25 ms·
It's the most applicable comparison I could drum up. You could also say it's one typical lunch for two people. It only keyed in my memory because I watch peopl
by jspthrowaway2 14y ago
It's the most applicable comparison I could drum up. You could also say it's one typical lunch for two people.
It only keyed in my memory because I watch people pay $4 for coffee every work day but balk at something that's $80/month, or even $20/month (in this case). Perspective is strange.
- rednukleus 14y agoI don't mean to sound snarky, I just thought it was a wonderful summary of the stereotypical HN reader - reading a paid Times subscription on an iPad and comparing the value to Starbucks coffee.
- sesqu 14y agoI don't think it's reasonable to consider that a stereotypical HN reader - after all, the discussion started with an observation of how many people apparently do not read a paid Times subscription, on an iPad or otherwise. And I can only speak for myself when I say I consider Starbucks coffee prohibitively expensive. In that respect, the comparison is apt.
- jspthrowaway2 14y agoDefinitely not comparing value. Comparing cost.
- pretoriusB 14y agoThe same thing. I believe he was pointing at the "well-off white male / hipster" smell of it all, not implying that they underappreciated the NYT.