If you want to reduce animal suffering, there's a pretty good argument that cows are the last animals/animal products you should stop eating.
You should definitely stop eating eggs, as egg-laying chickens live short, miserable lives where their bodies are destroyed rapidly. Chickens, fish and other small animals in captivity live short, miserable lives, and one family can eat a whole chicken in a day -- thats alot of chicken deaths to eat chicken regularly.
Cows by comparison generally live pretty good lives, better than any wild cattle. They can roam and eat well and socialize, and slaughter is pretty humane compared to being hunted down by predators or dying slowly of an infection, broken leg or other natural cause. And one cow death can feed an entire family for a very long time.
Yeah, I go out of my way to get eggs from pasture grazed hand collected chickens via goodeggs because of how they're tortured otherwise (https://www.goodeggs.com/sfbay/home).
I learned about the difference between 'pasture grazed', 'free range', 'cagefree', etc.
Pasture is the only one that seemed cruelty free. I was told in 'free range' they raise them inside with a door closed for the first part of their life because they lobbied for this due to 'disease', but then when they eventually open the door the chickens never go out because they've lived their whole lives in the little room.
Being vegetarian is hard for me because I really love eating, it took me a while (and the pandemic) to really change behavior to align with what I think is the right thing.
Good for you for making the effort. I mean that honestly. You're right that free range is a complete bullshit term.
Cruelty free eggs is unfortunately also a difficult one as far as I can tell. I can only speak for the UK but here it seems a lot of eggs are marketed along those lines, but they neglect to inform you that the male chicks are still either put in shredding machines or gassed to death. It I could find a supplier that sexed embryos prior to hatching I'd likely start eating eggs again.
Responding to String's comment: There is this guy (https://www.youtube.com/user/fuller527) that has set up Owl monitoring rigs, streaming live 24/7. I sometimes watch to enjoy nature (and barn owls).
About the the male chicks? There is a chicken/egg farm 'somewhere near' and he is given dead male chicks that he ties in a couple of tree logs twice a day, so that owls and other beasts can feast on. To anyone enjoying looking at barn owls, check out his stream (I'm not affiliated in any way). Around 11pm UK time he walks to those logs and you can see him replenishing the 'food' for the owls.
I mean, isn't that sort of the fundamental problem with government funding? They're not very good at picking winners, and when they make winners by picking, sometimes it still turns out to be a mistake (e.g. diesel in Europe).
Still, it does seem something infrastructure/utility-ish like Signal would be a good candidate for at least some support.
Of course no one individually wants to sacrifice for society. The point is that if everyone is willing to do it, everyone is better off. By making some sort of collective incentive to have a wider distribution of incomes in neighbourhoods and schools, everyone is better off.
The same is true if we want to moderate extremism. If you kick extremists off the mainstream platform, they become more extreme. It's a hard problem.
This logic does not work. You must make a choice to balance risks, because EVERYTHING has risks. Aggregate economic ruin kills people.
By your logic, you shouldn't be able to sell cars, food, practice medicine, go for a walk, run, play sports, do ANYTHING AT ALL because all of these things could injure or kill you or others.
The dismissiveness in this thread is unreal. From the comments you'd think the article only had one sentence insulting the Sanctity of Cargo Pants. If you happily wear baggy jeans or cargo pants, these are not for you and you don't have the problem they solve.
It's an elegant solution to wear slim fitted pants without awful hip pocket bulges. Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the pockets flop around with anything in them.
They implement this pocket strategy and work well for me. The author would likely be interested to know that this topic was covered in detail as an engineering exercise in NASA flight suits. More functional pockets for people strapped into a vehicle.
One of the more interesting innovations was a pocket on the top of the thigh for holding flight checklists or maps. It had a clear cover so that what was inside the pocket could be viewed without taking it out. A phone pocket like that would be pretty cool (and way nerdy but hey, if the pocket fits ... :-))
I recall clicking a Duluth Trading link from a thread not so unlike this on HN years ago and then being followed by ads for their jeans across the internet for at least a year. Of course, I remember that just after clicking your link.
Lucky you people: I've been followed around the web for over ten years with Google ads for scammy dating sites (since Zoosk if anyone can remember that).
When I click the x I only get another scammy dating site.
And unlike GP I cannot remember visiting one in the first place :-/
Head's up to anyone considering these pants, as I did -- reading the reviews, it appears they changed the design of these pants recently, replacing some of the zippers with velcro, and using different material. It doesn't appear to be popular with their audience.
I can't tell from that detailed picture but can you reach the bottom of the pocket without leaning over? Because both the diagram and the picture of the pants in the current submission suggests that without leaning over you could maybe grab your phone with the tip of your fingers. Could you for example use the pockets to warm up your hands?
Also the lower the pocket is, the higher the chance stuff will jiggle around if you run or simply walk faster, because it has more room to do it down the leg and the range of motion is wider. Is this the case with the phone in one of these pockets?
Do the Duluth trousers "anchor the bottom of the pocket bag to the side seam" as well? To me this seems like a clever solution that I haven't seen before.
Does Duluth have a single pair of pants without synthetic fibers at this point? Trying to cut down my micro plastics footprint. (My base layers can be drip dried, which makes them less problematic)
> They implement this pocket strategy and work well for me.
Superficially, perhaps. But the zipper inclusion makes your example the "strategic" difference that properly considers the importance of what might be stored in such a pocket. IMHO, the author's approach is overshadowed by cost cutting, where the narrative serves to distract the reader with discourse on "method" that doesn't quite align with the original problem description.
At first I was intensely disappointed by the post ("why so wordy?", "why no pictures?"), but then I got to the design part and said "holy shit I want this".
If people are happy with their cargo pants, no worries . It doesn't conform to a lot of current fashion aesthetic, but if that doesn't hit a person's radar, then cool, great. But a lot of people in the thread here are feeling attacked because someone doesn't like to wear the pants they like to wear.
Fashion is aesthetic and therefore subjective, and it changes over time. At one point cargo pants might have even been "cool". I don't remember them ever being "office" though.
I also really want these! I wear slim-to-skinny jeans and my phone eventually stretches the jean fabric above the pocket and you can see a white outline of my phone. As manufacturers kept increasing mobile screen sizes I'd have to make sure my phone could actually fit in my pocket when buying pants as not every brand consistently use the same pocket depth.
Last time I wore cargo pants (probably the late 90s) I remember everything just annoyingly swing around as I walked.
I get Pixel phones to get stock Android and reliable updates and the smallest I can get are ~6 inch phones. If a 5 inch Pixel was released I'd buy it in a heartbeat
I have the Pixel 3a right now. It's a 6" phone with a 5.6" display. I was referring to total phone size. On top of that I add a phone case because I've dropped previous phones and caused (slight) damage so it's an absolute must for me. I use the pixel fabric cases google sells which only increases my dimensions to 6.12 in (155.54 mm) x 2.93 in (74.33 mm)
So not wanting to wear cargo pants because I think they look like shit makes me classiest and racist?
This kind of behavior where people are labeling anything and everything racist is very much harmful, and makes every sensible people less sensitive to racist claims.
Not to detract from your point, but there are plenty of fashion-conscious people that do manual labor for a living too. They just look down on 'fancy' clothes. "How is that guy going to get any work done in those clothes?" And yeah, they will get offended if you tell them their Carhartt / Duluth Trading Company apparel that can potentially cost more than serviceable office wear doesn't look good.
Well, jeans were invented for miners, pretty sure you see everyone who wears them as a manual laborer too, and by that extent, if you are ok with jeans, but not with cargo pants, then issue is not with the wearer.
I disagree, cargo pants were a fashion choice eschewed by most "laborers" at the time because they were made out of materials that wouldn't stand up to heavy use.
They’re too bulky and swingy for most people doing physical work, while also not being able to hold most things they’d really want to, versus typical work pants that might have like one big extra internal pocket on the thigh and a hammer loop maybe but are mostly gonna be about heavy canvas fabric or denim, double-layer knees or fronts, reinforced stitching and rivets in the right places, stuff like that. Your average cargo pants fall apart when subjected to physical labor because they’re not actually built for it, they mostly use low-quality runs of chino-type fabrics of one kind or another, and those damn pockets just get in the way all the time if you actually put stuff in them (and sometimes even if you don’t—they’re very snag-prone).
I think it’s fair to characterize them as faux-workwear, for the most part. Some folks can get away with them and do wear them because they’re cheap and easy to find, but anyone who really wears their work clothes will usually go for something else. Doing handyman stuff around the house, fine. Framing houses, you’ll be shredding a pair every few weeks, and some you’ll probable rip at the seams the first or second wear.
Tradespeople generally don’t wear ‘cargo pants’ that you can buy at Kohl’s. They wear jeans or work pants from Dickies/Carhartt/Duluth Trading.
I manage tradespeople and go to job sites often.
Cargo pants to me are an unfortunate holdover from the 90s fashion worn by people who don’t particularly care about how they look. People wear clothes for various reasons, including utility.
For women the problem is worse since we are too curvy to use the exact location of pockets even when clothes are baggy.
I find the solution interesting even for women. I solved the same problem by putting the pockets horizontally at the waist. I will try moving the pocket down to the upper leg.
Further, we are all curvy in different ways. I couldn't wear either of the trousers he made, without the fabric bunching. Other women might fit one or the other, or none. I like my pockets in the back, for example, but I need zips so things don't fall out and maybe a way of securing them so things don't get stolen and well it's all too hard so I just carry a purse unless it's running pants and I just need to slot my house key in there..
I hope for the return for Zozosuit, personally. I didn't get a chance to buy anything before they shut down but I enjoyed the measurement process and was hopeful for a good pair of jeans.
Probably not very hard, but it will cost 10x more than regular clothes. Current process is highly efficient and produces thousands of units per day with a dozen of low skilled workers. Whatever is not automated (and it's not much) benefits from dirt cheap labour in Bangladesh or Vietnam.
Your sewing robot will make a dozen of units per day and cost hundreds of thousands. Monthly salary of just several sw engineers from SV is probably greater than total operational expenses of a medium-sized factory in India for a year.
There was a ‘startup’ that planned for the client to take a bunch of measurements and would then manufacture a garment to those. A post, which floated on HN, detailed why it turned out to not be too feasible.
Edit: it was ‘Getwear’, found the name through the design company portfolio. They specialized in jeans. Alas, since the site is dead, I can't locate the postmortem, only this article in Russian: https://vc.ru/offline/6359-getwear-close
Basically, it seems that the demand just isn't there.
Suits to measure aren't a new thing, but suits are expected to last for quite a while and thus they cost a bunch. Additionally, dunno about Indochino's web offering but they have offline shops where somebody takes measurements for you the old way, so apparently that's the experience many customers expect.
Tailored clothing can be surprisingly inexpensive, especially outside the US. A 3D scan / in-person fitting and then overseas garment manufacturing could be a solid business model.
I suggest, as I stated in my other post, looking at the LuLuLemon pockets - specifically, having the pocket be a webbing/spandex material which cinches the contents of the pocket to the body such that it doesnt flop about and also secures the contents into the pocket.
I like the horizontal, but maybe a 15 degree angle would be best, however, do the horiz pockets get in the way when you sit?
The pockets don't get in the way when I sit because the pocket is just below the waist.
I started with the Silhouette 3 piece yoga pattern (which has a side panel) and made the pocket horizontal. It seems to me you can take an off-the-rack pair of pants and make the same modification.
I have heard that it may be cheaper to have a pair of off the shelf pants tailored than to keep looking for the perfect fit (eg among more niche products).
I wonder how much extra you’d pay for extra pockets.
>Cargo pants are not the solution here, as they are huge and baggy and the pockets flop around with anything in them.
You're getting the wrong pants if that's the case.
For a time now, I've been buying work pants almost exclusively. Not the cargo pants with flappy hip pockets, but the lighter duty work pants or "service pants", though I'm not 100% sure of the correct english word for them. They're work pants, but not made for heavy physical labor.
Specifically I've been buying pants from the Swedish brand Blåkläder. The quality is just so far beyond chinos or affordable jeans you can get today, and there are so many practical pockets. Even though I work in an office as a computer toucher, I like wearing these work pants, also as a statement of solidarity with the people who ply their trades out in the real world.
If you want something that doesn't have cargo pockets, Varusteleka's tactical jeans are utterly amazing, the most comfortable jeans I've ever worn. Their worker pants are great too, but somewhat more old-fashioned in design.
Slim fit pants just need to go away forever, honestly. They're needlessly uncomfortable for literally not benefit at all, plus you even look stupid in them.
I considered that term, but the ones I like the most are made from heavyweight cotton twill, similar in weight to denim but with a different weave and feel. Whereas I think combat pants are generally some sort of polycotton or cordura ripstop fabric.
So it's "service" as in service tech or mechanic, not military service.
Another UK commenter - over here that cotton twill is known as moleskin and a lot of the army surplus is in that fabric which I agree is much nicer than the ripstop stuff
I think it may be more a reaction to the dismissiveness of the article. It basically writes off any disagreement as people dressing for a "pretend job".
The dismissiveness is a reflection of the author's own, plus the fact fashion is inherently classist: It's the rich telling the poor they don't dress well, and making up rules for why they're right. It's impossible to gainsay those rules, because you end up with a courtier's reply, in very nearly the literal sense.
oh for goodness sake -- there is no community on earth that doesn't have rules about "fashion"
You think low income people don't? Try wearing a skinny tie and cufflinks to a honkytonk in Oklahoma and see what happens.
I actually had a pair of shorts with a small pocket in around that spot, and I liked putting my phone in there. I can totally get behind this idea, though I'd like to try these first.
Guess what, people do not like being insulted. If you are going to say to a large number of people that their clothes and by extension them "look bad" you are going to get a lot of pissed off responses. It is completely healthy and miles better than the alternative of internalizing it, believing you look bad feeling embarrassment, humiliation, guilt, etc.
By the way this is the way the fashion industry has operated for a long time and people are rightfully sick of it.
The author would have done much better to avoid making general statements. He could have said something like "i really do not like the way pockets look on my pants. I like to wear tight pants and large pockets really ruin that look."
Where did the author insult cargo pants users? This is all I saw mentioning cargo pants in the article.
> Appendix: Sam, have you simply invented cargo pants?
> No. Cargo pants solve different problems
for different people.
> If cargo pants are appropriate for your
daily life, you definitely don’t want or need
my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa.
Cargo pants aren’t office-wear; these dress
pants aren’t combat-wear.
EDIT: it seems like the author edited the article. Never mind.
Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification?
Why yes, yes we can.
But, OK, let's answer it. The first answer is right in the fine article: Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain.
The second answer is that if you dress for aesthetic instead of functional reasons, one of the very first concerns is silhouette. And if you care about that, you often care about the torso first, lines second, limbs third. (Note: Since it's an aesthetic judgment, it depends on your preferences)
Hip pockets ruin the look of the torso and lines from any angle except a pure frontal view. Worse, they ruin it for tight and loose fitting clothes (because for loose fit, hip pockets with anything of significant weight hangs awkwardly)
This pocket design addresses the first issue completely, and the second issue somewhat. (You'll still notice a change in the line especially on tight fit, but it's less noticeable because it's not affecting torso, and it's not at the end of limbs - which get more attention than the middle)
Maybe our list of maximes to follow should include "we must assume that people have a reason for what they do, and question somebody else's aesthetical judgment followed by an accusation that they're uninformed or unquestioning is not the best conversational gambit".
> The second answer is that if you dress for aesthetic instead of functional reasons, one of the very first concerns is silhouette.
See, I think you've missed what everyone in this thread is trying to get at. The defense of cargo pants is based on a pretty simple dialectic:
· Who determines what is fashionable or "aesthetic"?
Mostly, the people who design, sell, and advertise clothes. And also, people who directly profit off of being fashionable.
· What metrics do they use to decide what they're going to call fashionable?
Mostly, whatever will allow them to change styles from year to year and sell as many products as possible and maintain their position at the top of the fashion world.
· Is it in our interests to buy into this system of fashion?
No! In fact this dialectic has shown that fashion is basically bullshit, and that it's not just morally neutral but good to resist! To try to come up with our own fashions based on what appeals to us personally or simply wearing whatever has the most utility.
For the record, I don't necessarily agree with this argument (I lean towards fashion-neutral), but I think this pattern of thinking is extremely common in hacker culture. While I'm cynical about how fashion is created, I don't wear cargo pants either, but that's because I find them much less comfortable than a straight (not slim) cut pair of jeans.
I really struggle to believe that there’s some secret cabal of garment manufacturers conspiring to decide what modifications of their clothes will be desirable in the next season. One reason is that the industry is competitive and mostly full of low margins. If you collude with (some of) your competitors to sell the same thing then your market becomes both smaller and more competitive. Another is that fashion changes don’t necessarily benefit the companies who were previously doing well. I doubt that most of the jeans manufacturers would have wanted leggings to have become so popular, for example.
> See, I think you've missed what everyone in this thread is trying to get at.
Not really, no. "Aesthetic" is "concerned with beauty", not necessarily "beautiful". If you do care about beauty, you care about shape, texture, color.
> Who determines what is fashionable or "aesthetic"?
These are two different things - the first one emerges as industry consensus, the second is your sense of beauty.
> What metrics do they use to decide what they're going to call fashionable?
Literally, I don't care. At all. The discussion wasn't about fashion. OP asked why people would consider hip pockets ugly. The answer was "people who prioritize beauty over function". There's no "they" who determine beauty. We have our own preferences.
My reply wasn't about fashion. It doesn't mention fashion with a single word. Neither does OP. And so I'm deeply amused to see that you think I didn't read closely enough.
> Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification?
If you phrase them as universals, thereby implicitly criticizing everyone who has different tastes, expect pushback from everyone whose tastes disagree.
If you phrase it as personal preference and accept the less dramatic expression that that supports, you’ll get less pushback.
If you phrase it as a universal and then have an offended response to the pushback because people should respect the difference in tastes, then, well, you've got a reasonable complaint but are directing it in the wrong direction.
As a complete antithesis to this point of view, I like the silhouette that work/service pants give me. When paired with a good polo shirt, it gives off the confident vibe that I know perfectly well where I'm going and what I'm doing and that there's no need to interrupt me for whatever reasons, because I'm probably doing something important. I've never had so few religious people/coupon hawkers annoy me on the street and so many people decide to ask me for directions over everyone else in crowded streets before I started dressing like this.
Obviously the broad-shouldered build, full beard, glasses and balding head help sell the appearance.
Fashion is only for people who need other people to tell them what to wear.
I do not think you would find a single person who would call it fashionable. I don't dress based on aesthetics, I dress based on practicality and comfort. How it happens to look is a consequence, not a goal.
Form follows function. I don't wear boots because I think they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable to walk around in for a whole day and last much longer than regular shoes.
I don't wear polo shirts because they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable and because the collar is practical to avoid sunburn on my neck. They also tend to last longer than t-shirts.
I don't wear work pants because they look good, I wear them because they're comfortable, last longer than regular pants and because they have a bunch of practical pockets.
The end result may be that I do fit a certain type of look, but that is incidental and was never the goal in itself.
Fashion trends are pointless and destructive. They herd us into cheaply made fast fashion and is a great factor in our willfull destruction of the environment.
Fashion and fast fashion are different things. I dress fairly practically as well. Even in work wear, there is fashion involved — although some of the changes in fashion may be driven by practical or safety considerations much more than appearance, appearance still makes a difference.
For each of the things that you’ve mentioned (boots are comfortable and last longer, etc) that you attribute as “form following function”, each of the functions may be fit by alternative forms.
You say you wear boots: what type? Even within steel-toed work boots there’s several different styles and fashions, and colour makes a difference. I did a quick search and on “Boot Barn”, there are 611 styles of steel-toed work shoes. For “style”, you have: 202 pull-on style, 172 lace-up (137 6" and 80 8"); 66 cowboy; 30 high/low top; 28 logger; 20 hiking; 19 roper; 19 wedge; 16 slip-on; 16 work sneaker; 10 driving shoe; 9 authentic; 7 Chukka; 7 Oxfords… You have work shoes that are heavily rubberized for electrical hazards; you have anti-slip.
You picked a style of boots that you _liked_. You may have had functional reasons for picking boots in the first place, but whether you want to admit it or not, you picked a particular _fashion_.
When you buy polo shirts (which I don’t wear because they look _awful_ on me, and they’re not at all comfortable), do you have colours and/or brands that you buy regularly? You might buy Lacoste brand entirely because you’ve found their quality good, or maybe you buy Hilfigger (or do you buy an entirely different brand because both Lacoste and Hilfigger are too “fashion”, so you’ve chosen the “anti-fashion” fashion brand?). Do you always buy the same two or three colours of polo shirts? You’re following a fashion.
Fashion is what people _do_. It’s not this amorphous thing. What is fashionable this year is not fashionable next year. Sometimes this is driven by fashion designers, but more often than not, a “fashion trend” takes two to ten years to catch on and become popular enough to become a “trend”. (Was punk a fashion trend? No, but it spawned at least three or four fashion trends out of it as people started to follow the scene and then age out of it.)
So dude, what you wear _is_ your fashion. You may not think that it’s fashionable, but you’re choosing your look based on an aesthetic that you believe you inhabit _whether you think so or not_. Otherwise, you’d have chosen an entirely _different_ look based on the same functional requirements you stated.
Of course there are multiple possible forms to the same function, and even the workers segment is subject to silly whims of fashion. However, a set of basic practical and durable work pants generally looks the same now as they did 20 years ago, and will probably look about the same 20 years from now.
If you buy from the fashion-adjacent brands, some of which have also introduced streetwear collections, of course they will reflect some trends. If you buy from brands that purely make work clothes, practicality still comes first, because if they don't last, they just lost a repeat customer. The main drivers in that segment are durability and comfort, not looks.
Generally I just try to avoid clothes with obviously tacked-on flair and garish design elements. That means I mostly buy straight forward work pants and shirts, polos/t-shirts with no logos (or minimal logos for polos, they're hard to find without the traditional little logo on them), and boots/shoes in subdued or clean classic designs. I like the Norwegian M77 military boots because they're affordable, comfortable and super durable, and because they don't scream "look at me I'm so tacticool!", unlike a lot of newer designs. They've been made unchanged since 1977, and they obviously got it right.
Is it fashion or anti-fashion? I don't know, I just don't want to be a walking billboard for silly trends.
I've had this discussion a number of times, and I guess it really bugs people that not everyone cares obsessively about fashion and outward appearance as they do.
Just stop buying trends. Buy sustainable and long-lasting. Repair when things break. Keep the same things for as long as possible instead of buying something new all the time. Frequent thrift shops.
> I've had this discussion a number of times, and I guess it really bugs people that not everyone cares obsessively about fashion and outward appearance as they do.
If that’s what you got from what I said, then either I’ve failed to make what I’m saying clear or you’ve misinterpreted what I’ve said. I don’t actually care how you dress. As a lot of people are fond of saying—words have meanings. And what _you_ define as “fashion” is a small (but vocal and visible) subset of what the word “fashion” means. Sadly, even if one is trying to buck trends…you’re participating in a trend of bucking trends.
You are describing a fashion—a trend even—that resonates with a certain number of people.
I am also amused that you recommend visiting thrift shops. Fashion “leaders” tend to make their own clothing, visit thrift shops (because often they are poor artists trying to make their own way and can’t afford or don’t like the current fast fashion trends), and combine clothing in ways that (sometimes) eventually becomes a fashionable trend.
(Consider the pre-ripped jeans trend. This wasn’t caused by some “Fashion Overlord” deciding that this would be some year’s fashion. People who became fashionable wore their jeans into the ground and looked good in them. Other people couldn't/didn’t want to rip their jeans or wear them into the ground like that, but felt that having ripped jeans gave them some sort of fashion credibility…so it became something that mattered in fast fashion. But it started from someone who didn’t decide to make a fashion statement as such anyway.)
It feels like you're very bent on casting everything in a vain and appearance-focused light.
I'm not sure how much more clear I can make it: none of my clothing choices are based on fashion nor on appearance, other than the basic requirement of actually being dressed and not wearing ragged scraps.
My choices are based on practicality. If someone wants to turn that into fashion, they can go right ahead, it won't change my choices.
> Can we have opinions on our clothes without having to give every random person on the Internet a full justification?
Yes, which is why I'm suspicious of people who make dictates and maxims about fashion.
My point is that those maxims were created by people who have an obvious incentive to sell you more things, and having you supplement pants with carrying bags would benefit them.
We must also take unconscious racism and classism into account when judging the fashion dictates of others: "Big pockets make it look like you work for a living! We must therefore shun big pockets!" is not exactly value-neutral.
Also:
> Hip pockets lead to bad posture when sitting. They cause back pain.
Good thing we're not talking about hip pockets, but pockets farther down the leg.
> We must also take unconscious racism and classism into account when judging the fashion dictates of others: "Big pockets make it look like you work for a living! We must therefore shun big pockets!" is not exactly value-neutral.
No, we must not. The only thing fashion miss is ideological foundations, then it'd take just one more step for it to make following fashion mandatory for everyone with legal repercussions for not following fashion trends enough.
There are different reasons to dislike big pockets. Different people have different reasons. If some people have racist between their reasons to dislike baggy pants, it doesn't mean that to dislike baggy pants is equal to be a racist. If the most stupid person in the world believes that sky is blue, it doesn't mean, that sky is green.
Well, there are actually many countries with legal repercussions for following the wrong fashion, especially for women. Even in Europe and the USA, many kinds of clothes we wear today would have likely been considered indecent and could have gotten the police involved, if worn on the streets 100 or so years ago.
Obviously this is a personal preference. For example. I think they’re awful. I don’t think these pants are the solution though. I do appreciate the effort.
Cargo pants solve different problems for different people.
If cargo pants are appropriate for your daily life, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa. Cargo pants aren’t office-wear; these dress pants aren’t combat-wear.
This is not dismissing cargo pants or the wearing thereof. This is dismissing the failure to grasp that details matter a lot in fashion, and the detailing in cargo pants renders them inappropriate to certain contexts. It even directly acknowledges that this goes both ways, and that the detailing on these pants would render them inappropriate to the contexts that cargo pants are designed for (if not limited to).
The article has been edited. A few scrolls below, the article was quoted[0] as saying:
>No. Cargo pants are fashion-as-pretend-occupation — when not at work, wear a fancy chronometer to suggest you’re a pilot or a diver, or camo to suggest you’re in the military. Cargo pants are a paratrooper costume. Cargo shorts have giant external pouches so teenagers in the 90’s, trapped in school, could say (sartorially) “I go out into the world and do adventurous things!” even though the things they stored in those pouches were doritos and portable cd players.
>I am discussing clothing as it might be worn by people while doing their real jobs, not their pretend ones. If cargo pants are appropriate for your real job, you definitely don’t want or need my side-seam welt pockets; and vice-versa."
Pants with various side pockets have been around for literally decades -- in a wide variety of styles. I even had a pair of nice looking dress slacks in the late 90s with pockets that were almost exactly like this and were for holding phones, wallets, and PDAs. I think I got them at Costco since shock the pants being so fitted made them uncomfortable to hold stuff in the other pockets.
It's a nice blog post showing why they solve a problem and how to iterate, but it's about as novel as wearing a coat to keep from getting cold. I suspect you and the blog author are unusual in that you don't know about this pretty common pant type.
I've never seen dress pants with side pockets like this (that is, not cargo pants) for sale at a major retailer. If they really are so common, what are they called and can you point me to an online store selling them?
In the end, I didn't really care for them and it looks like most people didn't either as they're discontinued. The cargo pocket was more fussy than just putting my stuff in the regular old pockets. I think I remember hitting things with my knees a lot in certain positions.
These days? I guess it depends on what you consider "dress pants", but for pants that don't scream "I'm working construction or shooting a gun during an invasion"...looking around for a bit, Dickies, Red Kap, Scottevest (promoted by Steve Wozniak specifically as a good pair of pants for big phones), Docker D3 line. I've definitely seen them at places like Target, JoS.A.Bank, etc.
Tactical brands like 5.11, Woolrich, Propper, etc. will also sell "discreet" or "concealed carry" cargo pants that look basically like normal slacks.
There's also a ton of plain old fitted and fashion cargo pants around too. I think Armani, Betabrand, etc. has some. They look a bit obnoxious to me I'm afraid.
In jeans they even predate the "mobile pocket" fad, they've been called "carpenter's pockets". It seems somewhat classist to dismiss the innovation simply because it looks like "working construction" and comes from such a blue collar background. (Which makes sense, why wouldn't innovations in functionality over fashion originate in blue collar spaces?)
As a 90s nerd that fell into a habit of carpenter pants when they were briefly cool, but came to respect the "mobile pocket" functionality of having a pocket further down the leg towards the knees. It's really fast/convenient to move things (especially phones) in/out of. It's continued to surprise me how slow it has been to be adapted to other pants. If it takes the "mobile pocket" rebrand, that's fine, but it's still somewhat rude to forget the blue collar roots of the idea.
(It also amuses me that while the article addresses the cargo pants criticism, doesn't seem familiar with either the "mobile pocket" or "carpenter's pocket" name.)
Although as a programmer, no one would bat an eye if I wore shorts to work, even, so I find the author's claims that cargos can't be worn to an office kind of outdated. Maybe he's a car salesman or something and his boss forces his to wear a suit.
What TFA is doing is basically the inverse of a digital camera sensor. They're essentially putting a coloured tint in front of each pixel (actually a block of 4 pixels) in a bayer pattern (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter), and using software to mosaic (convert) a colour image into its Bayer components if you will so that a block of four pixels under a green tint for example is lit only with it's green channel, and so on for each colour. You lose some spatial resolution this way of course.
I really like the idea of the watch instead of a phone, but it seems like they've explicitly designed it so that it will never be a stand-alone device.
I don't mind buying the watch and the airpods, but having to buy a phone AND two data subscriptions (thanks Canada telecoms)? Not worth it.
In day to day use, you never need the phone if you have the watch. Just for the initial setup and to pair with your data plan. But as far as cost you’re right - even with T-Mobile I pay $40 plan and $10 for the Watch data plan.
A sort of Dutch Disease caused by Rails is probably the biggest one. When one killer feature drives the adoption of a language, everyone who is interested and good at the language is involved with that ecosystem, and it becomes self sustaining.
The other one (already alluded to elsewhere here) is the culture of monkey patching and meta-code. I worked professionally in Rails for years, and I really enjoy Ruby, but every time I had a problem or question that required digging into the Rails source I was tearing my hear out. Almost everything is a cascade of hundreds of single line methods built on an avalanche of DSL abstraction and depending on implicit monkey patching and other crazy stuff that's a nightmare to understand.
It's not a culture of readable code in sizeable projects, which is what you need if you want to be widely adopted by people who don't primarily write code for a living (scientific work, other general work). Ironic considering how expressive and beautiful Ruby can be.
This has finally allowed me to switch. I’ve been trying to since quantum came out two years ago, but this was always a deal breaker.
Firefox is generally still a little buggier and less performance in my experience, but not so much that I want to switch back. Hopefully they can stay relevant.
You should definitely stop eating eggs, as egg-laying chickens live short, miserable lives where their bodies are destroyed rapidly. Chickens, fish and other small animals in captivity live short, miserable lives, and one family can eat a whole chicken in a day -- thats alot of chicken deaths to eat chicken regularly.
Cows by comparison generally live pretty good lives, better than any wild cattle. They can roam and eat well and socialize, and slaughter is pretty humane compared to being hunted down by predators or dying slowly of an infection, broken leg or other natural cause. And one cow death can feed an entire family for a very long time.