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

I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

metro.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–526 of 526 posts

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#521

Post by calmoo »

mcluck wrote: post #517
calmoo wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When people talk about Deutsche Bahn being unreliable, they are talking about the cross-country regional / ICE network, not city rail (S-Bahn etc in Berlin, Hamburg are frequent and pretty reliable). You may have had a good experience here in Germany as a tourist, but it's simply not reality. Trains are not reliably on time here these days, and it's a huge problem. I do not doubt the DART is unreliable in Dublin, the…

Ah, that changes things. I haven't ridden the cross-country trains there much. Thanks for the clarification

No worries. The city transport here in Germany is on another level, incredibly efficient and reliable, I agree there!

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#522

Post by devilbunny »

syndicatedjelly wrote: post #519
devilbunny wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don’t have to zap every penny of debt in order to enjoy your life. No, you don't, but you can't discharge student loans in a bankruptcy, and you have to pay them every month once you're no longer a student. When I got to the end of medical residency, I took a job starting the day after it ended. A German-born and raised doctor of my acquaintance said that I was being foolish, I should take a month off after fou…

Thanks for sharing. What was the lesson you learned from that experience?

Some people offer useless advice, and he's one of them?

Seriously, unless you're from a well-off family, have joined the military, or have a well-paid spouse, even making the schooling free would require borrowing living expenses.

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#523

Post by jamiek88 »

JackSlateur wrote: post #401
jamiek88 wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes and everyone understood what was meant from context without the pedantry. Do you really think people don’t know which continent the UK belongs to? Do you think people are in danger of thinking the UK is actually in Africa or Asia when the colloquialism of ‘Europe’ is used?

Do you really think people don’t know which continent the UK belongs to? Have you heard of americans ?

Touché!

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#524

Post by justincormack »

seabass-labrax wrote: post #439
justincormack wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting better again slowly after a bad period.

To what are you referring? The Interrail/Eurail scheme getting better again after a bad period?

Sleeper trains getting better, after most were discountinued. SOme more have started up recently.

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#525

Post by octopusRex »

selimthegrim wrote: post #363
octopusRex wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in the US. We wanted a commuter train in my city - instead we got a very expensive toll lane built by a Spanish company. The tolls are so expensive by the mile that only the wealthy or those with a business that can write them off as an expense use the lane. If the company doesn't make enough, our taxes have to pay for the shortfall.

Is this Dallas or Houston?

Piedmont of NC... When I visited Dallas, I found it very similar.

Re: I spend £8,500 a year to live on a train

#526

Post by unglaublich »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #460
broeng wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to you, when does a child earn their own share of sunlight, so their parents are not "overusing" their share? Is it at a certain age, or is that only for children born latest at $YOUR_BIRTHYEAR?

It's illogical to assume that was literal. They are pointing out that what the previous commenter said was ridiculous, by saying the same thing with merely other variables swapped in which more obviously illustrates how ridiculous the original statement was.

Yes, it's called a "false analogy", a typical informal fallacy.

There is nothing ridiculous about the fact that people-that-use-more-than-average (over-users: p>.5) are compensated by people-that-use-less-than-average (under-users: p<.5) to establish an average... it's called spread.

Post reply on HN