I've noticed that the people that really develop skill in an area almost always use inferior instruments and material when they're first developing the skill.
Paradoxically, getting a brand new guitar can be the worst thing to do for a child interested in music. A simple used one with scratches and stickers pushes the child's focus to their own skill, not to the object.
Though it isn't true for everyone, I've also noticed that skilled practitioners beat up their high priced tools in ways that doesn't degrade their performance, and they're always able to compensate for inferior situations and build methods of adaptation if they frequently lack the ability to control the situation. For example, a programmer may set up a linux machine that they can always SSH into if they can't control the computer they're working on in order to have a familiar environment or a chef may keep a spatula and a carefully thought out pre-selected set of spices with them to always be able to make something flavourful while traveling.
This is why when I got my first motorcycle my buddy told me "lets find a beater on craigslist thats been in a crash".
I paid about $2k for it, and that yamaha had seen a hell of a dump at 50mph and had scratches that looked like a banshee had its way with the left side because it insulted her mothers size or whatever.
But damn if he wasn't right that when I inevitably had it fall over whle practicing in the parking lot that I didn't care much. Plus after riding that (not quite a) beater I was much better prepared for stuff with more zoom to it.
I think buying cheap/refurb/broken and learning from that is definitely the way to go when starting/learning. You learn how to appreciate the good stuff later on.
Just like how now I can pretty much use unix to a large degree after using them for ~20ish years, I tend to stick to osx+nix to get me up to speed. I keep my configurations portable to open/freebsd and linux as well on the off chance I need to move around, but other than that I tend to not be too committed to what I'm running.
Was wondering if guitar or culinary arts would show up. I read in Bourdain's "Kitchen Confidential" that Chefs bring their own knives. Hence an attachment to the tool and appreciation of quality. Guitars are similar, in that a mint condition guitar is nice to look at but kind of scary to play. The highest selling instruments have been famous for who played them, when, and where, not the brand or how close to new they might be. It's funny how artisans who base their livelihood on tools relate to them versus the drop-in tourist who starts cheap and gives up easy.
Another reason for this may be that skilled people know enough to ignore marketing claims.
Let's take guitars. You can get a squire (introductory model), a Fender made in Mexico (intermediate, a few hundred dollars) or an American standard (top of the line, a few thousand dollars). Most working musicians I know will stick with the Mexican fender, because they know there's not much difference between them and the Americans (The Mexican guitars are quite nice), and you can gig with it without worrying that a scratch or nick will tank the value.
So who buys the American fenders? People in their 40s and 50s who play guitar, but not professionally. For them, the guitar is a collectors piece. The story behind the guitar matters more than how it plays. Don't get me wrong, American standards are great guitars. But unless you're looking for a very specific tone, the Mexican fender will do the job.
Squire makes lovely guitars. I owned one for some time in my first years (never became professional, play to myself on and off since years), it was a cyan strat, and people were amazed with the general intonation of the thing. The stupid 16yrs old version of me traded it for a shitty acoustic because I didn't have the money to buy a second one. I could still have that cheap piece of beauty and play it with joy.
The whole "tone" business (pun unintended) is a bit shady IMO. With an electric instrument, the wood contributes only so much to the tone. I'd look for sustain, feedback and intonation over that, especially in the cheaper segment. You can set up some nice tones with volume and tone on the guitar and the equalizer on the amp. Put on a nice set of strings and you're good to go. Tip: use a tuner app to test the notes from random places all over the neck, at least one note each fret. Make sure everything is in tune. With some cheaper guitars, they place the first few frets correctly and don't care that much for the rest.
Ive been playing guitar for 25 years and still practice on high action junk $50 pawn shop acoustics, or even kids sized walmart guitars with now almost rusty strings. I do this for dexterity, mostly playing scales and usually out of tune. Then for actually playing, recording or anything serious, of course I play something nice.
Aside: I started learning the mandolin last year and picked up a Rogue model for 40 bucks. Ive learned to make it sound pleasant, but it is terribly strenuous to play. When i do upgrade I know that the piece of crap it really is will have done me very well :)
While I generally agree, a note I would add about guitars: you don't need to buy a super expensive guitar to start but you do want to make sure it's properly setup (usually costs < $50 at a guitar store). Action that is too high can be a huge motivation killer for the novice guitarist and they might not even know the issue can be fixed.
Whenever I buy a new guitar, I deliberately damage it - a quick scrape against a belt buckle or a dent against the edge of a table. Even if you know that the guitar will have a hard working life, you can't help but handle it with kid gloves when it's still all shiny and new. The first ding always hurts, so you might as well get it over with.
I wonder if this has any bearing on the popularity of reliced guitars. Aesthetics is undoubtedly a part, as with pre-distressed jeans, but I can't help thinking that some players are more comfortable with an instrument that has taken a beating before it left the factory.
Pianos are a good example of this. Inexpensive pianos, especially uprights — unless they have a Fandrich action — are simply incapable of the expressive range that a sensitive and skillfull budding pianist needs to have to learn. A seasoned pianist can usually work around a crappy piano in ways that a learner can not.
"The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one's self. And the arbitrariness of the constraint serves only to obtain precision of execution." - Igor Stravinsky
I took up watercolor painting this year without any painting experience, and I'm having a blast. I began with cheap paint and brushes despite hearing that professional quality tools are better. Now I'm gradually buying better supplies. As a result, there's two points of value I feel I gained through this method:
1. I was able to start with very low cost, and could fearlessly practice without the regret of wasting expensive product. (With that said, I acknowledge that watercolor painting is already one of the least expensive ways to paint)
2. As I upgrade my paints and brushes, I'm learning why professional tools are better. There are pretty clear differences between cheap and expensive paint, but without experiencing both, one can't really evaluate their value.
I think it's really a matter of setting expectations. If one starts by suffering to achieve perfection, they'll probably quit. I think they'd better serve themselves by finding joy in the act itself, and letting that feeling drive improvement. Even masters fail to achieve true perfection from time to time.
It's really nice when you're learning to program that you can make something without the fear of misusing some resource like paper or paint (other maybe than time).
Yesterday I wanted to see if I could make a program that checks if a word is a palindrome. Open a text editor, a terminal and a browser. Done.
For programmers I think it is more about the tools, you may keep yourself from spending too much on a keyboard, mouse or a new monitor, maybe a license for your favorite ide.
For example I remember when I bought one of the early LCD monitors, using expensive CRTs until then. The difference was huge, suddenly I could code for 10 hours straight without feeling tired at all!
On the other hand I kept away from SSDs for more than I should. Again, such a huge productivity boost by making my computer so much responsive that immediately I thought “why didn't I buy this 2-3 years ago”.
A more recent example, couple years ago I moved and at the first couple months hadn't set up my home office, so I started using my laptop's keyboard and just kept doing it. I thought it was ok until recently I switched back to an external keyboard. My typing improved tremendously, much faster, less errors, actually blind typing all the time now. Again, inertia didn't let me realize what I was losing all these years.
But I also think it is important to start from lesser tools and upgrade as you go. A novice most of the time can't really appreciate a professional tool and as many people wrote in other comments, obsessing too much with the tools at the start can hinder the path towards your real goal.
Care to elaborate? I think you must be talking about things like equipment rather than film? I suspect that with those, the wear-and-tear of using them is gradual enough that they don't suffer from the problems the article goes into, whereas for stuff like paint brushes, the wear quickly becomes noticeable.
Digital cameras have definitely helped out substantially. Nice film is and always has been expensive. For pro level film you could be spending up to several bucks per shot if you're shooting the larger format stuff, then add on a lot more money and time to develop it.
With a digital camera, though, a medium quality camera body is good for at least 50-100K shutter activations, and the marginal cost of taking each shot is essentially free. Paint, paintbrushes, canvases, notebooks, etc. all very noticeably get used up, but the same is not true for digital cameras. I also tend to buy all my equipment used, and don't treat it poorly, and can typically sell it back for what I paid for it (minus eBay fees) unless I sit on it so long that it becomes out of date, which is more of a problem for the camera than the lenses.
You sure about that? I always thought I never was good enough to "deserve" an SLR, but I recently took one on a vacation and was pleasantly surprised that, not only were my photos better, but I was also able to improve on the automatic settings in many cases (weird lighting, etc), albeit with some trial and error.
High quality tools tend to raise the "quality ceiling" but also tend to be unforgiving of mistakes. Sometimes all you need is a little more confidence in your own ability, and some room to make mistakes with the fancy new tool.
Can definitely relate to this — though I own an SLR, I’m so afraid I’ll hurt it that I’ve never taken it to places where I’d really enjoy getting better shots, instead opting for my phone’s camera.
I have Sigma DP3 Merrill (it's a special digital camera with a non-interpolating multi-layer sensor), which, besides being capable of very high quality results, is a perfect teaching camera, because it's both digital and utterly unforgiving of any mistake in technique.
I've loaned it to friends for learning purposes to great effect.
I perceive this in myself to an extent. I have always thought it was about wanting to save the best materials for some sort of magnum opus, rather than waste them on everyday work. I don't think that's entirely irrational.
I do it with non-creative things too. I have some bottles of really nice whisky, but i don't drink them. I'm saving them for when a whisky-appreciating friend comes round, and we can enjoy them together. I drink the crappiest stuff i have when i'm on my own.
Every whisk(e)y lover needs to have a go-to "scoffin' whiskey" for when you need a drink, as well as some good stuff for when you want to revel in it, wether alone or with a fellow aficionado (or even just friends who enjoy being given the expensive shit). For me, my scoffin' whiskey is Grant's. Cheap and cheerful, and easily available in 1l bottles.
I’ve shelved or packed away countless notebooks over the years, usually because I know my handwriting is terrible and my organizational skills are crap.
The same way you adjust to cold waters. Just jump in! Embrace the discomfort. You'll get past it soon enough. And then reward yourself with a hot shower and a hot cup of coffee after (metaphorically).
If it turns out perfect you might as well saved yourself the time and bought one. The difference between store bought and homemade is the imperfections that sometimes help, sometimes hurt, but always show it's your own creation.
I've observed the opposite in computing more frequently. Many people seem to care too much about appearances, when using a simpler or cheaper tool is better overall.
My desktop computer is over 10 years old. This is hard to believe for many people. Why don't I upgrade? The reason is that a 10 year old computer is plenty capable for my work. I don't see much reason to upgrade now or in the near future. The hardware is still in good condition, and until it breaks in a way not easily repaired or my needs change, I will keep using the computer.
Another example is software. I see this dynamic among many Git users. I use primarily SVN for version control in personal and work projects. These are projects with no collaborators. SVN has less friction in my opinion. Many Git users I know seem to think that because I use SVN regularly that means I am too stupid to use Git. I'm not, and at this point I'd offer to show people who think so my public GitHub profile as evidence now that I am contributing more frequently to an open source project. I think many of these Git users would find that SVN has less friction and is an overall better choice for certain small projects if they gave it a chance. But to many, using Git is partly about maintaining an appearance of being elite, and they don't want to look like a newbie by using SVN.
I used cvs, svn and git, sequentially when they were most popular. Every step along the way was a big improvement, and the step from svn to git is a much bigger improvement than cvs to svn.
Svn is a pile of crap. Remote operations take ages. Switching branches takes ages. Applying the same diff to multiple branches - you're better off extracting your own diff files and applying them manually. In fact creating branches is such a PITA you just don't bother. Stashing work in progress - again, create your own diff files. Svn was such a pile of crap I built my own system to extract and restore diffs of work in progress, as well as a tool using 3-way diffs for handling conflicts when base moved on after I needed to restore my diff.
Your use case differs greatly from mine, and this is what makes me prefer SVN most of the time. I tried to make this clear in my first post, but I'll explain in more detail.
I agree that SVN doesn't do branches right. If I needed to use branches, I'd use Git or Mercurial. But the projects I use SVN for have no collaborators and only one version of the files. There is no need for branching here. So the branches argument is irrelevant. (And for what it's worth, I've heard this argument from a half dozen people who have tried to make me switch to Git.)
"Stashing" is a Git term, and again, it doesn't really apply to my use cases because there's only one version of the files and I'm the only one using the repositories.
I use version control so that I can keep track of the history, roll back changes if necessary, and keep my files synchronized across a few computers. There's no collaboration involved.
This is where SVN is advantageous. I am not claiming that SVN is advantageous in all cases, just the ones my small projects fit in. And for me, that's most of the cases I use.
As for remote operations, I haven't found that to be the case. And I haven't mentioned the SVN features I like that Git doesn't have either.
I can attest to doing this with a camera. In 2012, I bought an entry level dSLR, it’s about $500 and specs that were middle of the road at the time. By today’s standards, it is ancient and lacks a lot of cool features. I took some amazing shots with it and I also learned a lot about photography in the 5+ years I used it. For example, I took about 60k photos with it so thats a lot of mileage on the camera.
Putting technical features aside, it also lacked a lot of nice to haves that more expensive cameras come with like dust proofing and water resistance. The body was made of plastic instead of a magnesium alloy with plastic. The lenses were a bit lower quality than you can buy for the full frame lenses.
I wouldn’t have realized that new tools doesn’t mean new and better photos until last year I bought myself a Canon 6D and decided to learn a new camera all at once. It was boring and tedious, I wanted to go back to my old camera. Eventually the photos started looking better but I felt less inspired by the new camera. It had all the cool new features I wanted but it didn’t feel like my camera.
I find this a bit strange; generally the best thing about more professional cameras is better controls, not better image quality. I don't like Canons of that era because of the limited dynamic range, but a 6D is a very ergonomic camera and handles better than any consumer Canon or Nikon.
I have an issue with very capable, modern cameras too. I have a Sony A7r, which I find too versatile, to the point of being distracting unless I'm focused on getting a very specific picture. I prefer using high end, but older, film cameras, like a Contax G2 or an Hasselblad.
The best thing about high end professional cameras is low noise, faster and more reliable autofocus, and outstanding low light performance. In good light there's little difference between a cheap prosumer model and a high-end pro model. But try shooting a scene in candlelight or star light, and the difference is stark.
Ease of use also matters. Prosumer cameras often have a single rotary that has to be switched between aperture and shutter. Pro cameras have separate rotaries, which is much easier to work with.
I've always been fascinated by the way that consumer and prosumer equipment is often harder to use than true professional equipment. Pro-grade tools usually just work. Even when there are plenty of options, the workflow is usually intuitive and straightforward.
Consumer gear often adds consumer crappiness - special modes for taking ski photos or food shots in a consumer camera. if you know what you're doing, this reliably gets in the way. And if you don't know what you're doing, you probably won't know how to select the special "helpful" presets anyway.
I used to own one of these, which is supposed to be a beginner's keyboard:
It made some decent sounds, but it was incredibly awkward to use, with a baffling combination of hidden settings, obscure button sequences, and bizarre features.
So personally I've always wanted the absolute best tools I can get. I get very, very frustrated with tools that don't work properly or get in the way, irrespective of price.
I didn't mention autofocus because I generally use manual primes and don't even try to shoot moving subjects, so it's not really an issue for me.
Single-dial consumer cameras are annoying, I also generally really like to have a physical exposure comp wheel, good Sony and Fuji cameras generally have one (and my old Contax G2 does, too), while it tends to be some bad modal "hold the button and turn the wheel" affair on Nikon and Canon ones.
"Scene mode" dials are basically a helpful hint to let you know that you shouldn't buy that camera.
this behavior isn't exclusive to writers and artists. people still put screen protectors on their phones. If you have something you can't afford to replace, you're going to be careful with it, if you can't believe you can use it without some risk of breaking it, you're not going to use it unless you have to.
This is rational behavior, at least so long as the premise that there is some risk associated to using the tool is correct.
The difference between a screen protector and scratches buttons on a guitar’s body is the scratches on the body do not affect the guitar’s performance whereas a scratch on the glass of your screen could have permanently affect the use of your phone.
What I find interesting is when people will point to their plastic screen cover covered in small scratches as proof of why they need it. Generally, those same scratches would not have been present on the actual glass screen and are only proof that their screen protector is of inferior quality.
I'm also unsure if the order of operations is:
1) I treat my phones poorly, thus I should get a screen cover.
OR
2) I have a screen cover, so now I can treat my phone poorly.
I bought a new 2011 MacBook Pro, added an SSD, maxed out the RAM and picked up a 27" Apple Cinema Display. Someone broke in and stole it.
I replaced it with a used IBM ThinkPad T60 and the cheapest LCD monitor I could find at Best Buy on Black Friday. I got more done on that computer than I probably ever had, since. Learned Rails, completed tons of projects, and it lasted me through 3 jobs. Whenever I hit a rut these days with my current MBP I think about throwing it all out the Window and grabbing a T450 or X230 and starting all over...
I have a similar story. I had a thinkpad x201 and it broke. I opened it up, tried to fix it, couldn't. After a couple of weeks having no computer, I created a OpenBSD installer USB from another computer (the installer image was surprisingly only 30 MiB, so I could easily create the USB in a couple of minutes from someone else's computer).
I installed OpenBSD on an old Asus 1000HE netbook I had lying around. I used the machine for a couple of weeks, and I felt I was really productive. I wrote a simple network manager, learned Org-Mode, learned Xorg customization, read Atlas Shrugged in Emacs :) ...
Then I built myself a desktop, installed Windows 10 on it. Got a 32 inch big screen. I am nowhere as productive, because everything comes so easy.
There is something about spartan environments, that makes you more disciplined and focused. On the other hand, you need comfortable tools to go further.
Another interesting point is, even when I was building my desktop, I picked out the cheapest parts, didn't even buy a case. I put the components in two adjacent shoe-box sized cartons, and hooked a push button to the mother board power pins. I could've easily spent much more money on it, but didn't. I guess I also fear making a huge commitment to the tools I use.
Take that brand new notebook you're afraid to write in-because--for whatever reason--maybe you want to dedicate it to a project that's not yet ready, for example; or you don't want to spoil it: turn it upside down and to the back. Write notes, grocery lists, whatever for a few days in the pristine notebook. Turn it back and now you are ready to write in it.
Suggestion: Carry one of them around in a bag for a week or two so it gets broken in. Might reduce the 'newness' factor. Then do as parent suggests (use back for shopping lists)
Did I crack the time travel function? Are you me from the future sent back to save me? Im looking at my case full of metal bound, cover themed, professional looking, etc notebooks that has grown quite absurd. If I’m honest with myself everything I’ve built in the last decade has come from the post it notes I have scrawled everywhere.
I’m going to grab one and make my shopping list right now. Thank you kind stranger.
I've definitely observed and experienced that. On the other hand, there's also the opposite phenomenon (maybe it should be called the Titanium Driver Paradox): that beginners buy expensive high end gear that doesn't really do them much good at their current level: mediocre singers buy fancy microphones, mediocre cyclists buy fancy bikes, etc.
46 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadParadoxically, getting a brand new guitar can be the worst thing to do for a child interested in music. A simple used one with scratches and stickers pushes the child's focus to their own skill, not to the object.
Though it isn't true for everyone, I've also noticed that skilled practitioners beat up their high priced tools in ways that doesn't degrade their performance, and they're always able to compensate for inferior situations and build methods of adaptation if they frequently lack the ability to control the situation. For example, a programmer may set up a linux machine that they can always SSH into if they can't control the computer they're working on in order to have a familiar environment or a chef may keep a spatula and a carefully thought out pre-selected set of spices with them to always be able to make something flavourful while traveling.
I paid about $2k for it, and that yamaha had seen a hell of a dump at 50mph and had scratches that looked like a banshee had its way with the left side because it insulted her mothers size or whatever.
But damn if he wasn't right that when I inevitably had it fall over whle practicing in the parking lot that I didn't care much. Plus after riding that (not quite a) beater I was much better prepared for stuff with more zoom to it.
I think buying cheap/refurb/broken and learning from that is definitely the way to go when starting/learning. You learn how to appreciate the good stuff later on.
Just like how now I can pretty much use unix to a large degree after using them for ~20ish years, I tend to stick to osx+nix to get me up to speed. I keep my configurations portable to open/freebsd and linux as well on the off chance I need to move around, but other than that I tend to not be too committed to what I'm running.
Let's take guitars. You can get a squire (introductory model), a Fender made in Mexico (intermediate, a few hundred dollars) or an American standard (top of the line, a few thousand dollars). Most working musicians I know will stick with the Mexican fender, because they know there's not much difference between them and the Americans (The Mexican guitars are quite nice), and you can gig with it without worrying that a scratch or nick will tank the value.
So who buys the American fenders? People in their 40s and 50s who play guitar, but not professionally. For them, the guitar is a collectors piece. The story behind the guitar matters more than how it plays. Don't get me wrong, American standards are great guitars. But unless you're looking for a very specific tone, the Mexican fender will do the job.
The whole "tone" business (pun unintended) is a bit shady IMO. With an electric instrument, the wood contributes only so much to the tone. I'd look for sustain, feedback and intonation over that, especially in the cheaper segment. You can set up some nice tones with volume and tone on the guitar and the equalizer on the amp. Put on a nice set of strings and you're good to go. Tip: use a tuner app to test the notes from random places all over the neck, at least one note each fret. Make sure everything is in tune. With some cheaper guitars, they place the first few frets correctly and don't care that much for the rest.
Aside: I started learning the mandolin last year and picked up a Rogue model for 40 bucks. Ive learned to make it sound pleasant, but it is terribly strenuous to play. When i do upgrade I know that the piece of crap it really is will have done me very well :)
I wonder if this has any bearing on the popularity of reliced guitars. Aesthetics is undoubtedly a part, as with pre-distressed jeans, but I can't help thinking that some players are more comfortable with an instrument that has taken a beating before it left the factory.
1. I was able to start with very low cost, and could fearlessly practice without the regret of wasting expensive product. (With that said, I acknowledge that watercolor painting is already one of the least expensive ways to paint)
2. As I upgrade my paints and brushes, I'm learning why professional tools are better. There are pretty clear differences between cheap and expensive paint, but without experiencing both, one can't really evaluate their value.
I think it's really a matter of setting expectations. If one starts by suffering to achieve perfection, they'll probably quit. I think they'd better serve themselves by finding joy in the act itself, and letting that feeling drive improvement. Even masters fail to achieve true perfection from time to time.
Yesterday I wanted to see if I could make a program that checks if a word is a palindrome. Open a text editor, a terminal and a browser. Done.
For example I remember when I bought one of the early LCD monitors, using expensive CRTs until then. The difference was huge, suddenly I could code for 10 hours straight without feeling tired at all!
On the other hand I kept away from SSDs for more than I should. Again, such a huge productivity boost by making my computer so much responsive that immediately I thought “why didn't I buy this 2-3 years ago”.
A more recent example, couple years ago I moved and at the first couple months hadn't set up my home office, so I started using my laptop's keyboard and just kept doing it. I thought it was ok until recently I switched back to an external keyboard. My typing improved tremendously, much faster, less errors, actually blind typing all the time now. Again, inertia didn't let me realize what I was losing all these years.
But I also think it is important to start from lesser tools and upgrade as you go. A novice most of the time can't really appreciate a professional tool and as many people wrote in other comments, obsessing too much with the tools at the start can hinder the path towards your real goal.
With a digital camera, though, a medium quality camera body is good for at least 50-100K shutter activations, and the marginal cost of taking each shot is essentially free. Paint, paintbrushes, canvases, notebooks, etc. all very noticeably get used up, but the same is not true for digital cameras. I also tend to buy all my equipment used, and don't treat it poorly, and can typically sell it back for what I paid for it (minus eBay fees) unless I sit on it so long that it becomes out of date, which is more of a problem for the camera than the lenses.
High quality tools tend to raise the "quality ceiling" but also tend to be unforgiving of mistakes. Sometimes all you need is a little more confidence in your own ability, and some room to make mistakes with the fancy new tool.
I've loaned it to friends for learning purposes to great effect.
I do it with non-creative things too. I have some bottles of really nice whisky, but i don't drink them. I'm saving them for when a whisky-appreciating friend comes round, and we can enjoy them together. I drink the crappiest stuff i have when i'm on my own.
I abandoned a woodworking project last month because I doubted the finished cabinet would be worthy of the wood. So how do you move past that block?
My desktop computer is over 10 years old. This is hard to believe for many people. Why don't I upgrade? The reason is that a 10 year old computer is plenty capable for my work. I don't see much reason to upgrade now or in the near future. The hardware is still in good condition, and until it breaks in a way not easily repaired or my needs change, I will keep using the computer.
Another example is software. I see this dynamic among many Git users. I use primarily SVN for version control in personal and work projects. These are projects with no collaborators. SVN has less friction in my opinion. Many Git users I know seem to think that because I use SVN regularly that means I am too stupid to use Git. I'm not, and at this point I'd offer to show people who think so my public GitHub profile as evidence now that I am contributing more frequently to an open source project. I think many of these Git users would find that SVN has less friction and is an overall better choice for certain small projects if they gave it a chance. But to many, using Git is partly about maintaining an appearance of being elite, and they don't want to look like a newbie by using SVN.
That evidence won't hold up because you can access GitHub repositories using Subversion :)
https://help.github.com/articles/support-for-subversion-clie...
Svn is a pile of crap. Remote operations take ages. Switching branches takes ages. Applying the same diff to multiple branches - you're better off extracting your own diff files and applying them manually. In fact creating branches is such a PITA you just don't bother. Stashing work in progress - again, create your own diff files. Svn was such a pile of crap I built my own system to extract and restore diffs of work in progress, as well as a tool using 3-way diffs for handling conflicts when base moved on after I needed to restore my diff.
I agree that SVN doesn't do branches right. If I needed to use branches, I'd use Git or Mercurial. But the projects I use SVN for have no collaborators and only one version of the files. There is no need for branching here. So the branches argument is irrelevant. (And for what it's worth, I've heard this argument from a half dozen people who have tried to make me switch to Git.)
"Stashing" is a Git term, and again, it doesn't really apply to my use cases because there's only one version of the files and I'm the only one using the repositories.
I use version control so that I can keep track of the history, roll back changes if necessary, and keep my files synchronized across a few computers. There's no collaboration involved.
This is where SVN is advantageous. I am not claiming that SVN is advantageous in all cases, just the ones my small projects fit in. And for me, that's most of the cases I use.
As for remote operations, I haven't found that to be the case. And I haven't mentioned the SVN features I like that Git doesn't have either.
Putting technical features aside, it also lacked a lot of nice to haves that more expensive cameras come with like dust proofing and water resistance. The body was made of plastic instead of a magnesium alloy with plastic. The lenses were a bit lower quality than you can buy for the full frame lenses.
I wouldn’t have realized that new tools doesn’t mean new and better photos until last year I bought myself a Canon 6D and decided to learn a new camera all at once. It was boring and tedious, I wanted to go back to my old camera. Eventually the photos started looking better but I felt less inspired by the new camera. It had all the cool new features I wanted but it didn’t feel like my camera.
I have an issue with very capable, modern cameras too. I have a Sony A7r, which I find too versatile, to the point of being distracting unless I'm focused on getting a very specific picture. I prefer using high end, but older, film cameras, like a Contax G2 or an Hasselblad.
Ease of use also matters. Prosumer cameras often have a single rotary that has to be switched between aperture and shutter. Pro cameras have separate rotaries, which is much easier to work with.
I've always been fascinated by the way that consumer and prosumer equipment is often harder to use than true professional equipment. Pro-grade tools usually just work. Even when there are plenty of options, the workflow is usually intuitive and straightforward.
Consumer gear often adds consumer crappiness - special modes for taking ski photos or food shots in a consumer camera. if you know what you're doing, this reliably gets in the way. And if you don't know what you're doing, you probably won't know how to select the special "helpful" presets anyway.
I used to own one of these, which is supposed to be a beginner's keyboard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf61mYDtt64
It made some decent sounds, but it was incredibly awkward to use, with a baffling combination of hidden settings, obscure button sequences, and bizarre features.
So personally I've always wanted the absolute best tools I can get. I get very, very frustrated with tools that don't work properly or get in the way, irrespective of price.
Single-dial consumer cameras are annoying, I also generally really like to have a physical exposure comp wheel, good Sony and Fuji cameras generally have one (and my old Contax G2 does, too), while it tends to be some bad modal "hold the button and turn the wheel" affair on Nikon and Canon ones.
"Scene mode" dials are basically a helpful hint to let you know that you shouldn't buy that camera.
This is rational behavior, at least so long as the premise that there is some risk associated to using the tool is correct.
I'm also unsure if the order of operations is: 1) I treat my phones poorly, thus I should get a screen cover. OR 2) I have a screen cover, so now I can treat my phone poorly.
I replaced it with a used IBM ThinkPad T60 and the cheapest LCD monitor I could find at Best Buy on Black Friday. I got more done on that computer than I probably ever had, since. Learned Rails, completed tons of projects, and it lasted me through 3 jobs. Whenever I hit a rut these days with my current MBP I think about throwing it all out the Window and grabbing a T450 or X230 and starting all over...
I installed OpenBSD on an old Asus 1000HE netbook I had lying around. I used the machine for a couple of weeks, and I felt I was really productive. I wrote a simple network manager, learned Org-Mode, learned Xorg customization, read Atlas Shrugged in Emacs :) ...
Then I built myself a desktop, installed Windows 10 on it. Got a 32 inch big screen. I am nowhere as productive, because everything comes so easy.
There is something about spartan environments, that makes you more disciplined and focused. On the other hand, you need comfortable tools to go further.
Another interesting point is, even when I was building my desktop, I picked out the cheapest parts, didn't even buy a case. I put the components in two adjacent shoe-box sized cartons, and hooked a push button to the mother board power pins. I could've easily spent much more money on it, but didn't. I guess I also fear making a huge commitment to the tools I use.
I’m going to grab one and make my shopping list right now. Thank you kind stranger.