This article isn't about zipper manufacturing. While the process of vibratory sorting is interesting, it's not the point Bunnie is making.
The point as I see it is that price signalling is a frustratingly blunt instrument.
It's annoying that so much of our species' output is channeled towards activities that improve precisely nobody's lives. This is an artifact of how hard it is to communicate throughout the entire stack in our modern, globalized, decentralized capitalist economies.
That's the bit to let your engineering brain get hung up on. Not vibratory sorter optimizations.
I'm amazed reading your post, because that's not what I see here at all.
In fact, this shows how precise the signaling is. In any other economic system, you'd get one type of zippers (or even a single type of car, or house) because "that's good be enough for everyone."
But in this system, price signaling is so precise that it even allows for distinguishing between preferences in zipper designs, all the way from the buyer to the manufacturer on the other side of the world, who adjusts accordingly.
It's annoying that so much of our species' output is channeled towards activities that improve precisely nobody's lives.
But that's like, your opinion, man. The fact is that the people are spending more on smooth zippers, because they care about it. Who's to say their lives haven't been improved?
What you're arguing is that the system should optimize for the opinions of experts (such as engineers) rather than the opinions of the laypeople who actually buy the products. That has nothing to do with "bluntness".
The point as I see it is that price signalling is a frustratingly blunt instrument.
It's annoying that so much of our species' output is channeled towards activities that improve precisely nobody's lives. This is an artifact of how hard it is to communicate throughout the entire stack in our modern, globalized, decentralized capitalist economies.
That's the bit to let your engineering brain get hung up on. Not vibratory sorter optimizations.