5 ms·
I've stopped using the word "cheap" to describe situations like this as the word has too many negative connotations. I tend towards "inexpensive", "cost-effecti
by imposterr 1y ago
I've stopped using the word "cheap" to describe situations like this as the word has too many negative connotations. I tend towards "inexpensive", "cost-effective", or "low-cost". I find it better describes my intent to describe something as not costing much but not speaking to poor quality which I feel like the word "cheap" has come to imply.
- diarheadave 1y ago[dead]
- novosel 1y agoFrugal?
- wierd-eye-loser 1y ago[dead]
- gsck 1y agoTheres a phrase in the UK that is "Cheap and cheerful" which I think is perfectly apt for this
- specproc 1y agoI think "cheap" sounds worse in American.
- fuzzfactor 1y agoI would say "low-cost, high-impact" when that makes more sense. In this case it's more like low-cost high-delight which does sound a bit better than "cheap thrills" ;) The owls do seem to convey a sense of communal grumpiness, expressed individually :) Not unlike HN at tines . . .