Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

honestlyranked.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 398 posts

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#261

Post by WarmWash »

psim1 wrote: post #221

One of the highest-value streaming subscriptions you can get is PBS Passport. You get it with a $60 donation to either a PBS TV or NPR radio station. The donation is tax-deductible and the PBS subscription is rich with high-quality content for both adults and children.

The last PBS produced video I watched (it was on yt) was on the current super El Nino, totally cool. But somehow they managed to segue into more than a few minutes of "Remind white people of what happened 300 years ago" right in the middle of it.

No thanks. I'm here for science, and if your writers are mostly people primarily concerned with making sure they bow at the alter in every single video, I'm 100% out. It's like watching a cooking video produced by a Christian group that works Jesus into chopping carrots.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#262

Post by BeetleB »

psim1 wrote: post #221

One of the highest-value streaming subscriptions you can get is PBS Passport. You get it with a $60 donation to either a PBS TV or NPR radio station. The donation is tax-deductible and the PBS subscription is rich with high-quality content for both adults and children.

> The donation is tax-deductible

Is it? One of the requirements is "No goods or services were given for this donation."

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#263

Post by gruturo »

The raise is even worse if you look further back than 2021. Netflix was 7.99 for ages, while the "floor" in 2021 is 13.99. Against the original baseline, the new 19.99 price is not a +43% but a +150%.

Most importantly 13.99 already in 2021 bought LESS than 7.99 or 8.99 bought until a while before. Thanks to the fragmentation, the catalogue was way larger before, and as of 2022 ads were introduced to further insult the customer.

High seas it is.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#264

Post by dgellow »

Larrikin wrote: post #229
dgellow wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you create content that people like, with a distinct style, one can direct their LLM to it and copy the style. The more content you have out there the better the copy will be. I don’t think it’s really a differentiation you can rely upon

The world you are describing assumes nobody will produce anything anymore because of theft. I think there will be a reset and hopefully content producers like Mr Beast will lose out. But, I do not think people, similar to the original participants on the Internet, will refuse to make anything. I expect a return to Live journal similar content where we get actual opinions even if we sadly lose out on long tail content…

> The world you are describing assumes nobody will produce anything anymore because of theft.

I don’t believe that at all, and it’s not implied in my comments. What I’m saying is that the value isn’t in the style, that part can also be replicated. It’s not in the content, that can be replicated. It’s the same for >90% of startup ideas people come up with when discovering agent coding. You were able to create a cool SaaS project in a weekend? Congrats. Any other dev can point their LLM to your website/app and make a clone in even less time. The safe ones have a high barrier of entry, such as hardware, or similar, but the vast majority is trivially cloneable.

I don’t know what that will result in. I assume we will be chasing more human experiences, but I have no idea.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#265

Post by throw10920 »

traviswingo wrote: post #242
walrus01 wrote: post #57

From an aesthetic point of view, I am getting pretty tired of this obviously LLM generated static site content template design in 2025/2026. 98% of the time when I see one of these it's a bunch of "content" generated by Claude or similar. Quoting the site: "Written by Rashid N. Rashid N is the editor of HonestlyRanked. He reviews every figure this site publishes against its source before it goes out, and has never ac…

I’m not meaning to be abrasive here, but these comments are also getting old and tired. And it’s not even relevant to what’s actually on the site linked. Who cares if the site is LLM generated? Did you care before when you saw the same Wordpress theme repeatedly, or Bootstrap layouts? The content is what’s interesting, and it is. Edit to clarify: I read the comment as the issue being the look and feel of the site bei…

> Who cares if the site is LLM generated?

Lots of people. Even on HN, which is wildly unrepresentative of the US as a whole, comments that "this site was AI-generated" are commonly upvoted to the top because people do care.

That includes me. If it's AI-generated, I don't care about it - if it wasn't worth their time to write, it's not worth my time to read. I can generate it myself.

> The content is what’s interesting

If it's generated, the odds of it being wrong are far higher, because people who publish generated content are far less likely to care about quality or correctness.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#266

Post by semilin »

subtlejellyfish wrote: post #180
walrus01 wrote: post #57

From an aesthetic point of view, I am getting pretty tired of this obviously LLM generated static site content template design in 2025/2026. 98% of the time when I see one of these it's a bunch of "content" generated by Claude or similar. Quoting the site: "Written by Rashid N. Rashid N is the editor of HonestlyRanked. He reviews every figure this site publishes against its source before it goes out, and has never ac…

I can understand that its tiresome, but its also not new. Every medium, livejournal, blogger, etc page in the look nearly exactly the same. Or Twitter Bootstrap sites. I'll give them some credit here: its at least been worked into a terse format unlike a lot of the docs I get from people who seem to think AI's ability to add verbosity is somehow a virtue.

Looking the same is not itself the problem. This is a same-looking that indicates a lack of human thought underlying it. That is a problem, and it is concerning to me if one does not think this.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#267

Post by names_are_hard »

myrmidon wrote: post #144
heaney-555 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It is way cheaper long term. How few songs do you listen to, and movies/shows do you watch, for this to possibly be true?

Buying breaking bad on DVD is So if you watch People tend to wastly overpay for subscriptions because they end up underutilized and are typically never cancelled quickly enough because people are lazy.

2 seasons per month? I started watching The Sopranos this week, I watched 1.5 seasons over the weekend.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#268

Post by _vertigo »

CPLX wrote: post #67
ahmedfromtunis wrote: post #35

Any price comparison over time should include inflation. Otherwise this is akin to comparing speed of 2 objects in a relativistic setting without stating the frame of reference. Side note: I don't know why, but the existence of a "cite this" section on this page made me sad.

This IS inflation. That's like saying your snow report for skiing should be adjusted for weather.

No, it's like making a snow report for a handful of skiing areas in a small geographical area (e.g. Sierras) and then contextualizing it against the snow report for all skiing areas in the broader region (e.g. Western US).

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#269

Post by dijit »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #179
dijit wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

buy 13 songs a month, every month, for a year, and see how big your library is. Remembering that a song at full price on itunes store is $1~ and a monthly subscription to spotify is $13 There is a compounding effect, so buying my library as it is today will cost me about $300~, but that's because I've accumulated 300 songs over the course of about 12 years. (300/12) is about $25 per year. So the delta is $131... for…

300 songs is not many at all. I have purchased around 20,000 songs in my life. Would it have been cheaper to use Spotify? I suppose so but (a) they don’t have all the music I want and (b) I prefer having the independence to control my media. Also Spotify didn’t exist when I started :)

300 songs might not sound like many, yet that is how many items have been added to my library or to a playlist in 12 years.

So I can't really speak to anything else than that. That's my usage pattern, yours may be different.

I keep yearly playlists (starting 2023) where I add songs I like and each one is only about 30 songs on average, so that somewhat matches the aggregate number over a decade..

I guess I stick to the things I like and find things I like in DJ sets or on the Gym radio- I'm not investigating new music through subscription services.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#270

Post by Arubis »

ragall wrote: post #245
traviswingo wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not meaning to be abrasive here, but these comments are also getting old and tired. And it’s not even relevant to what’s actually on the site linked. Who cares if the site is LLM generated? Did you care before when you saw the same Wordpress theme repeatedly, or Bootstrap layouts? The content is what’s interesting, and it is. Edit to clarify: I read the comment as the issue being the look and feel of the site bei…

> Who cares if the site is LLM generated? Good people do.

I wish we could get past this debate.

Different people have different feelings. Bucketing into binary "good" and "not good" based on whether they have the exact same framing as you do is dehumanizing. Stop it. Respect other people.

There is space for nuance:

If you're spitting out raw LLM output and not looking at or reading it and requiring other people to use it as-is, while representing it as your own original work, you are treating your own time and attention as more valuable than that of others. You can expect a reaction based on this.

If you're blanket-dismissing someone else's work because they used one or more specific tools, regardless of how much of their own time and attention they put into it before sharing it in a place where you were able to see it -- or perhaps you're doing that dismissal without even seeing it -- you are treating their time and attention as superficial and a rounding error compared with their choice of tools. You can expect a reaction based on this.

In between, there is a _whole_ lot of room for different take and opinions, and we're collectively figuring out what's acceptable and what isn't. We'll never fully get there and that is Okay. But we can at least try to calibrate on "are we treating other people respectfully" instead of a shitty proxy for it.

Post reply on HN