It is disappointing. Thorin used to work at Lifehacker--he did good work there. The fact that he's only quoted but didn't write it, though, makes it sound like someone just ambushed him in the break room with a question and then wrote an article about it.

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that Wirecutter only considers the upper end of the performance vs. price Pareto curve? Recently I read their review on dehumidifiers, and all 5x recommendations were Frigidaire/Electrolux models that cost twice as much as the Midea unit I ended up purchasing. (Midea is arguably a more reliable brand these days anyway, but I digress)

Wirecutter wants to tell me what is the "best" when I really want to know what is the cheapest product that will satisfice my needs.

The point is that you can't buy a decent quality TV that doesn't come with smart features, all you can do is keep it disconnected from the internet.

But that's not true since you CAN buy a Spectre brand non-smart TV (which the only qualm listed in this thread is audio quality, not picture importantly) and you can buy commercial TV's meant for Hospitals and Office displays, etc.

One option is cheaper (Spectre) and one option is more expensive (commercial), but you can, in fact, obtain a non-smart TV today and they listed 0 options for them.

You absolutely can, as noted elsewhere in this (and about 25 other HN threads).

In any case, if the question is "recommend a dumb TV to me" the answer should include at least one dumb TV, even if the editor wants to note that they aren't as good as his favorite TV.

This article is like if someone asked for a recommendation on a new bike, and the answer was "cars are faster, buy a car and pretend it's a bike"

Hmm, maybe more like “recommend me a manual transmission vehicle” and the answer you get back is why you really want an automatic, and here are some nice models you can buy that are all automatic.

Infuriating in either case.

I don't understand why that's so difficult for people? Just don't connect it to the internet. It's going to magically show you ads or track you without internet.

Because there are none that provide value. They list alternative options.

The Betteridge's Law of Headlines strikes again.

For those that don't know, the law states "Any headline that ends in a question mark will contain a comment mentioning Betteridge's Law."

That's funny.

What it actually states is this:

"Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

Because they claim the not-smart versions aren't worth it. They suggest alternative solutions, some of which commenters here have already echoed. Why the cynicism?

Then provide the reader with the name of the very best crappy one and what features it lacks. That at very least answer's the question that was posed. The writer mention bluetooth connectivity as something they want tv's to have. I consider that feature stupid and wouldnt consider that a negative.

The "aren't worth it" argument is entirely arbitrary and not backed up by a shred of evidence. Why defend bad journalism?