News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by ginko on Sunday November 13, 2016 @02:10PM (#12944998)
That assumes that a more expensive ring buys a stabler marriage. Actually the opposite seems to be the case:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2501480

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by delecti on Monday November 14, 2016 @11:11AM (#12950700)
That paper doesn't attempt to make a causal link. It's possible that being broke during the courtship process (when the ring is purchased) is what leads to a lasting marriage. I also can't find any discussion of the cost of the ring to the cost that could have been afforded. Is there a comparable outcome from someone who could easily afford a $10k ring but instead spends $1k vs someone who can only barely afford the $1k ring in the first place?
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by DanBC on Sunday November 13, 2016 @02:17PM (#12945052)
Nothing in my comment is saying that buying an expensive ring will save a marriage.

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

Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by user5994461 on Sunday November 13, 2016 @02:43PM (#12945214)
The divorce rate is increasing every day. One shouldn't based a decision on outdated marriage statistics from 10 years ago. Just sayin'
Re:Diamonds Suck (2006) by lotharbot on Sunday November 13, 2016 @11:23PM (#12947550)
the divorce rate has actually been falling steadily since about 1980.