5> Wife and I had read the Atlantic article before it was too late, went with plain wedding bands for both of us. However, living in America, this is causing issues for her, continuously having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a diamond.

We'd been looking for used rings as an alternative - hence, thank you very much for writing this, you just saved me and my wife several thousand dollars.

<comment><USER6> > having to explain to friends and acquaintances why she does not have a > diamond.

I don't think this is a universal "in America" thing. Maybe in some parts of the country, but here in the northeast it seems like it's none of their business; I can't imagine asking someone to explain it, and I would think someone who did ask was being awfully nosy. FWIW my wife has a diamond ring which she almost never wears, and I can't remember anyone ever asking about it. My parents wear plain gold wedding bands only, and I've never heard anyone ask them about it either.

<comment><USER7> My wife and I, living in the SF Bay area and having no regard for convention whatsoever -- and not really liking diamonds -- went with a sapphire for her ring. She tells me that other women do sometimes ask her about it. This is unfathomable to me, but there it is.

<comment><USER8> same area; we went with ruby. they ask her about her ring all the time... though she reports never feeling judged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Seems like an american things really. In France, nobody would expect anyone to buy a certain kind of ring. As long as it's pretty, you can go for anything. Or no engagement ring. Some friends of mine don't even get wedding rings. And I just met a not married couple wearing rings just because they liked it.

Our wedding ceremonies are also usually way cheaper and less show off that the ones your pop culture is selling to you, so I hope you are not actually doing it IRL cause that seems a terrible way to start a long term relationship, money wise.

But I guess we don't have such a marriage culture here anymore. People do marry, but we also now have something called the PACS, which is a very simple legal union with no bells and whistles that is pretty popular. And of course plenty of people living for ever without a label on their relationship.

<comment><USER10> Given that the diamond ring fad apparently originated from a marketing campaign, it would be interesting to see how well the belief that wedding rings should have a diamond correlates with where the ads were run.

At least in the nordics, I don't think there's a specific type of wedding (EDIT: or engagement) ring that you're expected to have, and I think many people have no stone of any kind embedded in theirs.

<comment><USER11> It's the engagement ring that traditionally has a stone, not the wedding band, which is often just a pure metal (in the US), though many have small stones around the ring.

<comment><USER12> In Nordic countries, the order is reversed. We wear simple bands after the engagement, and give the fancier ring during the wedding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> So people do this to signal (both to their spouse and their friends) they are both financially capable and care enough about their spouse to burn a large amount of money on a pyre. It's also a very useful signal that you are serious about the commitment and unlikely to back off of the marriage. I would prefer to replace it with a certificate that proves you have spent X thousand dollars on said certificate from Moche Silnorin Inc. A less personally-beneficial alternative would be some sort of modern dowery, the recipient of which is Moche Silnorin Inc, who holds on to the money until the culmination of the marriage, after which the dowery is given to the wife and so reunited with its giver once they share finances. If the engagement gets broken off, Moche Silnorin Inc keeps the money. However, this raises the possibility of bondsmen. Which isn't a possibility with diamonds, with their awful resale value. So perhaps just a non-refundable expense in exchange for proof you've given X thousand dollars to Moche Silnorin Inc would be ideal.

<comment><USER14> Exactly this. The problem with every diamond critique I see is that their very first argument against diamonds is that they're expensive when that is, in fact, the entire point.

Likewise, all the people who cry foul about the De Beers conspiracy are neglecting the fact that this does absolutely nothing to reduce their signal value. If I spend a large sum of money on something which I _know_ to be worthless just to start my engagement, that's an even better commitment than spending a large sum of money on something which I think is worthless.

People who are anti-diamond should really focus on coming up with alternative signals which has better social outcomes. I would personally prefer some sort of trust, where if the engagement is successful the money is donated to our preferred charity—but if it's not, it's donated to a politician I despise.

If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals, someone should establish a monopoly on a gem which is _impossible_ to procure from exploiting conflicts. They should still make it extremely expensive, but have all the mining be ethical.

<comment><USER15> > If we're dead-set on continuing to use pretty rocks as signals

Why do we need signals? Why does the social contract of marriage need an expensive down payment on essentially nothing? These are things modern cultures should be distancing themselves from. The down payment should be for a house or apartment, or just anything useful.

<comment><USER14> > Why do we need signals?

Signals are an essential aspect of human behavior. I don't think trying to eliminate signaling is a productive goal.

You yourself brought up the "social contract" of marriage. A contract is not very powerful if there aren't consequences for breaking it. So that's one crucial signal: we are committed enough to this relationship to spend money on something which is _only_ useful as a signal.

There's also the signals of "my mate is wealthy enough to buy me an expensive diamond" and "he cares enough about me to spend a large sum of money on something which has no useful purpose besides signaling his love for me." Simply wishing that these signals didn't exist won't make them go away.

Useful things make poor signals because you might buy them without any intention of signaling anything. That's why glasses are a worse signal than jewelry, even though they cost just as much: you might be spending money on glasses because you need to see, not because you have money to burn.

<comment><USER15> Yes, that is the exact kind of ritualistic barbarianism that modern societies should be avoiding. There's nearly endless better ways to have that money spent, even before you get to the "blood" part of blood diamonds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I told my girlfriend (5 years) how I feel about diamonds and that I reject the very notion of buying a diamond engagement / wedding ring early on in our relationship.

Several months ago, we landed on the marriage conversation, again. I reiterated that I am against diamond engagement bands. She then said: "What about a wedding ring then?" I told her it applies to wedding rings as well. We got into a heated argument and she eventually said: "Let's just not talk about it anymore." What? Let's not talk about marriage anymore because I am against diamond engagement wedding rings and wedding bands?

Umm...Okay!

TL;DR GF said she doesn't want to get married unless I show her how much I love her by getting a diamond wedding ring or engagement ring.

<comment><USER17> Did you get to the point of explaining _why_ you're against diamonds? Was she able to tell you _why_ she wants a diamond in particular? To resolve this issue it would be good to exchange the exact, real reasons why one side wants the diamond and the other doesn't. But even then, it may end up your GF will insist on the diamond - while all the rational-in-the-vacuum reasons are against diamonds, there's this whole thing called culture, social pressure and someone spending half of their life imagining the perfect diamond ring. Those are perfectly valid reasons too. So if she insist, don't be angry at her - <USER2> angry at De Beers.

<comment><USER18> > So if she insist, don't be angry at her - be angry at De Beers.

I completely agree. My fiancé and I are currently two engaged Americans, and we had a couple conversations about how we envision our wedding ceremony to happen. For the most part, we had very casual viewpoints on marriage (we don't need to make a big deal out of it), but she wanted a ring and I wasn't too hot on giving De Beers more money. She agreed with me, even admitted that it was a silly notion to have a diamond ring, but I can tell it's what she truly wanted.

At the end of the day, I decided to go with the diamond and she really loves it. If I had gotten my way, I would've gone with an alternative like moissanite or a synthetic, but we're both happy with the outcome.

It's good to see that Americans are starting to wake up about wedding culture, but I'm anticipating that it will take a few generations for most people to rid themselves of it. If I purchased an alternative gemstone for my fiancé, her parents would've been upset with me, but if my child wanted to get an alternative gemstone, I would praise them.

<comment><USER19> What about the synthetic diamond excluded it from the options?

<comment><USER17> Synthetic != "the real deal", which makes it (perceived as) worthless.

<comment><USER19> I know that's the argument for various people, I just wondered whether that was the case for their spouse, since synthetic is definitely a real diamond, albeit not one that took centuries to grow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> When we got engaged I put the money I would have spent on a ring towards buying a farm (as someone said in a thread on news.yc "oh, you're The Farm Guy!").

My wife thanks me almost literally every day for the farm. I don't think she'd appreciate a diamond ring nearly as much.

When it came time to actually get married I dropped around $2 or $2.5k on gold casting grain, carving wax, a small burn out kiln, a crucible, etc., and made wax blanks for our rings on my Sherline lathe, then cast them in gold using the burn out kiln and my blacksmithing forge.

Meanwhile, she sewed her own dress from scratch.

After the small church ceremony we had everyone back to our house for BLTs and tomato soup, using home made bacon and home made bread, etc.

Our complete wedding cost maybe $3,000 or $3,500 and the cost was dominated by the burn out kiln and the gold.

The good news is that the kiln and accessories still get used: a few weeks ago she carved a belt buckle from wax and I cast it in bronze.

My advice: eschew consumerism. A DIY lifestyle is a lot more fun.

[ edit ] here's a pix of my first practice rings in silver, and then one of the rough cast gold rings before cleanup. [https://goo.gl/photos/tdLEjxQipMS2ZtQh8](https://goo.gl/photos/tdLEjxQipMS2ZtQh8)

</comment><comment><USER21> I never knew moissanite existed, thank you for the unknown.

I am skeptical of the post—the argument is diamond sucks, but after reading the post, it appears to be "diamond sucks, buy moisanite instead." 1). Why is there only one alternative? 2). Why does it matter that people will assume the ring is diamond? 3). Let's assume all diamonds are subsidizing African warlords. How would I know if my hard-earned money isn't subsidizing some Chinese manufacturers known to exploit human labor?

I would be getting more "bling for my buck" if it was the same commodity. You mentioned that others wouldn't be able to tell the difference between moisanite and diamond, but if moisanite is better than diamond, then others should be able to recognize moisanite and perhaps comment "the refraction index for this ring appears to be higher than diamond, it must be a moisanite. It's beautiful!"

Wedding is a tradition, but it's not required for marriage likewise diamond is the symbolic instrument for proposals, but the ring does not have to be diamond.

I appreciate your post for the detail comparison breakdown between diamond and moisanite, but I am skeptical of the intent. Research the luxury handbag industry and you'll find the same patterns, and what alternatives are there, typically, for cheaper Chanel handbags?

<comment><USER22> I would go with CZ. Interestingly there is an inverse correlation between wedding ring cost and likelihood of staying together.

[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> >If I can prevent a single reader from needlessly dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring, this site will be a success. Financial worries are the #1 cause of stress in a married relationship - there is absolutely NO excuse to start your married life by taking on that level of debt.

This is probably very naive of me but it honestly never occurred to me that anyone would actually go into debt for a ring. I naively assumed everyone did it the old fashioned way. Save up and don't pop the question until you either have bought the ring or at least have the cash on hand to go get one together.

Personally if I was being proposed to and discovered that my partner had gone into debt to get a ring I would seriously question the wisdom of picking them as a life partner.

<comment><USER24> I'm the same, I wouldn't buy a ring, or even a car if I couldn't pay outright. But I think a lot of people would do so. Just look at how many people have basically zero savings [0].

[0] [http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/can-you-guess- how-m...](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/can-you-guess-how-many- americans-have-absolutely-no-savings-at-all/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Since 2006, the synthetic diamond gem industry has made considerable progress, and is now banging out real diamonds at a good clip. Gemesis was the first to mass-market synthetic diamond gemstones. (DeBeers tried intimidating the CEO, a retired U.S. Army general. Intimidation didn't work.) Now other companies are doing it.

Silicon carbide gemstones are available in bulk on Alibaba.[1] So are diamonds.The page for Changsa Chenguang Machinery and Electric Company makes it clear how far down diamonds have come.[2] They have a list of diamond products - diamond plate for cutting tools and wear parts, monocrystalline diamond for wire drawing dies, diamond inserts for well drilling cutters, and diamonds for gemstones. The gems are a sideline from the cutting tool business. Minimum gem order 10 grams, capacity six metric tons of diamonds a year. That's just one small manufacturer.

[1] [https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?IndexArea=product_en&Ca...](https://www.alibaba.com/trade/search?IndexArea=product_en&CatId=&fsb=y&floorTab=&SearchText=silicon+carbide+gem) [2] [https://china-chenguang.en.alibaba.com/](https://china- chenguang.en.alibaba.com/)

<comment><USER26> All I can say is "Wow!" Synthetic diamonds have sure come a long way. At the rate the technology seems to be progressing, even golfball-sized diamonds at ridiculously low prices might not be unrealistic, and I'm sure others will find applications for it.

Due to its thermal properties, I think handling a huge diamond might also be an interesting experience.

<comment><USER25> You can get a golfball-sized 80mm cubic zirconia jewel right now.[1] Price for the big ones is $33.25. Minimum order quantity from the factory is 5.

[1] [https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/wholesale-80mm- round-...](https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/wholesale-80mm-round-cut- cubic-zirconia_1713689739.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> According to Wikipedia[0], the patents for the creation of Moissanite expired in 2015 in the US and in 2016 for the most of the rest of the world.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite#Applications](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moissanite#Applications)

<comment><USER28> Interesting. Moissanite (silicon carbide) has a number of similar characteristics to diamond. So I decided to see whether, like diamond, its use as a high-temperature semiconductor had been investigated. Turns out the answer is yes, specifically by Toyota for its hybrid cars' power control units (PCUs):

[https://www.wired.com/2014/06/toyota-semiconductors- evs/](https://www.wired.com/2014/06/toyota-semiconductors-evs/)

<comment> TD-Linux Yeah, manufacturers like Cree specialize in it for high voltage MOSFETs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Another alternative is synthetic, lab grown diamonds. They are superior to naturally occuring diamonds, cheaper, aren't tainted by human misery and suffering like conflic/blood diamondst, and arent extracted from ecologically damaging mining techniques like open pit mining.

<comment><USER30> Where can you buy that?

<comment><USER29> They're mostly made for industrial purposes, but just google synthetic diamonds.

<comment><USER31> Be careful googling synthetic diamonds. There are a lot of scammy companies out there using slippery language to fool you into thinking their cubic zirconias are sythetic diamonds. AFAIK there are only a few companies making real jewelry grade synthetic diamonds and they are just barely cheaper than mined diamonds, so if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

<comment><USER29> Yeah. The real advantage of synthetics over naturally occurring is they don't come with human exploitation baggage or contribute to climate change.

<comment><USER32> There's also a side-benefit if you're like me. I think the idea of a synthetic diamond is way more interesting than one we dug up. To me it's the difference between "hey look at this shiny rock I found" and "look at what beauty our technology has allowed us to create"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I like to believe that there's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma. They then take the $5k to $20k they just saved (what's the rule of thumb, one month's gross salary?) and put it towards bootstrapping their new life.

You can even post close-up pictures of the stone on Facebook and not a single person you know will ever be able to tell because, as noted by the article, the difference is indistinguishable to the human eye.

As long as both members of the couple find this acceptable, it would be silly not to at this point.

<comment><USER34> > _I like to believe that there 's a lot of savvy and affluent couples out > there who are buying either moissanites instead of diamonds and choosing not > to tell their friends or family about it to avoid the social stigma._

This is so foreign to me. Why do people care? It's just a way to signal wealth and really not much different than a bride price (a cultural practice that American expats are quick to criticize in an Asian culture, for reference). My girlfriend / future-wife and I will get matching steel rings or something similar, like my parents have. She's not American so she was thrilled by that idea. I already told her I won't wear it most of the time because rings are annoying, and again that was no problem at all.

I would run the other way if someone is resolute about buying a diamond, after everything that is known about the diamond industry. It means either that person is totally ignorant of the world around them, or doesn't care about making a positive impact with their lifestyle choices.

<comment><USER35> My impression is that it's due to the same reason Americans leave large tips if they can. Without an established class system, money is the signal used to demonstrate your standing in relation to others.

Incidentally, money and class are, in my experience, the most misunderstood aspect of the English class system by Americans. There is a loose correlation, but it's only very loose. It's quite common in the UK to have upper class families with hardly any money beyond inheritance, and conversely rich lower class families who might run their own businesses.

Interestingly, the upper class man wouldn't feel the slightest bit inferior for neglecting to buy a diamond ring for his fiancé unless doing so was the "done thing" by previous generations of his or her family, whereas the rich lower class man would be clamouring for the biggest one he could afford.

Generalizations, but so termed due to being generally true.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> There was an AMA on reddit [1] that addressed the status of DeBeers price control, the idea that synthetic diamonds are 'flawless', etc. Lots of other cool info too, related to the diamond and gem industry.

[1] "IamA programmer who writes code for calculating diamond prices. AMA about De Beers, the diamond industry, synthetic diamonds, engagement rings, etc." [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2aijjh/iama_programme...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2aijjh/iama_programmer_who_writes_code_for_calculating/)

</comment><comment><USER37> Similar arguments can be made about almost any fashion item. People don't buy fashion due to it's great quality, and most of the time not even due to good design, but mostly just to show off.

<comment><USER38> Yeah, the arguments about resale value seem ridiculous. Who's buying a wedding ring as an investment?

<comment><USER39> The argument about resale value is used to justify the purchase. The person buying the ring doesn't seriously consider it an investment, but it makes it less painful to think of it as one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> My wife has a diamond engagement ring and wedding band. Since then I've bought her several cubic zirconias. I can tell the difference (I'm a geologist by training) because the CZ's have too much fire, but I'm not sure I would ever see the difference if I didn't know in advance. And moissanites are much closer even than CZ in diamond-like properties. CZ, however, is way cheaper. Like $10 for a 1-carat stone.

Could be that moissanite is _just_ expensive enough to qualify as an engagement stone (where CS is way too cheap).

<comment><USER32> Additionally, I think CZ has negative connotations that moissanite hasn't acquired yet. There's been longer for sitcoms to make jokes like "the jerk got me a cheap cubic zirconium!", which isn't the case for moissanite.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Can anyone give me advice on how to convince my girlfriend of this though without her thinking I love her any less :)?

<comment><USER42> A $2000 ring is cents per day for a long marriage.

66% of marriages survive 10 years. The ring would cost 50c per day.

Buy the ring, and spend less of coffee.

<comment><USER43> That assumes that a more expensive ring buys a stabler marriage. Actually the opposite seems to be the case:

[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480)

<comment><USER42> Nothing in my comment is saying that buying an expensive ring will save a marriage.

I'm only saying that if your marriage lasts for 10 years, which about 66% of them do, it's weird to complain about the cost of a ring when there will be very many more expensive and equally bullshit things to spend or not spend on.

<comment><USER44> The divorce rate is increasing every day. One shouldn't based a decision on outdated marriage statistics from 10 years ago. Just sayin'

<comment><USER45> the divorce rate has actually been falling steadily since about 1980.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> "The big difference between moissanite and diamond is that moissanite can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory."

Thats not true, diamonds can be manufactured reliably and efficiently in a laboratory as well. And its nearly impossible to tell the difference between natural and artificial ones. Only a very complicated lab test with a machine can tell the difference.

<comment><USER47> I thought fabricated diamonds were yellow-ish and easy to tell apart from real ones?

<comment><USER48> This depends on the method of fabrication - there are several. From my recollection of a Wired article from a decade ago, there was a then-new technique that produced diamonds that were indistinguishable from natural diamonds but for being maybe a little too perfect.

Article seems to be here, method in question was "Chemical Vapor Deposition": [https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/](https://www.wired.com/2003/09/diamond/)

<comment><USER49> You do realise that the OP article was from 2006 while the article you cite is from 2009?

<comment><USER48> The article I cited was from 2003, but I'm not sure what the relevance is of the relative dates. My comment wasn't directed at the OP, but at the parent's question about fabricated ("cultured" ;) ) diamonds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> That's nice. Androids are fine phones too for a fraction of the cost. The problem is my wife likes diamonds and iPhones and I doubt either has much to do with the specs.

</comment><comment><USER51> I can't get over the fact that americans apparently pay $5k-10k for an engagement ring. As if this decides the success of the marriage.

<comment><USER39> I have known people that spent $18k-30k. If I was on the other side it would scare me that my partner was willing to blow that much money on a novelty. It's a sign that they are bad with money.

<comment><USER51> I paid a three digit sum and chose the ring based on what my girlfriend likes. She loves it.

<comment><USER52> Something personal yet affordable is a much better idea than burning money on an expensive but impersonal status symbol.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> My wife wanted a diamond ring, but one that included stones that have been in her family for a 6 generations. We designed the ring together (with the help of Rhino3D and a local gem shop in Chicago). We melted down the old platinum ring and used the money for a new setting. It's the only ring she has; no separate engagement and wedding rings.

My opinion is that people who insist on the two-months' salary-marketing ploy are chumps and I don't respect that lack of real thought for such a major decision. I told her afterwards that if she would have insisted on a new diamond ring, we wouldn't have gotten married. Currently at seven years and two kids.

</comment><comment><USER54> A diamond purchase is a type of proof-of-burn. It's a way to display how much you value the person by being willing to sacrifice a large part of your savings for them. It's not really about the stone itself, it's about the cost.

<comment><USER55> Then give a donation receipt for a charity that you both support for the cost of the diamond instead. At least that way the sacrificed money will support something you both believe in rather than the diamond industry.

<comment><USER56> It's also to display for others, not just for the receiver of the ring.

<comment><USER52> Frame the donation receipt and display it in a prominent position.

Wastefulness as a status symbol is a really harmful idea. I'd prefer someone who is smart with money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I go out to collect gemstones as a hobby on the weekends. And it only took a half day class to learn how to shape them for jewelry. So while some people still like diamonds, I prefer to give hand-collected and crafted stones. They might not be worth as much, but I made them myself and can guarantee nobody was harmed or screwed over in the process.

<comment><USER52> Much more personal too. I like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I got my wife a moissanite ring, and it indeed sparkles amazingly...but so do cubic zirconiums

</comment><comment><USER59> The worst part of the diamond industry is how much space is wasted here in New York for diamond stores. Around Midtown there are whole blocks of sketchy diamond stores. No way all are profitable.

<comment><USER60> I'm sure you appreciate how easy selling diamonds makes avoiding taxes. Diamonds and High-End Art make it nearly impossible to not help launder.

<comment><USER59> What about gift shops and massage parlors? Both take over Manhattan blocks as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> We went with a synthetic crystal/man made diamond that is simply beautiful and was cheaper than a moissanite yet is quite a bit closer to the fire and refraction index.

The key is to spend the money on the band. The quickest trick that jewelers use to spot a fake is a cheap band. No one puts an expensive diamond in a cheap plated band. We had a custom platinum and 14k yellow gold band with pave diamonds and it is stunning. My wife gets compliments literally daily. I am quite confident that even a professional jeweler or gemologist would not be able to tell with the naked eye that this is not a real diamond.

Add to that, the majority of the cost for the band was the raw materials which we paid spot price for. You could literally melt it down and get most of the value out of it. Additionally the companies that sell the higher end synthetics offer lifetime warranties and in our case, even a replacement for a lost stone with a deductible.

</comment><comment><USER62> Koi carps are a fish with a lot of variance in their cost. Koi carps can cost from $25 to over $50000, depending on their size and color. What do you need a larger koi carp for? Well, I personally do not know why someone might be so appreciative of larger fish, go ask that person.

Price is about perceived value and perception can be manipulated in many, many ways.

And you can pretty much start talking about mostly anything. Wristwatches, cars, etc... and how some features are super important where in real life they probably aren't.

Just like a larger koi carp, lower 0 to 60 mph so you can get to that red traffic light faster, a shiny gold watch that will give you the exact same time, wine that tastes 90% the same as a wine with 10% of the cost, and we can go on and on...

Truth is that some of those things make people happy, and that's pretty much all the reason behind it. Just go for the ring that will give you the "yes".

</comment><comment><USER63> We were engaged in 2006 and I forwarded that article to my soon to be wife. Her answer was: I don't think this is funny. I ended up buying a 10k diamond ring. We're still happily married with 1 beautiful 8 y.o. daughter. Ask any married guy and they'll all say the same: pick your battles!

<comment><USER64> Exactly. Who is one person to judge what someone else finds important or gets pleasure from even if invented by a marketing person? What is the value of a football or soccer game or a host of other things people spend money on. Ripoff is in the eyes of the beholder.

<comment><USER65> It doesn't cost 3 months salary and support death in Africa to watch a football or soccer game.

<comment><USER66> Although it does support permanent brain injury in football players.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> sherman-human I commissioned a bespoke moissanite ring for my wife. One of her family members seemed gobsmacked by the shiny thing. A couple months later this person was wearing a new ring with a larger stone. If you are concerned about conflict diamonds, there are some weird edge cases you need to consider.

</comment><comment><USER67> > _Isn 't it amazing (and scary) how brainwashed people are about the "value" > of diamonds, even though they're not actually worth that much?_

I've never understood this argument. Aren't they worth what people are willing to pay?

<comment><USER68> _Aren 't they worth what people are willing to pay?_

Yes, but only as a function of their scarcity. Diamonds _aren 't_ actually rare. They're only made rare by diamond companies hoarding them and releasing tiny numbers of stones in order to maintain a high price. You certainly wouldn't buy diamonds as an investment, just in case a diamond company dumped their stockpile on to the market and the price collapsed.

<comment><USER17> Not just that. If you also count diamonds manufactured in the laboratory, then diamonds are pretty common and cheap items. That's why diamond companies put a lot of effort into convincing people that only "natural" diamonds count as proofs of love.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Estate jewellery is a good option too. Estate jewellery is often cheaper and of very good quality. Why buy something new when something 60 or 50 yrs old looks the same or better?

<comment><USER39> Wouldn't the diamond be the same price since they are valued by the CCC's? Is it the setting and diamond combo that costs less?

<comment><USER70> No, most overpaid for jewelry so a diamond store is gonna offer them a low ball offer at best.

If a store wants the Dimond they have to melt it and reset it which is work.

There is a base price for diamonds based on ccc but good luck getting that from a store .

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> "dropping $6,000-10,000+ on a diamond engagement ring"

How much?! Do people really spend that much on an engagement ring? Here they're a few hundred euro at most. Unless you're a millionaire or like to pretend to be, perhaps.

I would say that if you need to have a big stone in your engagement ring at all, you're still a slave of the old De Beers advertising campaign. You may outsmart them on the product, but you're still obeying the message of having a big sparkly stone.

<comment><USER71> Yes, people do spend that much. I'm not sure what kind of virtue signalling people think they are achieving when they fake this kind of incredulity. People will spend a fuck ton of money on things they think are pretty, or unique.

But what sort of idiot would want an original Picasso or Van Goch, for example, when they can just get a digital print to put up on their wall that looks almost identical? If you're the sort of person who likes original artwork, you're really just a slave to the Christies and Bonhams marketing...

<comment><USER52> Not sure what you mean about virtue signaling there. Maybe the article was specifically aimed at millionaires or something, but for a normal middle class person to spend two or three months salary on a ring? That's crazy.

Just like most people do not own real Picassos or Van Goghs. (Though if they did, it'd retain it's value better than a diamond ring.) If the occasional rich diamond lover spends that much, that's totally understandable, but for society to expect that kind of expense from people with financial struggles (everybody who is not rich), that is irresponsible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> Let's extend this sentiment to all gemstones. Reality show enthusiasts have started ripping up high peaks in Colorado for worthless shiny stones like aquamarine.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't remember the source, but apparently there is an inverse correlation between expense of wedding ring and a couple's likelihood of stay together

</comment><comment><USER73> [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU)

</comment><comment><USER74> Diamonds really aren't that attractive IMNO. Other gemstones I like better include sapphire, ruby, opal, emerald. My wife's engagement ring has a blue sapphire with opals on each side. We created each other's wedding band and cast them with gold recycled from old family jewelry. Be creative - <USER3> artifacts will have great sentimental value as your marriage ages.

<comment><USER75> Couldn't agree more. I always found diamonds a bit boring, not to mention all the ethical issues involved. Gemstones and interesting settings are much more attractive in my opinion. I love that you two recycled some family history as well!

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Some thoughts I haven't seen mentioned in the comments:

1\. Diamonds, like gold, are highly portable pieces of wealth that hold value across economic shifts. When rich people go on the run, they usually carry hidden diamonds with them.

2\. A good looking woman in certain jobs will be approached very frequently by other men. It's not just waitresses, think pharma rep. The ring is an effective shield, and the bigger the better.

Putting these thoughts together, the pointless rock is actually providing a good amount of security to the woman. Even if you disappeared, or if she wanted to disappear, the diamond will always have value and can get her through a few months expenses. Second, you're helping her avoid confrontation in public life.

Now realistically, some women have a back office job where everyone already knows their marital status. Many women today don't need the precious stone as pawnable thing of last resort. So I don't think its wrong for a couple to skeptically evaluate the value prop I've described above.

</comment><comment><USER77> [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have- you...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever- tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/)

This article is a pretty interesting one on the topic!

</comment><comment><USER78> Anybody else have a SO who doesn't care about any of this? We talked about rings for 10 minutes before she and I got married. We wear white gold bands. No one has ever asked us about our rings. I'm feeling like I'm missing something here. Do rings appreciate in value?

</comment><comment><USER79> Went with a lab grown diamond from Brilliant Earth and my (now) wife was ecstatic that she didn't have to feel any gilt over the stone or feeling pressure from friends trying to explain why she went with an alternative. We were both extremely happy with the ring.

</comment><comment><USER80> I bought my wife no engagement rings and she is happy just to keep the money. Society just needs to get saner so you won't need any of these coveted stones. So instead of looking for alternative stones to carry on the madness, just date utilitarian women.

</comment><comment><USER81> We went with a sapphire, in an antique setting with some small inexpensive diamonds on either side. Better in every way than a big diamond, much cheaper, easier to get a far prettier custom result.

And I have to say prong settings are ungainly and not durable.

</comment><comment><USER82> So this is Silicon Carbide? I'd love to see someone grow one of these crystals. The raw materials and the processes needed are, from what people have told me, simple but no one has ever gone past "don't worry about it".

<comment><USER83> The raw materials are cheap, but growing crystals of SiC isn't easy, and it took quite a long time to work out the growth processes. It helps that it's more or less conventional crystal growth and doesn't require super high pressure, as does one of the two main ways of growing diamond.

Here's a presentation on some aspects of growing silicon carbide (which in its low-defect state is clear & colorless, i.e., Moissonite) [1]. One thing to note is that growth temperatures exceed 2000°C - that's difficult territory for engineering apparatus that's both reliable and cheap.

A lot of the impetus for high quality SiC growth came from developing it for super high power FETs and other power switching semiconductors. That growth tech bled over into gem SiC growth.

[1] [http://www.leb.eei.uni- erlangen.de/winterakademie/2005/resul...](http://www.leb.eei.uni- erlangen.de/winterakademie/2005/results/Presentations/SiC_Bulk_Growth.pdf)

<comment><USER82> I know this is a big ask for some machineists/industrial engineers out there but I think it would be really cool to see someone produce a one off sample of Moissonite for their spouse. Would be really lovely and from looking at this very very doable.

This would be great but reading through this but it doesn't look like a 15 minute process. You're right, the robust-ativity of this is the real concern here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Droppin' those truth bombs. Adam Ruins Everything had a good episode covering this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5kWu1ifBGU)

</comment><comment><USER85> I have only one problem with this article crawling so high... As it seems an ad for one retailer of Moisanite Charles & Colvard. Also this article was submitted twice to hackernews before, once by the same person before.

</comment><comment><USER86> I purchased a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet from a surplus auction that included electro-optical equipment (big lasers and such.) The garnet is a nice pink color with a high refractive index. It's slightly bigger than 1 cubic centimeter and being lab grown it has zero defects other than the neodymium atoms which turn it pink.

I plan on having it cut and set into a ring. However one obstacle is that yttrium is considered toxic to humans as a dust. Proper safety, ventilation and cleanup must be observed which makes it difficult to find jewellers that are willing to accommodate this.

</comment><comment><USER87> Re:Alternatives - was just talking about this with Billionaire founder of MoonExpress which just the first private company to receive FAA clearance to harvest some the moon (Moon Express). Sounds like he plans on bringing some back for rings and making it a thing to not just have a honeymoon but to give your honey the moon.

[https://soundcloud.com/user-925097294/billionaire- breaking-i...](https://soundcloud.com/user-925097294/billionaire-breaking- into-trillion-dollar-space-market-gains-faa-approval-on-tomorrows-tech- podcast)

<comment><USER39> There are some good alternative ideas. At a point in my life I was learning 3D modeling and planning to have a ring printed by Shapeways.

The moon rock is a cool idea, but unless the couple met while working at NASA I don't see the significance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> Millions of men spending billions of dollars every year because of a marketing campaign of one company. If they instead crowdfunded a massive anti-campaign they could've stopped this madness.

</comment><comment><USER89> Just two weeks ago I was ordering a ring from a jeweler and I wanted a moissanite. It seems to be impossible to find this gem in Ukraine. My jeweler wasn't able to order it anywhere. I'm visiting Germany soon, so I went to Charles&Colvard website to see if they have a reseller in Germany – no they don't. The closest reseller is in UK. And I can't just order it from US because every delivery service specifically doesn't deliver precious stones and metals to Ukraine. So no moissanite for me.

</comment><comment><USER38> I think rubies are much more appealing.

<comment><USER90> Depends on what she likes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> Ha! Great Post/Website. I personally run a personalized jewelry store, AuGrav.com, and have recently posted on why NOT to go for a diamond ring! As you mentioned, it's more of an emotional/sentimental value rather than the investment value. #GetPersonalized

Cheers!

[http://www.augrav.com/blog/how-to-propose-your-love- without-...](http://www.augrav.com/blog/how-to-propose-your-love-without-a- diamond-ring)

</comment><comment><USER92> I love this article, but why not discuss other options as well. You show CZ in your table, but don't discuss how its a perfect stone with no discolorization, and significantly cheaper than even moissanite. Its perfection means it will never pass as a diamond to a jeweller, but it looks amazing to everyone else. I bought my wife a huge CZ ring and she loves it and the cheap price tag. She lost it once and I just bought another just like it.

</comment><comment><USER93> I recently spent a little bit of time looking into this and one thing that was interesting is how much the look of a stone is also relying on the quality of the cut.

You can get diamonds/moissonites/cz in the same cut, but they will look like night and day, depending on how well it seems to be done. Some lab created stones / replicants look indistinguishable from a diamond whereas others look very much like they're made from glass

</comment><comment><USER94> So how has the US tradition of engagement diamonds survived the (entirely proper and welcome) amelioration of sexual stereotypes? I'm living in a bubble, I know, but huh? I've been married four times. I've never given, or received, an engagement ring. I've never even been explicitly engaged. I don't even recall that the topic ever came up. I suppose that it was just part of mutual selection process ;)

</comment><comment><USER95> Interesting read and great points. But the reason I'm shopping for a diamond is precisely that it is too expensive. It's supposed to be proof that I am glad to make sacrifices for her. If we wanted to do something nontraditional we might choose some completely different kind of ring, but to choose something that looks super expensive and is not would make me feel like I had cut corners for my fiance.

<comment><USER96> Why does she need this proof?

Why is wasting a ton of money proof of anything but stupidity?

Genuine questions here. Diamonds are certainly a feature of UK marriages but I've certainly never heard of "X months salary"...

</comment></comment><comment><USER97> The fact of the matter is, you're still talking about buying a rock. Once you have accepted the absurdity of that, it seems like bikeshedding to argue that diamonds are better or worse than anything else (or any less absurd).

Despite this, I spent an outrageous sum on the diamond engagement ring I bought my wife (as well as the wedding band). Because anything other than diamonds wouldn't have been diamonds!

</comment><comment><USER98> After reading about Moissanite I went out and got a nice custom diamond ring. I've seen it in person and sometimes you CAN tell, because of the 'fire' its way more rainbowy than diamond, diamonds are 'whiter' looking.

I'm not even opposed to CZ if it looks pretty, but I wanted to give her a diamond and gold, and anything else would have felt like a substitution.

<comment><USER99> This is what annoys me. The geek and idealist in me doesn't want to give her a diamond because it's not that valuable. Yet, I don't want to be cheap. I don't want her to feel like I don't value her enough.

<comment><USER100> > I don't want to be cheap

Why not get something expensive, yet valuable then?

<comment><USER101> Such as? Jewellery is inherently not valuable!

<comment><USER100> Is a gold ring not worth the gold it's made out of?

<comment><USER101> But the ring would cost more than the gold contents it contains. And i also stand by the opinion that gold is inherently valueless, and is only valued as a rarity/status symbol.

<comment><USER100> > i also stand by the opinion that gold is inherently valueless

If you have any gold, I'll take it off your hands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER102> Sol: No, it's a moissanite. Bad Boy Lincoln: A what-in-ite? Sol: A moissanite is an artificial diamond, Lincoln. It's Mickey Mouse, mate. Spurious. Not genuine. And it's worth... fuck-all.

This quote has stuck with me, though it sounds like Snatch (Guy Ritchie) got the "artificial" part wrong based on the site.

</comment><comment><USER103> Just got married yesterday and went for the traditional thing. I am happy to read there is an alternative for diamond though, and if we have a gem put it, as is tradition for the birth of a child (for some), I will surely suggest this to my wife.

</comment><comment><USER104> Imho, wedding rings are overrated. And they will just get lost in a few months/years. Having a super cheap ring is fine.

The same deal with ultra expensive weddings. But remember, this is just my opinion. I am more in agreement with Epicurus.

</comment><comment><USER105> Back in the days, Slashdot had a discussion on alternative materials for wedding rings.

I cannot for the life of me remember suggestions, but the community came up with quite a few creative and meaningful materials that could make beautiful rings.

</comment><comment> nommm-nommm Ehhhh I'd take it one step future and say "engagement rings suck."

</comment><comment><USER106> IMHO a fiancee that demands a diamond is not a spouse worth keeping.

</comment><comment><USER107> My wife is sporting an aquamarine and people will actually stop her to admire her ring. There are a lot of good alternatives to the over priced/unethical diamond.

</comment><comment><USER108> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFZKPQuAaw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GFZKPQuAaw)

</comment><comment><USER109> My wife loves sapphire, so we went that route back in 2003. The money saved went towards an IMO awesome setting that will be an heirloom.

</comment><comment><USER110> Diamonds do suck, which is why I made the Bitcoin alternative to diamond engagement rings, the BTC Ring.

[http://thebtcring.com/](http://thebtcring.com/)

Even with moissanite, the ring still has inherent value, thus subjecting the wearer to risk of loss or theft. By using a _pointer_ to value (e.g. a Bitcoin address), one can still show off but not worry about storm drains or muggings.

</comment><comment><USER111> So, what's an 0.47 caret, round, brilliant cut, very white, flawless to 10X diamond worth?

</comment><comment><USER112> My and then current GF had our engagement rings in titanium. We never got married though.

</comment><comment><USER113> Doesn't anyone have recommendations best places to get a moissanite ring?

<comment><USER113> This was supposed to be "does anyone have any recommendations" but autocorrect changed it. Apologies if it came across as rude.

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> Damn, this was brought to my attention about 2 days and $6,361 too early.

</comment><comment><USER111> Silicon carbide? Hmm, if not too concerned about looks, then can get it at most hardware stores on various sanding papers and disks, right? But, sure, much the same for industrial diamonds, e.g., for knife sharpeners, maybe some high end grinding wheels?

</comment><comment><USER115> I will send this to my other half... Maybe she will understand...

</comment><comment><USER116> Both DeBeers recommend links are getting 404.

</comment><comment><USER117> Do a lot of these problems go away if you can afford to pay in cash for a diamond and it doesn't inhibit future purchasing decisions?

</comment><comment><USER118> > I recently got engaged, and found myself in the market for a suitable > engagement ring.

Got engaged prior to purchasing the engagement ring?

</comment><comment><USER119> People buy diamonds for a lot of the same 'irrational' reasons they believe in religion. Brainwashing. Girls have it pounded into their head over and over all their lives that this diamond is a MUST so they never think with their own brains about it. 99% of people would never spend $10K on a single piece of jewlery, if it was logic and reason, as opposed to pure brainwashing, that was governing their decisions. So actually it's a very sad aspect that I hate about humanity. Susceptibility to being brainwashed and the need to fit in, and the fear of not fitting in. All the above are mental disorders. And by the way just because "everyone is doing it" doesn't mean it's not a mental disorder. It is.

<comment><USER70> Alot of women think this of men when they see us drop $60k-80k+ on car instead of getting a cheapo Toyota.

<comment><USER120> Well, they might, but your ring doesn't get you anywhere faster and more comfortable.

Also you don't attract men with a ring, but the other way around...*

*This is not my way of thinking, but it exists out there.

<comment><USER70> The ring is bragging rights...

I drive a sports car.... some women love it others wonder why it's not quiet(it's a convertible) or super smooth and assume it's broken.

Have you seen the cars most women buy? Slowest, low mpg, boat like cars on the road. Basically Toyota in a nutshell, no wonder they do so well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER120> Here's a nice show "Adam ruins everything" where the host explains why weddings (and the ring "tradition") is just about marketing started in 20th century:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVLGsc0M9h0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVLGsc0M9h0)

<comment><USER121> Had to scroll way too far to this see someone mention that video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> If you're conflicted about spending thousands of dollars for a diamond ring just give your fiance the money it would cost you to buy a diamond ring and tell her it's her decision. Most girls would think twice about spending thousands of dollars on a rock and instead spend some of it while keeping the rest for other future expenditures.

</comment><comment><USER123> You're so right! Diamonds are an incredible rip-off! But people keep buying them because of the tradition and history and because they don't know something else. Like coca cola and their ads, it's popular to buy diamonds.

</comment><comment><USER124> I hope the author doesn't get suicided by De Beers. Good luck, my friend!

</comment><comment><USER125> "a.. whatenite?"

</comment><comment><USER126> >Sorry about Trump, BTW.

Why on earth do you think that sort of random political non-sequitur is appropriate?

<comment><USER5> Uhm, well, because I'm having a conversation about cultural differences between the midwest and the north-east. I think it's appropriate to segway into another topic that way.

If it's the sarcasm you find inappropriate, I respectfully disagree. If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain. I find it all very stressful, and humor is an outlet for that stress.

If it's the particular apology you find inappropriate, that was not a joke. As a progressive in the midwest, I did not do enough to campaign to the large group of Trump-voters in my immediate family, friend group and neighborhood.

<comment><USER127> >If our new president fulfills his promises, friends of mine will be cataloged, deported. My own hopes of US citizenship and the life me and my wife had planned for ourselves is now uncertain.

Are you sure about that? He's already backtracking on ObamaCare, saying he wants to keep parts of it, and the latest news about deportations is that he wants to deport people who have criminal records. Personally, I'm wondering why people who aren't legal immigrants or residents, and who have committed crimes (beyond speeding tickets...) are still here and haven't been deported yet. Who's going to moan about that? He's also making noises about figuring out who the "terrific people" are and keeping them here. Obviously, a lot of stuff he's said was said to appeal to angry voters, and isn't necessarily what he's going to do in office; I expect he's going to go back on a lot of his promises, but in a way that he can claim he didn't (by simply not going as far as implied; then he'll claim he didn't "mean that literally" or "didn't fully articulate the policy" or something like that). Call me crazy or overly- optimistic, but I'm thinking now that he's going to water a lot of stuff down, in an attempt to keep his popularity numbers very high, while still getting some things done that he thought needed to be done.

>As a progressive in the midwest, I did not do enough to campaign to the large group of Trump-voters in my immediate family, friend group and neighborhood.

There was absolutely nothing you could have done to change the course of the election, unless you campaigned a lot to get more people to the polls in the Dem primary to vote for Bernie. Once Hillary was anointed, it was all over: too many voters simply were not going to vote for her, no matter what. Just look at the turnout numbers: about 4-5 million _fewer_ people voted this year than in 2008 when Obama was elected, even though there's more eligible voters 8 years later (greater population). A lot of people simply hated Hillary and voted for Trump out of spite, many voted 3rd party (though many of those votes were angry Republicans), but tons of people simply didn't vote. The DNC has only itself to blame for this, so if you're mad about that, I suggest you dedicate your campaigning efforts to reforming the DNC.

<comment><USER128> i think the 60 minutes interview tonight is going to calm a lot of nerves.

personally i think the trump presidency will be shocking in how normal it is. people are just completely worked up over his campaign persona which is understandable.

what people forget sometimes is that we have a political system in place designed to prevent dictatorships, exactly the kind of thing people on the left are concerned about with trump (and people on the right were equally concerned about with obama).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER129> Fun fact: Moissanite is nothing else than silicon carbide, which is also used for high-temperature power electronics. So, why don't give her/him a MOSFET ring? ;)

This may be a great / bad idea depending on his/her preferences.

<comment><USER130> I had a Larrabee A0 spin I tried to mount on a copper wire for my wife--- that's like 30 grand in, uh, engineered jewelry. Didn't fly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER131> > superior to diamonds in every essential way: cut, color, clarity, > durability, fire, brilliance

Yet the author still uses the "desirable" properties taught by the diamond industry

<comment><USER132> What is the point of this comment?

If I design a new type of helmut that was totally awesome, it would rightly be judged against other helmuts.

If I buy a stone specifically as an alternative to diamond for jewellery, why would I come up with different criteria?

<comment><USER131> The point is that these "desirable" attributes were chosen by the diamond industry to promote their own gems. Why is "fire" or "brilliance" the reference by which gemstones are judged by? This mindset is exactly what the diamond industry has created, and the irony is that the author has taken the same sheepish following that diamond customers have.

<comment><USER132> Probably because those criteria actually look good for jewellery.

Which makes sense, easier to get someone to pay more for a gem they think looks good, than to make them pay more for a gem they don't think looks good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER133> HOLY SHIT THIS CAME JUST IN TIME. THANK YOU.

Time to get my money back from this down payment I've been making, bwahahaha. My gf will love this, she's not fancy in the slightest. In fact, she'll be impressed that I got something that looks better than a diamond and a portion of the cost. You've improved everyone's life because of this site.

Hey, if you ever want to make this site fancier, I'll design/code it for free. My portfolio is [https://dsgn.io](https://dsgn.io) and my other project live on [https://the-inc.co](https://the-inc.co).

Thanks again!

</comment><comment><USER111> Gee, ever since she was three years old and playing with Disney dolls, e.g., Cinderella, she was dreaming of HER dream man, on a white horse, in shining armor, picking her up and carrying her off to their love nest castle on the top of the mountain.

Alas, with current economic conditions -- those suits of shining armor and white horses can really set a guy back -- she gets a guy, he did just take a shower, in blue denim on a mule?

Ah, for sure the good, old days of romance are gone with the wind forever?

But, now, with Silicon Valley and everyone making at least $10,000 a week, what's the big deal of a $10,000 diamond?

Or, suppose in 10 years she discovers it's not a diamond? And in the meanwhile the startup went public, and he got $600 million. Now that she's had her romantic heart crushed by the _fake diamond_ , her mom, who never thought he was good enough for her to begin with, reminds her of the beautiful California community property law, and suddenly he has to pay both his lawyer's fees and hers, loses the house, the kids, the new, high end Mercedes SUV, the boat, the boat house, the kids, the three dogs, and half of what is left of the $600 million and has to pay child support for kids he can't see and alimony forever. All because he was cheap and bought a fake?

Just kidding, guys!!!! :-)!!

<comment><USER134> Phil Greenspun is leaking onto this forum, clearly.

<comment><USER111> I haven't read Greenspun in years! What's he up to these days?

<comment><USER134> Mostly complaining about his latest divorce.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER135> This turns out to be based on a conspiracy theory:

"Current public perception of diamonds is the direct result of a masterfully executed marketing campaign by De Beers that began in 1938, not inherent scarcity or value. If you've read the article by Edward Epstein (you really should), you know all of the gory details. Isn't it amazing (and scary) how brainwashed people are about the "value" of diamonds, even though they're not actually worth that much?"

Thus, without further investigation, we can conclude that the writer is a croony crackpot (I don't know if thats a thing, but, anyhow)

right?

<comment><USER136> there's no need to call anyone a croony crackpot or similar.

lots of big newspaper seem also to agree that diamonds are bullshit, here's huffingtonpost's article about it: [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira- weissman/7-reasons-why-you...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ira- weissman/7-reasons-why-you-shouldn_b_1720870.html)

<comment><USER135> actually, I wrote in irony.. my post was supposed to be a satire on all knee jerk reactions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER137> Great advice. Possibly coming from someone who doesn't have a girlfriend. :) try to give such a stone to a girl and see how amused she is gonna be. You are just gonna sound "cheap". Diamonds are a status, not a beautiful stone.

edit: I see many downvotes. Guys, seriously, was it for me, I would buy nothing. It's just how this world works. You can express your anger by downvoting me, I'll be fine, but please don't fall into this belief that diamonds are just a stone. They are unfortunately just a status, like brands...

<comment><USER138> Yes, this discussion reappears every time diamonds are mentioned on HN. Pretty brilliant marketing campaign by De Beers, though, that somebody will think you're "cheap" if you don't buy a big enough diamond that somebody dug out of the ground.

In the end it's just a conversation between people who say, "You can't just ignore these social conventions" and people who say "these social conventions are stupid, find someone who isn't so shallow."

If you think everyone falls into one camp or the other, however, then you have a lot to learn.

<comment><USER139> Here is the article that talks about the De Beers marketing plan that created the concept of a diamond engagement ring.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how...](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/how- an-ad-campaign-invented-the-diamond-engagement-ring/385376/)</comment></comment></comment>


Project Trident Ditches BSD for Linux - <AUTHOR> https://itsfoss.com/bsd-project-trident-linux/ <comment><USER2> BSD is mostly overcautious about security that leaves it behind others hardwarewise and softwarewise. For some people that is ok, (who has old but enough hardware or needs to run good enough and settled down software) for others this might be a deal breaker like this case apparently.</comment>


Benefits of Sarcasm - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-surprising-benefits-of-sarcasm/ <comment><USER2> To me, sarcasm is a form of a riddle, albeit one highly dependent on the trust and relationship between the two or more parties involved. A sarcastic statement does not always have to convey a "belittling" or "malicious" overtone, but can be much closer to a maxim, a form of wordplay, a metaphor, or an allegory. Or, in the case of the following Futurama quote, sarcasm can be a container for one of the above literary devices:

 _Professor Farnsworth: Is it true that stem cells may fight the aging process?

GeneWorks receptionist: Well yes. In the same way an infant may fight Muhammad Ali._

I like how the article points out that the over-arching caveat to the benefits of scarcasm involve the 'human capital' of _trust_. That reminds me of why my friends and I would use sarcasm with each other as games of wit, and why, on occasion, I'd cringe when one of my friends would be sarcastic, sometimes in a not-very-nice way, to a stranger who was simply trying to do their job. Or, in other words, sarcasm is a very powerful weapon in the "put down" game, and a large swath of the population isn't really mentally equipped or practiced in the contest, so it's a belitting thing...but when sarcasm ace meets sarcasm ace, holy cow it can be some funny material.

<comment><USER3> _but when sarcasm ace meets sarcasm ace, holy cow it can be some funny material._

Also known as British Humor.

Maybe we should call this a Monty Python scenario.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One of the few lessons to stick with me from high school English was during the lesson on irony, when a student asked "Is sarcasm the same thing as irony?" and the teacher thought about it for a moment, before responding that, yes, it is, kind of, but it's the lowest form of irony.

I really enjoy irony in life and in literature, so I try to avoid sarcasm as to not cheapen the fun of "higher" forms of irony (like finally understanding Alanis Morisette's "Ironic").

<comment><USER5> > like finally understanding Alanis Morisette's "Ironic"

Would you mind explaining the deeper meaning of Morissette's song?

<comment><USER6> Not OP, but here goes:

None of the examples in the song are actually ironic (i.e. taking an action with the intention of causing A which actually prevents A [or vise versa]). "Rain on your wedding day" isn't ironic, as "getting married" isn't attempting to prevent rain.

However, writing a song that's supposed to be chock-full of ironic things where _not a single one_ actually demonstrates irony _IS_ ironic.

So the song is meta-irony.

<comment><USER7> > _None of the examples in the song are actually ironic. (i.e. taking an > action with the intention of causing A which actually prevents A [or vise > versa])._

Actually most (if not all) of the examples in the song are actually ironic. And the example given above is not the sole definition of irony (but could be an ironic situation).

From the dictionary:

(a) the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

(b) a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.

The "10000 spoons when you all you need is a knife" is obvious with the latter example.

As for the "rain on your wedding day", it fairly obviously presupposes the expectation (of the "stereotypical" woman planning her wedding) that it would be some perfect sunny day.

E.g. imagine a bride to be planning her reception, and after weeks full of summer sun, it pours like crazy in her wedding day ("a state of affairs (...) deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result") -- it's this feeling like the universe is mocking you, like you know, the weather changed on purpose.

Of course a song has to tell those things elliptically, and people expect to see irony either in the form of (a -- most comments I've seen allude to that) or in a blatantly explicit (b).

<comment><USER8> It raining on your wedding day isn't ironic unless you're marrying an umbrella shop owner who has recently gone out of business.

Being stuck without a spoon to stir your tea in a spoon factory would be ironic.

It's like good advice you just can't take? No?

<comment><USER7> > _It raining on your wedding day isn 't ironic unless you're marrying an > umbrella shop owner who has recently gone out of business._

Rain on one's wedding day isn't by itself ironic (in England for example it would be par for the course, as it almost always rains anyway).

But it can be, under certain expectations (e.g. an expectation and preparations for a ceremony with nice weather, sudden rain ESPECIALLY on that day, when it was all well and sunny for weeks before, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _Instead of avoiding sarcasm completely in the office, the research suggests sarcasm, used with care and in moderation, can be effectively used and trigger some creative sparks._

Who really has the presence of mind and self control to use sarcasm with "care and moderation" when in the midst of a work-related social interaction? I think this is just a silly extrapolation to draw from the evidence presented.

Sarcasm can be amusing and perhaps useful in satire and social settings where there's no risk of generating animosity between people, but in the workplace where relationships don't necessarily arise from a sense of mutual understanding, I think this article gives us little reason to believe it can do more good than harm.

<comment><USER10> All professional communication demands a certain amount of care and moderation. Not just for humour but for criticism, praise, discerning preferences etc. Use of _appropriate_ humour can greatly improve things but you have to know your audience.

<comment><USER9> Humor, sure. But sarcasm comes by definition at the expense of an idea or another person. Thus I submit that the article has not adequately supported the argument that sarcasm can be helpful in the workplace.

<comment><USER11> "But sarcasm comes by definition at the expense of an idea or another person."

Even to the extent that is true, which I could quibble with, the sarcasm can be at the sarcastic one's expense, as a form of self-deprecation, or it could be at the expense of a person not present and one who may not even properly- speaking exist.

Sarcasm at a coworker's expense isn't wrong because it's sarcasm, it would be wrong because _any_ social interaction at a coworker's expense is generally wrong.

<comment><USER9> At the risk of quibbling, my opinion on the definition of sarcasm resembles that of Wikipedia's article on the subject: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm)

Other than that bit, what you've written doesn't conflict with what I wrote. Even if sarcasm is used at the expense of nonexistent parties, it stands a reasonable chance of making those who don't know you well wary.

One illustration from my own life: I was very sarcastic as a younger person, but generally had no malicious intent. Once I thought I was getting along quite well with a girl, who was laughing at some of my sarcastic remarks. At the end of the evening, she stormed out of the room, upset after I made yet another sarcastic comment. This came to the great surprise of me and others in the group who knew me better. Here there was no evil intended on either side, yet sarcasm combined with the intrinsic difficulty in understanding another person created a very uncomfortable and socially destructive situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Not directly related to the article but just to the topic: one of the biggest things for me to get used to when I moved from the UK to France earlier this year is the lack of sarcasm used/understood by French people. There's a couple of French people I know who get my sense of humour, for everyone else I have to conciously knock off what I think of as the UK part of my joking and keep it to "international-friendly humour" only.

<comment><USER13> Oh, I've noticed that... That's why as a French I tend to love UK comedies. We tend to use less dry sarcasm in France. So much the pity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The worst thing about using sarcasm with coworkers who aren't on the same page is when they miss it and not only take it seriously but accept the statement. If you tell them/they figure out you were being sarcastic not only did they miss it in the first place they actually supported a sarcastic statement so they hate you for making them look stupid. If you don't tell them they find out it's wrong and think you're an idiot for suggesting it. It really curbed my use of sarcasm after school :(

<comment><USER15> I'd hate you mostly because of the lost brain power. Obvious sarcasm is OK, it's the guesswork that gets under my skin.

<comment><USER14> But that's just it - how "obvious" something is is completely subjective. I was baffled that the other person took me seriously because it seemed obviously ridiculous to me. After a while I just accepted that I can't be sarcastic with people I don't know well enough if I care about getting my point across.

<comment><USER15> Point was that it's not necessarily "because you made me look stupid". If that was the case, I would believe to be utter moron by now. (Getting sarcasm is not my thing, but that doesn't keep me from using it..)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Other research has show that sarcasm can be easily misinterpreted, > particularly when communicated electronically.

I can't tell if the comments thus far are sarcastic.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is anecdotal, sure, but I think worth noting. Of my youngest students that I teach, starting around 4 or 5, I've consistently noticed that the most developmentally advanced students in terms of language, patience, and focus are the ones that have very sarcastic and witty conversations with their parents and/or me. They are also always very pleasant to work with (sense of humor!). There are times where I am surprised the student even understands that what's being said isn't literal, but they do get it and will joke back.

I'm convinced this type of rhetoric forces an additional cognitive load on the child's brain that helps with context, perspective, and self-awareness which in my mind, are the absolute most powerful aspects of becoming an intelligent individual. This is sort of the basis of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy as well and is the most important "gateway" concept when teaching anyone anything.

</comment><comment><USER18> "Great" article.

<comment><USER19> Yeah. As if.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Boy, HN really needs to hear this. Nobody likes sarcasm around here.

<comment><USER21> Hmm... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

<comment><USER20> :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Way to shake things up with the finding of the century there, guys.

<comment><USER23> Probably not a productive comment

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I feel that when one's conveying sarcasm in electronic forms, a wink emoji goes a long way in making it clear. However the sarcasm purists might disagree.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm sure this concept will be well received among the soft millennial college students.

</comment><comment><USER26> I was very surprised.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've worked at a lot of companies where the devs are incredibly snarky. Most of the people making the jokes are straight, white, and male. I wonder if this is perceived as another barrier to minorities.

<comment><USER8> I heard that minorities don't understand sarcasm.

<comment><USER27> I'm referring to brogrammer/jock culture. Don't be so sensitive when people criticize sarcasm. A few women have written about the way some men communicate with each other can be alienating.

<comment><USER8> Sarcasm failure

<comment><USER27> Comments like this don't belong on HN. please reconsider how you disagree with people.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What China can teach the west about digital democracy - <AUTHOR> https://www.opendemocracy.net/digitaliberties/jimmy-tidey/what-china-can-teach-west-about-digital-democracy <comment><USER2> This is a country whose government still puts the picture of the biggest mass murderer in history on its money.</comment>


A Computer Scientist's guide to cell biology (2007) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wcohen/GuideToBiology-sampleChapter-release1.4.pdf <comment><USER2> This is very nicely writen, and looks like an extremely useful resource for those interested in entering the bioscience field. I would offer one word of caution, which I think is especially pertinent to those coming from a CS background (and, I should add, not something this book particularly does, as far as I have read).

Historically and practically, biology as a field has often represented processes and events in an highly linearized and well defined fashion. This is extremely attractive for a number of reasons. As one key example, we (as humans) remember through narrative, and so the construction of a Rube Goldberg type description of a process is often a useful technique for easy recall of complicated information ("A hits B which winds up C and switches on D __etc __... ").

The other reason is that many of the experiments would really imply a linear pathway if that were all one look for. There __is __often a clear-cut progression of information signals or metabolic intermediates moving from one state to another state through well defined intermediates, such that if that were what you were looking for, you 'd find it.

In this representation, many biological processes are highly analogous to computer programs which perform some task - you have an input, and through functional manipulation generate an output.

The realty, as has been uncovered in the last 15-20 years, is that most of these processes and events are not linear pathways. They are wildly heterogenous networks that integrate information spanning a range of temporal and spatial scales. The non-equilibrium nature of the cell means that, to a certain extent, everything is coupled to everything else through interactions where the associated coupling coefficients are also dependent on everything else.

The reason I bring this up is that I think it's very temping to find analogies between CS and biology (DNA = hard drive, RNA = memory etc). The problem with this is that we (again, as humans) implemented the underlying computer architecture, while we're only scratching the surface of biological complexity. By prescribing that some mapping of CS-to-biology exists we risk convincing ourselves that we understand the biology better than we do, or making assumptions regarding how the biology may or may not work.

Clearly, this kind of description can be used early on, but its important to recognize that these analogies should be viewed as broad-brush stroke descriptors and not functional ones.

<comment><USER3> +1 This is a nice reminder about how "organic" this domain is. I agree, even if I read this cover to cover, I wouldn't be ready to nail a bioinformatics job interview.

As an armchair biologist (among other things,) this paper is a great next- level-of detail from the pop-sci knowledge that "DNA is the Program." Indeed, Wikipedia's illustration of the workings of a ribosome takes steps towards your point, @alexholehouse. It's jagged and sloppy, and while it appears clock-like in its machinations, one must immediately ask how that could be anything but an oversimplification. Is this the workings of the computer that interprets DNA's "program?"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome#/media/File:Protein_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribosome#/media/File:Protein_translation.gif)

A final point, it's sobering to watch this and think that every movement of these proteins represents at least one doctoral thesis' worth of work. Although we have amazing ways of seeing these microscopic actions at play, we don't exactly have debuggers, REPLs or profilers that let us observe cells unaffected. Messy stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you like this book you will probably also like the gold standard for cellular biology: Molecular Biology of the Cell ([http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Cell-5th- Edition/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Molecular-Biology-Cell-5th- Edition/dp/0815341059)).

It costs more but it's worth it. It's a deeply informative book that covers a large spectrum of topics that you can read without much background knowledge in biology. It's the same book your doctor or bioinformatics professional probably used in school learning about cellular biology.

</comment><comment><USER5> Does something something (except marketing) make this book specially relevant for computer scientists? I mean, better than ordinary biology courses, wikipedia, etc.

</comment><comment> kris-s I work at a biotech company and what I've read so far has been a very well written overview. Really great writeup.

<comment><USER6> I've currently taken a very strong interest in biotech but my majors don't really give me much time to study chemistry or biology in any significant way. What is the percent composition of R&D in biotech in terms of CS and bio? Is there little enough bio that I could get away with self-teaching it?

<comment> kris-s Depends on the company and what their product/service is. You might need varying levels of knowledge. I'd say you totally could self-teach it for most roles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is not bad. Probably should hand one of these to every computer scientist I work with who is contemplating biological problems.

I think having it focus on cell biology, rather than just the information systems, is worthwhile.</comment>