There's a fellow here who's been living in Igatpuri his entire life. He owns property in SUBK Village, across the street, and in an area to the west of the Vipassana International Academy and was telling me about each. The land to the west seems promising. It's not farmland, which simplifies things, and it's divided into plots of 4000-6000 sqft each. Prices range from 3-4 lakh / 1000sqft.

That brings the price of a complete acre up to 1.3 cr to 1.7 cr... which is more expensive than I've seen on real estate websites. But it's close enough to water, electricity, fiber internet, etc. that it won't require (a) somehow acquiring a farmer's license or (b) developing the land from scratch, possibly including a road.

Plots of 4-6 ksqft mean 7-10 plots per acre. Would anyone want to try this experiment with 3-5 plots, clubbed together? We could vary the plot size afterward based on what people were interested in buying. The clubbing would just increase our buying power. If we did ~20,000sqft (half acre) we could try cutting it up between ~10 people (5 families) at a cost of 6-8 lakh / person.

Thoughts?

-steven

On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 6:11 PM Steven Deobald <steven@...> wrote:

Hey folks,

I'll leave the "Location, Location, Location" thread in place, since I think there are quite a few options to consider. But I wanted to start a thread specifically focused on Igatpuri, since it seems almost too good to be true in some ways.

I wandered out of Sayagyi U Ba Khin (SUBK) Village today and took a 5km tour of the surrounding area. I'd already walked straight west yesterday and there is quite a bit of open land there, though it's not heavily forested. We were walking too quickly for me to snap photos of it, but I grabbed a few today.

The photos attached are the area east of Dhamma Giri, marked in red (the highest points, with relatively heavy forest) and the area west of Dhamma Giri, marked in yellow and a dead end. The western portion is completely open and more or less undeveloped. The eastern portion is apparently an old railway workers' village.

Igatpuri proper is more or less as you'd expect... too dense, too busy, too loud. It's not *very* much of any of those things; it's not as if it's a city or something. But it's a great deal more humanity than I'd want in a neighbourhood where I live. That said, it's probably just the right amount of village for shops, tapris, etc. People get Amazon deliveries out here almost every day but for bigger immediate shopping most people head to Nashik.

The east side and the area directly southwest of Dhamma Giri are both really beautiful, but those of course are only as far as I could get within walking distance of Dhamma Giri itself... there's quite a bit more property around on the far side of the hill, near the lakes to the north, and so forth.

-s-

Hey folks,

I'll leave the "Location, Location, Location" thread in place, since I think there are quite a few options to consider. But I wanted to start a thread specifically focused on Igatpuri, since it seems almost too good to be true in some ways.

I wandered out of Sayagyi U Ba Khin (SUBK) Village today and took a 5km tour of the surrounding area. I'd already walked straight west yesterday and there is quite a bit of open land there, though it's not heavily forested. We were walking too quickly for me to snap photos of it, but I grabbed a few today.

The photos attached are the area east of Dhamma Giri, marked in red (the highest points, with relatively heavy forest) and the area west of Dhamma Giri, marked in yellow and a dead end. The western portion is completely open and more or less undeveloped. The eastern portion is apparently an old railway workers' village.

Igatpuri proper is more or less as you'd expect... too dense, too busy, too loud. It's not *very* much of any of those things; it's not as if it's a city or something. But it's a great deal more humanity than I'd want in a neighbourhood where I live. That said, it's probably just the right amount of village for shops, tapris, etc. People get Amazon deliveries out here almost every day but for bigger immediate shopping most people head to Nashik.

The east side and the area directly southwest of Dhamma Giri are both really beautiful, but those of course are only as far as I could get within walking distance of Dhamma Giri itself... there's quite a bit more property around on the far side of the hill, near the lakes to the north, and so forth.

-s-

Does anyone have any feelings about Igatpuri, one way or another?

• Fiber internet
• Relatively green
• 60 lakh / 1 acre
• Wonder: Dhamma Giri, if you're into that sort of thing

Those prices are for "Developed" (ugh) residential property prices -- I'm sure we can find cheaper for straight-up land. That might put the fiber internet into question, though. I know of a few people who do software dev type jobs from U Ba Khin Village.

-s-

On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 4:05 PM Santu Mahapatra <santumahapatra@...> wrote:

Hi,

Just read your email on Home Base.

You kind of captured all my thoughts in the email. I am sure this is not a coincidence.

I have been homeless for 9 years. And I had a small recording studio which is dismantled and kept half in my place, half at one of my friends.

I have been thinking of frugal living as Bengaluru is a bit pricey and I have been doing paid gigs just to sustain myself.

I have been fantasizing about a small home with a lawn in a village but with good internet.

Some concerns:

* Which place in India?

* Affording the land/building an house

In India, there are only 5 states that allow you to buy land without a farmer's certificate - Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Tamil Nadu.

With the farmer's certificate, you can buy land in other states except some of the hilly states where most of the land is protected or allocated as tribal land like Himachal or North Eastern States or currently Ladakh.

With a farmer's certificate - outskirts of cities in Maharashtra and Karnataka seem to be the sanest options considering weather, access to a nearby city and standard of living.

Gujarat, Maharashtra, Kerala, parts of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have the highest standard of living - law and order, access to healthcare if that is in consideration.

There is a process to get a farmer's certificate but legally it takes a long time. It is a bureaucratic process.

On Fri 22 May, 2020, 3:52 PM Steven Deobald, <steven@...> wrote:

I was quite serious in the last thread when I said that fibre internet
would be advantageous in a location choice. Igatpuri (the location of
the U Ba Khin Vipassana Village) does have fibre internet, which is
pretty hopeful considering it's over 100km from Bombay.

Igatpuri:



The other location currently under consideration are the Kalvarayan
Forests outside of Salem:

Kalvarayan Hill Forests:



The entire time we've been up here in the north, I've been pondering
what location, in which state, would make a good base for establishing
a Hacker Village up here... so far, I still have no idea.

Thoughts?

-steven

Hi,

Just read your email on Home Base.

You kind of captured all my thoughts in the email. I am sure this is not a coincidence.

I have been homeless for 9 years. And I had a small recording studio which is dismantled and kept half in my place, half at one of my friends.

I have been thinking of frugal living as Bengaluru is a bit pricey and I have been doing paid gigs just to sustain myself.

I have been fantasizing about a small home with a lawn in a village but with good internet.

Some concerns:

* Which place in India?

* Affording the land/building an house

In India, there are only 5 states that allow you to buy land without a farmer's certificate - Rajasthan, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Chattisgarh and Tamil Nadu.

With the farmer's certificate, you can buy land in other states except some of the hilly states where most of the land is protected or allocated as tribal land like Himachal or North Eastern States or currently Ladakh.

With a farmer's certificate - outskirts of cities in Maharashtra and Karnataka seem to be the sanest options considering weather, access to a nearby city and standard of living.

Gujarat, Maharashtra, Kerala, parts of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have the highest standard of living - law and order, access to healthcare if that is in consideration.

There is a process to get a farmer's certificate but legally it takes a long time. It is a bureaucratic process.

On Fri 22 May, 2020, 3:52 PM Steven Deobald, <steven@...> wrote:

I was quite serious in the last thread when I said that fibre internet
would be advantageous in a location choice. Igatpuri (the location of
the U Ba Khin Vipassana Village) does have fibre internet, which is
pretty hopeful considering it's over 100km from Bombay.

Igatpuri:



The other location currently under consideration are the Kalvarayan
Forests outside of Salem:

Kalvarayan Hill Forests:



The entire time we've been up here in the north, I've been pondering
what location, in which state, would make a good base for establishing
a Hacker Village up here... so far, I still have no idea.

Thoughts?

-steven

This post reminded me of a (the link lets you click on words to get their meanings!):

"aur bazaar se le aaye, agar tut gaya,

saghar-e-jam se mira jam-e-sifaal accha hai"

Wherein he says his cheap clay cup is better than the fancy goblet of Jamshed, because if it breaks, he can just go to the market and get a new one! There was no IKEA in Ghalib's time, but he would've liked it ;)

I have been living in Berlin for a year now, and what I find most beautiful about this city is a culture of re-using old things.

I feel like a more sustainable world depends a lot on the? "reuse" chapter of the reduce-reuse-recycle trilogy. Reuse seems to me a very cultural thing. A few examples:

- In India, "second-hand" is considered low status, and frowned upon by the petit bourgeois. In Berlin, it is "cool" to reuse old things.

- Berliners will leave their old furniture, clothes, shoes, in the lobby of the building with a sticker saying "zu Verschenken (= to give away)"

- There are collection points at parks where things are given away (mainly for homeless folks)

- Flea markets are everywhere and a great place to find some beautiful old things!

- There are many brick and mortar used clothing stores, also considered "cool".
- There is also - which is a marketplace to buy and sell used clothing!

- ebay kleineinzagen (classifieds!) is as big as Craigslist

- BSR (city cleaning corporation) recently started a (the name Noch Mall is a pun on noch mal which means "once again") for used stuff that people discarded!

I landed up in an unfurnished apartment, and so far have managed to furnish it almost entirely with used furniture, which makes me a happy camper.

Going back to Steven's opening anecdote about cracked plates, I feel like durability is a key factor to consider when buying things, but then plastics are very, very durable and that has its own downsides!

I enjoy reading your posts Steven, thanks for starting this!

With Metta,

Mohit

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 2:10 PM Arun Raghavan <arun@...> wrote:

This is a vaguely related rant that I'm adding to as a person who is new to Canada (more "in between countries", I guess).

I'm a big proponent of buying the best thing (for some value of best that incorporates made with care and is still affordable to me). Hackneyed as it may be, the whole Robert Pirsing / Zen and the Art ... / Metaphysics of Quality seems to have some grain of truth (which I found embarrassingly moving when I read it at 18).

Two things stand out:

? 1. IKEA 1: I don't know where they fall in the spectrum. Their furniture is *crap* wood, but is functional. The alternatives, especially in this market, seem to be both absurdly priced and mostly just random bullshit that people have thrown out into the world. The Canada market is small enough that some newer players I might consider from the US won't ship here (or are also outrageously expensive).

? 2. IKEA 2: the $8 IKEA set of 3 knives are insanely good. I don't know how they can possibly make these as anything but a loss-leader. Relatedly, the approx $200 knife I bought in Japan is incredible, especially if you sharpen it every few months. It's one of the most visceral feelings of quality I have on an everyday basis.

? 3. Mattresses: I don't know how people deal with this. Every single modern mattress seems to have polyurethane foam, releases toxic gasses (realised after 3 weeks that the new mattress is likely the current cause of our respiratory distress, broken sleep, and my lack of coordination and dropping/breaking things around the house). The "solution" to the problem when people found this out is the CertiPUR-US body that is basically an industry consortium, so it's all bullshit as well. The only viable options seem to be "organic" mattresses which come with their own set of problems (mold?) and are also crazy expensive ($4000+).

idk, just some observations that seemed to dovetail with what you're saying.

-- Arun

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 05:45, Steven Deobald <steven@...> wrote:

We are staying at a friend's "spare" house at the moment and it is thankfully well-equipped with everything we need to survive here: vessels for cooking, a stove, water heaters for the bathrooms, and (most importantly) an internet connection.

The dishes of the house have a strange peculiarity to them. While most of them are fine, the plates quite frequently crack in half when hot food is placed on them. We've broken all but two at this point.

This got me rolling on the concept of "Commodity Thinking" and the possible misinterpretations. As a young university student, I remember Walmart coming to Canada and our initial joy in having a store for household goods (like plates) that we could actually afford on our savings from high school summer jobs. A weekend trip to Walmart was fairly common and for a reasonable price (it felt like almost *everything* was $20) you could pick up a small bit of furniture, kitchen goods, or cables for your electronics. I remember the feeling at the time that these items weren't particularly well-made, but given my financial circumstances, I didn't very much care.

As I stumbled my way through my Computer Science degree I distinctly remember making one of these (less and less frequent) Walmart visits and thinking to myself as I stuffed some pressed-fiber furniture into my car: "This isn't really anything... it's just garbage. I'm buying disposable furniture." It became increasingly apparent over the coming years of my adult life that a great deal of the middle-class Canadian lifestyle revolves around disposable things that really shouldn't be disposable: a cheap night table for a university student, a $80,000 truck for a wealthy individual entering their middle age.

I grew into a new ideal: buy quality. Things should really last. Who needs to buy more than one set of utensils over their entire lifetime? This is why people of class hand down well-made heirlooms, whether sound systems or bedframes or classic cars. Conflate quality with prestige and you have a recipe for the purchase of brands which only hint at elitism. See: "How to Be Fashionable or Consume Like Me.pdf"

At one point, I realized I was a part of a much larger movement of thinking which flowed along similar lines, looking for answers. "Consume Like Me" actually had very concrete answers, even if they were the wrong ones. The rest of the internet go tied up in arguments formulated as blog posts I remember with the titles of "The Best" (arguing for the highest-quality things) and "The Worst" (arguing for disposable or borderline-disposable things). Obviously googling for those blog posts now is not possible. I'm sure they're our there somewhere.

Anyway. All of this is intended to provide some background on the idea that Commodity Thinking is really NONE of these things.

Commodity Thinking does not pretend that a Maserati and a Honda Civic are the same car. But while working in San Mateo, our business lead drove a (leased) Maserati and our tech lead drove an (ancient) Honda Civic.

They both managed to get to the office just fine.

There is an internal examination we need to make here. Why are we buying or leasing the Maserati? If it's genuinely that much more fun to drive or fuel efficient then perhaps the cost is worth it. The point of Commodity Thinking isn't to cut every blade of grass to the same height or to pretend these differences do not exist. Commodity Thinking says "a car is a car" (though, it should be noted, a car is not a truck) but this isn't to be taken in some sort of self-righteous, absolutist sense. It's to be taken in the literal and rational sense. However, there is a big world of diminishing returns out there. A Maserati is unlikely to provide benefits corresponding to its price tag just as a TATA Nano is unlikely to provide returns which outstrip its convenience as a motorcycle with four wheels. Both cars are an inefficient glitch in the market, to some degree. If we were to lay out "cars" on a bell curve and stick the Honda Civic at the peak, it's entirely possible that folding the curve around that centre point -- so that outliers and deviants on either side met their nearest neighbour from across the way -- would mean that a TATA Nano and a Maserati were, essentially, the same car.

I should clarify here that such a ridiculous example does not serve to argue for Honda Civics as if they somehow represent an ideal in cars. "A car is a car." Examining ourselves, we can see to what extent this is true. How much gratitude do we feel simply for having access to such a mode of transportation at all? THAT'S how much we subscribe to Commodity Thinking. As odd as it may initially seem, the car itself is largely orthogonal to the discussion about cars.

Hopefully other aspects of the Hacker Ethos bend such a discussion a bit. Cars which produce zero pollution are vastly preferable to those which produce some pollution. Cars which produce zero *net* pollution would be even more preferable. And so forth. But that's not really relevant to the discussion on Commodity Thinking beyond the hat-tip toward the idea that "a car is a car but obviously not all cars are equivalent even if they really are, at their core."

I would suggest that one might examine one's own behaviours in a framework which evaluates waste to get a sense of whether one treats items as a commodity or not. Buying a cheap phone and throwing it out every year is wasteful but buying a $2000 phone is probably just as wasteful, if in completely different ways. Waste can come in terms of finances, materials, time, energy, or thoughts. We humans will continue to consume things... it's a naive (though common) fantasy that a person can get to zero consumption. But with each market engagement we can repeatedly ask ourselves: "what is it I'm really buying?"

I doubt owners of our current house knew they were purchasing plates which explode upon contact with hot food but they may have had some sense that perhaps the plates wouldn't survive many years or many owners.

As a commodity car is just a box that gets you from A to B, a commodity plate is just a smooth, reusable circle where you put your food three times a day. If the box and the circle can last a lifetime (or longer), great. If not, one hopes they'll at least survive a few decades of use.

-steven

--

-Mohit Thatte

This is a vaguely related rant that I'm adding to as a person who is new to Canada (more "in between countries", I guess).

I'm a big proponent of buying the best thing (for some value of best that incorporates made with care and is still affordable to me). Hackneyed as it may be, the whole Robert Pirsing / Zen and the Art ... / Metaphysics of Quality seems to have some grain of truth (which I found embarrassingly moving when I read it at 18).

Two things stand out:

? 1. IKEA 1: I don't know where they fall in the spectrum. Their furniture is *crap* wood, but is functional. The alternatives, especially in this market, seem to be both absurdly priced and mostly just random bullshit that people have thrown out into the world. The Canada market is small enough that some newer players I might consider from the US won't ship here (or are also outrageously expensive).

? 2. IKEA 2: the $8 IKEA set of 3 knives are insanely good. I don't know how they can possibly make these as anything but a loss-leader. Relatedly, the approx $200 knife I bought in Japan is incredible, especially if you sharpen it every few months. It's one of the most visceral feelings of quality I have on an everyday basis.

? 3. Mattresses: I don't know how people deal with this. Every single modern mattress seems to have polyurethane foam, releases toxic gasses (realised after 3 weeks that the new mattress is likely the current cause of our respiratory distress, broken sleep, and my lack of coordination and dropping/breaking things around the house). The "solution" to the problem when people found this out is the CertiPUR-US body that is basically an industry consortium, so it's all bullshit as well. The only viable options seem to be "organic" mattresses which come with their own set of problems (mold?) and are also crazy expensive ($4000+).

idk, just some observations that seemed to dovetail with what you're saying.

-- Arun

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 05:45, Steven Deobald <steven@...> wrote:

We are staying at a friend's "spare" house at the moment and it is thankfully well-equipped with everything we need to survive here: vessels for cooking, a stove, water heaters for the bathrooms, and (most importantly) an internet connection.

The dishes of the house have a strange peculiarity to them. While most of them are fine, the plates quite frequently crack in half when hot food is placed on them. We've broken all but two at this point.

This got me rolling on the concept of "Commodity Thinking" and the possible misinterpretations. As a young university student, I remember Walmart coming to Canada and our initial joy in having a store for household goods (like plates) that we could actually afford on our savings from high school summer jobs. A weekend trip to Walmart was fairly common and for a reasonable price (it felt like almost *everything* was $20) you could pick up a small bit of furniture, kitchen goods, or cables for your electronics. I remember the feeling at the time that these items weren't particularly well-made, but given my financial circumstances, I didn't very much care.

As I stumbled my way through my Computer Science degree I distinctly remember making one of these (less and less frequent) Walmart visits and thinking to myself as I stuffed some pressed-fiber furniture into my car: "This isn't really anything... it's just garbage. I'm buying disposable furniture." It became increasingly apparent over the coming years of my adult life that a great deal of the middle-class Canadian lifestyle revolves around disposable things that really shouldn't be disposable: a cheap night table for a university student, a $80,000 truck for a wealthy individual entering their middle age.

I grew into a new ideal: buy quality. Things should really last. Who needs to buy more than one set of utensils over their entire lifetime? This is why people of class hand down well-made heirlooms, whether sound systems or bedframes or classic cars. Conflate quality with prestige and you have a recipe for the purchase of brands which only hint at elitism. See: "How to Be Fashionable or Consume Like Me.pdf"

At one point, I realized I was a part of a much larger movement of thinking which flowed along similar lines, looking for answers. "Consume Like Me" actually had very concrete answers, even if they were the wrong ones. The rest of the internet go tied up in arguments formulated as blog posts I remember with the titles of "The Best" (arguing for the highest-quality things) and "The Worst" (arguing for disposable or borderline-disposable things). Obviously googling for those blog posts now is not possible. I'm sure they're our there somewhere.

Anyway. All of this is intended to provide some background on the idea that Commodity Thinking is really NONE of these things.

Commodity Thinking does not pretend that a Maserati and a Honda Civic are the same car. But while working in San Mateo, our business lead drove a (leased) Maserati and our tech lead drove an (ancient) Honda Civic.

They both managed to get to the office just fine.

There is an internal examination we need to make here. Why are we buying or leasing the Maserati? If it's genuinely that much more fun to drive or fuel efficient then perhaps the cost is worth it. The point of Commodity Thinking isn't to cut every blade of grass to the same height or to pretend these differences do not exist. Commodity Thinking says "a car is a car" (though, it should be noted, a car is not a truck) but this isn't to be taken in some sort of self-righteous, absolutist sense. It's to be taken in the literal and rational sense. However, there is a big world of diminishing returns out there. A Maserati is unlikely to provide benefits corresponding to its price tag just as a TATA Nano is unlikely to provide returns which outstrip its convenience as a motorcycle with four wheels. Both cars are an inefficient glitch in the market, to some degree. If we were to lay out "cars" on a bell curve and stick the Honda Civic at the peak, it's entirely possible that folding the curve around that centre point -- so that outliers and deviants on either side met their nearest neighbour from across the way -- would mean that a TATA Nano and a Maserati were, essentially, the same car.

I should clarify here that such a ridiculous example does not serve to argue for Honda Civics as if they somehow represent an ideal in cars. "A car is a car." Examining ourselves, we can see to what extent this is true. How much gratitude do we feel simply for having access to such a mode of transportation at all? THAT'S how much we subscribe to Commodity Thinking. As odd as it may initially seem, the car itself is largely orthogonal to the discussion about cars.

Hopefully other aspects of the Hacker Ethos bend such a discussion a bit. Cars which produce zero pollution are vastly preferable to those which produce some pollution. Cars which produce zero *net* pollution would be even more preferable. And so forth. But that's not really relevant to the discussion on Commodity Thinking beyond the hat-tip toward the idea that "a car is a car but obviously not all cars are equivalent even if they really are, at their core."

I would suggest that one might examine one's own behaviours in a framework which evaluates waste to get a sense of whether one treats items as a commodity or not. Buying a cheap phone and throwing it out every year is wasteful but buying a $2000 phone is probably just as wasteful, if in completely different ways. Waste can come in terms of finances, materials, time, energy, or thoughts. We humans will continue to consume things... it's a naive (though common) fantasy that a person can get to zero consumption. But with each market engagement we can repeatedly ask ourselves: "what is it I'm really buying?"

I doubt owners of our current house knew they were purchasing plates which explode upon contact with hot food but they may have had some sense that perhaps the plates wouldn't survive many years or many owners.

As a commodity car is just a box that gets you from A to B, a commodity plate is just a smooth, reusable circle where you put your food three times a day. If the box and the circle can last a lifetime (or longer), great. If not, one hopes they'll at least survive a few decades of use.

-steven

(I'm forwarding Gmail into Hey and replying from Hey so I don't know if this will reach the list. Let's see.)

I agree on the thought of "many things should not be disposable and should last time" very heavily. One of the key things I've wanted to "invest" in over time, is great shelving. The best example of this is the Vitsoe 606 system, which is unfortunately very expensive by India standards (even without import duties). It is trivial to take the shelves with you when you move to another place, and the Internet is full of stories of people using the same 606 system for decades.

Neena and I have talked about how great it would be to "SIP into Vitsoe" and purchase sections over time. What would be even greater would be a completely open-spec 606 so that anyone could fabricate the system locally, while also remaining compatible with the global standard.?

That's all.

arun@... wrote:

This is a vaguely related rant that I'm adding to as a person who is new to Canada (more "in between countries", I guess).
I'm a big proponent of buying the best thing (for some value of best that incorporates made with care and is still affordable to me). Hackneyed as it may be, the whole Robert Pirsing / Zen and the Art ... / Metaphysics of Quality seems to have some grain of truth (which I found embarrassingly moving when I read it at 18).
Two things stand out:
? 1. IKEA 1: I don't know where they fall in the spectrum. Their furniture is *crap* wood, but is functional. The alternatives, especially in this market, seem to be both absurdly priced and mostly just random bullshit that people have thrown out into the world. The Canada market is small enough that some newer players I might consider from the US won't ship here (or are also outrageously expensive).
? 2. IKEA 2: the $8 IKEA set of 3 knives are insanely good. I don't know how they can possibly make these as anything but a loss-leader. Relatedly, the approx $200 knife I bought in Japan is incredible, especially if you sharpen it every few months. It's one of the most visceral feelings of quality I have on an everyday basis.
? 3. Mattresses: I don't know how people deal with this. Every single modern mattress seems to have polyurethane foam, releases toxic gasses (realised after 3 weeks that the new mattress is likely the current cause of our respiratory distress, broken sleep, and my lack of coordination and dropping/breaking things around the house). The "solution" to the problem when people found this out is the CertiPUR-US body that is basically an industry consortium, so it's all bullshit as well. The only viable options seem to be "organic" mattresses which come with their own set of problems (mold?) and are also crazy expensive ($4000+).
idk, just some observations that seemed to dovetail with what you're saying.
-- Arun

On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 05:45, Steven Deobald <steven@...> wrote:

We are staying at a friend's "spare" house at the moment and it is thankfully well-equipped with everything we need to survive here: vessels for cooking, a stove, water heaters for the bathrooms, and (most importantly) an internet connection.

The dishes of the house have a strange peculiarity to them. While most of them are fine, the plates quite frequently crack in half when hot food is placed on them. We've broken all but two at this point.

This got me rolling on the concept of "Commodity Thinking" and the possible misinterpretations. As a young university student, I remember Walmart coming to Canada and our initial joy in having a store for household goods (like plates) that we could actually afford on our savings from high school summer jobs. A weekend trip to Walmart was fairly common and for a reasonable price (it felt like almost *everything* was $20) you could pick up a small bit of furniture, kitchen goods, or cables for your electronics. I remember the feeling at the time that these items weren't particularly well-made, but given my financial circumstances, I didn't very much care.

As I stumbled my way through my Computer Science degree I distinctly remember making one of these (less and less frequent) Walmart visits and thinking to myself as I stuffed some pressed-fiber furniture into my car: "This isn't really anything... it's just garbage. I'm buying disposable furniture." It became increasingly apparent over the coming years of my adult life that a great deal of the middle-class Canadian lifestyle revolves around disposable things that really shouldn't be disposable: a cheap night table for a university student, a $80,000 truck for a wealthy individual entering their middle age.

I grew into a new ideal: buy quality. Things should really last. Who needs to buy more than one set of utensils over their entire lifetime? This is why people of class hand down well-made heirlooms, whether sound systems or bedframes or classic cars. Conflate quality with prestige and you have a recipe for the purchase of brands which only hint at elitism. See: "How to Be Fashionable or Consume Like Me.pdf"

At one point, I realized I was a part of a much larger movement of thinking which flowed along similar lines, looking for answers. "Consume Like Me" actually had very concrete answers, even if they were the wrong ones. The rest of the internet go tied up in arguments formulated as blog posts I remember with the titles of "The Best" (arguing for the highest-quality things) and "The Worst" (arguing for disposable or borderline-disposable things). Obviously googling for those blog posts now is not possible. I'm sure they're our there somewhere.

Anyway. All of this is intended to provide some background on the idea that Commodity Thinking is really NONE of these things.

Commodity Thinking does not pretend that a Maserati and a Honda Civic are the same car. But while working in San Mateo, our business lead drove a (leased) Maserati and our tech lead drove an (ancient) Honda Civic.

They both managed to get to the office just fine.

There is an internal examination we need to make here. Why are we buying or leasing the Maserati? If it's genuinely that much more fun to drive or fuel efficient then perhaps the cost is worth it. The point of Commodity Thinking isn't to cut every blade of grass to the same height or to pretend these differences do not exist. Commodity Thinking says "a car is a car" (though, it should be noted, a car is not a truck) but this isn't to be taken in some sort of self-righteous, absolutist sense. It's to be taken in the literal and rational sense. However, there is a big world of diminishing returns out there. A Maserati is unlikely to provide benefits corresponding to its price tag just as a TATA Nano is unlikely to provide returns which outstrip its convenience as a motorcycle with four wheels. Both cars are an inefficient glitch in the market, to some degree. If we were to lay out "cars" on a bell curve and stick the Honda Civic at the peak, it's entirely possible that folding the curve around that centre point -- so that outliers and deviants on either side met their nearest neighbour from across the way -- would mean that a TATA Nano and a Maserati were, essentially, the same car.

I should clarify here that such a ridiculous example does not serve to argue for Honda Civics as if they somehow represent an ideal in cars. "A car is a car." Examining ourselves, we can see to what extent this is true. How much gratitude do we feel simply for having access to such a mode of transportation at all? THAT'S how much we subscribe to Commodity Thinking. As odd as it may initially seem, the car itself is largely orthogonal to the discussion about cars.

Hopefully other aspects of the Hacker Ethos bend such a discussion a bit. Cars which produce zero pollution are vastly preferable to those which produce some pollution. Cars which produce zero *net* pollution would be even more preferable. And so forth. But that's not really relevant to the discussion on Commodity Thinking beyond the hat-tip toward the idea that "a car is a car but obviously not all cars are equivalent even if they really are, at their core."

I would suggest that one might examine one's own behaviours in a framework which evaluates waste to get a sense of whether one treats items as a commodity or not. Buying a cheap phone and throwing it out every year is wasteful but buying a $2000 phone is probably just as wasteful, if in completely different ways. Waste can come in terms of finances, materials, time, energy, or thoughts. We humans will continue to consume things... it's a naive (though common) fantasy that a person can get to zero consumption. But with each market engagement we can repeatedly ask ourselves: "what is it I'm really buying?"

I doubt owners of our current house knew they were purchasing plates which explode upon contact with hot food but they may have had some sense that perhaps the plates wouldn't survive many years or many owners.

As a commodity car is just a box that gets you from A to B, a commodity plate is just a smooth, reusable circle where you put your food three times a day. If the box and the circle can last a lifetime (or longer), great. If not, one hopes they'll at least survive a few decades of use.

-steven

We are staying at a friend's "spare" house at the moment and it is thankfully well-equipped with everything we need to survive here: vessels for cooking, a stove, water heaters for the bathrooms, and (most importantly) an internet connection.

The dishes of the house have a strange peculiarity to them. While most of them are fine, the plates quite frequently crack in half when hot food is placed on them. We've broken all but two at this point.

This got me rolling on the concept of "Commodity Thinking" and the possible misinterpretations. As a young university student, I remember Walmart coming to Canada and our initial joy in having a store for household goods (like plates) that we could actually afford on our savings from high school summer jobs. A weekend trip to Walmart was fairly common and for a reasonable price (it felt like almost *everything* was $20) you could pick up a small bit of furniture, kitchen goods, or cables for your electronics. I remember the feeling at the time that these items weren't particularly well-made, but given my financial circumstances, I didn't very much care.

As I stumbled my way through my Computer Science degree I distinctly remember making one of these (less and less frequent) Walmart visits and thinking to myself as I stuffed some pressed-fiber furniture into my car: "This isn't really anything... it's just garbage. I'm buying disposable furniture." It became increasingly apparent over the coming years of my adult life that a great deal of the middle-class Canadian lifestyle revolves around disposable things that really shouldn't be disposable: a cheap night table for a university student, a $80,000 truck for a wealthy individual entering their middle age.

I grew into a new ideal: buy quality. Things should really last. Who needs to buy more than one set of utensils over their entire lifetime? This is why people of class hand down well-made heirlooms, whether sound systems or bedframes or classic cars. Conflate quality with prestige and you have a recipe for the purchase of brands which only hint at elitism. See: "How to Be Fashionable or Consume Like Me.pdf"

At one point, I realized I was a part of a much larger movement of thinking which flowed along similar lines, looking for answers. "Consume Like Me" actually had very concrete answers, even if they were the wrong ones. The rest of the internet go tied up in arguments formulated as blog posts I remember with the titles of "The Best" (arguing for the highest-quality things) and "The Worst" (arguing for disposable or borderline-disposable things). Obviously googling for those blog posts now is not possible. I'm sure they're our there somewhere.

Anyway. All of this is intended to provide some background on the idea that Commodity Thinking is really NONE of these things.

Commodity Thinking does not pretend that a Maserati and a Honda Civic are the same car. But while working in San Mateo, our business lead drove a (leased) Maserati and our tech lead drove an (ancient) Honda Civic.

They both managed to get to the office just fine.

There is an internal examination we need to make here. Why are we buying or leasing the Maserati? If it's genuinely that much more fun to drive or fuel efficient then perhaps the cost is worth it. The point of Commodity Thinking isn't to cut every blade of grass to the same height or to pretend these differences do not exist. Commodity Thinking says "a car is a car" (though, it should be noted, a car is not a truck) but this isn't to be taken in some sort of self-righteous, absolutist sense. It's to be taken in the literal and rational sense. However, there is a big world of diminishing returns out there. A Maserati is unlikely to provide benefits corresponding to its price tag just as a TATA Nano is unlikely to provide returns which outstrip its convenience as a motorcycle with four wheels. Both cars are an inefficient glitch in the market, to some degree. If we were to lay out "cars" on a bell curve and stick the Honda Civic at the peak, it's entirely possible that folding the curve around that centre point -- so that outliers and deviants on either side met their nearest neighbour from across the way -- would mean that a TATA Nano and a Maserati were, essentially, the same car.

I should clarify here that such a ridiculous example does not serve to argue for Honda Civics as if they somehow represent an ideal in cars. "A car is a car." Examining ourselves, we can see to what extent this is true. How much gratitude do we feel simply for having access to such a mode of transportation at all? THAT'S how much we subscribe to Commodity Thinking. As odd as it may initially seem, the car itself is largely orthogonal to the discussion about cars.

Hopefully other aspects of the Hacker Ethos bend such a discussion a bit. Cars which produce zero pollution are vastly preferable to those which produce some pollution. Cars which produce zero *net* pollution would be even more preferable. And so forth. But that's not really relevant to the discussion on Commodity Thinking beyond the hat-tip toward the idea that "a car is a car but obviously not all cars are equivalent even if they really are, at their core."

I would suggest that one might examine one's own behaviours in a framework which evaluates waste to get a sense of whether one treats items as a commodity or not. Buying a cheap phone and throwing it out every year is wasteful but buying a $2000 phone is probably just as wasteful, if in completely different ways. Waste can come in terms of finances, materials, time, energy, or thoughts. We humans will continue to consume things... it's a naive (though common) fantasy that a person can get to zero consumption. But with each market engagement we can repeatedly ask ourselves: "what is it I'm really buying?"

I doubt owners of our current house knew they were purchasing plates which explode upon contact with hot food but they may have had some sense that perhaps the plates wouldn't survive many years or many owners.

As a commodity car is just a box that gets you from A to B, a commodity plate is just a smooth, reusable circle where you put your food three times a day. If the box and the circle can last a lifetime (or longer), great. If not, one hopes they'll at least survive a few decades of use.

-steven

I was quite serious in the last thread when I said that fibre internet
would be advantageous in a location choice. Igatpuri (the location of
the U Ba Khin Vipassana Village) does have fibre internet, which is
pretty hopeful considering it's over 100km from Bombay.

Igatpuri:



The other location currently under consideration are the Kalvarayan
Forests outside of Salem:

Kalvarayan Hill Forests:



The entire time we've been up here in the north, I've been pondering
what location, in which state, would make a good base for establishing
a Hacker Village up here... so far, I still have no idea.

Thoughts?

-steven