Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | ace32229's commentslogin

That's what, £1100 per month? How can you survive on that in an expensive city?


£1100/mo is about the minimum I could get by on in Edinburgh, yeah. It’s a room in a flat share with bills, £60/week on food, and £150/mo for “everything else”. It’s about as low as I think you could do. The person I replied to was talking about Nirvana in the 90s - when they were working part timeminimum wage jobs that’s roughly the life they’re living.

If you go to Liverpool (which significantly punches for musical history), it’s actually manageable on 20hr/weeek minimum wage.

You’re not talking sustaining a family or anything, but that life has been gone for 40 years at this point.


And the MC from 11/22/63 meeting the characters from It, and feeling Pennywise's presence.


>the UK has never had this so people there either choose by brand or just convenience

Disagree - drivers maintain a mental map of local stations and know roughly how expensive they are, and make a decision based on that. Obviously this API will help inform us better!


I never did in 25 years of driving in the UK. "Need petrol buy petrol, try to avoid doing that on the motorway".

Maybe it's me that's weird. No, surely that can't be right... :)


> I never did in 25 years of driving in the UK. "Need petrol buy petrol, try to avoid doing that on the motorway".

Same here.

Sometimes even on the A413...


These things are not true in the UK - all fuel is held to the same high standard, though premium variants are available too.


So no petrol is permitted to be higher quality (for the same octane rating)?

ie you're asserting there is zero variance in quality?

OP wrote lower quality, not low quality


By "lower quality" I did mean "low quality".

It's the reverse of "this one is more expensive therefore it must be better" without any evidence at all that it is the case.


Yeah fair enough that's probably true

Companies are permitted to add additives etc but whether that meaningfully improves quality I'm not sure


You are ignoring the point of TFA. Kalshi & Polymarkets provide a marketplace to monetise political decision-making, a.k.a corruption. This is definitely detrimental to society.


Digital ID makes no difference to this whatsoever. If a government wanted to cut you off from utilities they could make it happen within hours already.

Same with conscription, which needless to say was invented and effectively implemented prior to the invention of digital anything.


You should maybe read some articles about modern situations where people dodged conscription before assuming what is practical today. The average person who hasn't thought about it for a week is certainly in trouble but..


Why is the solution to avoiding conscription being able to hide rather than making the conscription not happen in the first place?


Governments in a position to conscript their citizens usually aren’t taking a lot of feedback on the issue.

Yes, fight in advance to prevent such a situation, but don’t assume you will win. It’s good to have a backup plan.


If the third world war were declared tomorrow I think there would be precious few governments who didn't get started on conscription.


I'm not sure about that. Maybe? But... Firstly, there are surprisingly many people who are insanely patriotic so would volunteer anyway (perhaps fewer than in the past but perhaps still enough; see point three). Secondly, there are surprisingly many people who enjoy violence and killing people so would volunteer anyway (this probably hasn't changed). Thirdly, modern warfare doesn't need large numbers of people (this has definitely changed over time). And fourthly, a lot of modern people rather object to being ordered around by the government (I think this has probably increased a bit, at least; I can imagine that there are even people who would volunteer for military service when it's optional but would resist being conscripted).


In fact I cant disagree with most of what you've said, except to say that I was thinking from the state perspective, rather than the cannon-fodder.

Conscription has never been popular, and I think today in healthy industrialised nations it would be an exceptionally hard sell. Ukraine, Russia and (somewhat) Israel give us hints here of what might happen if the US or Germany or India started drafting all able-bodied young men.

It would be a disaster, but my guess is that it wouldn't stop governments from trying.


You need to convince, what, 300 people in a country to vote in their voting system the right way, and then it affects millions of people.


> Digital ID makes no difference to this whatsoever.

Of course it does. It makes it possible to track exactly where you are and what you are doing. So it pushes the balance of power towards the authorities.


> It makes it possible to track exactly where you are and what you are doing

No??? What do you imagine, that every single transaction you make, like buying bread, will require a Digital ID? Why on earth would you imagine that?


if your digital ID is tied to your phone (which is eventually where things are going), that is exactly what is going to happen. There is no reason that it would stop somewhere in the middle.


Other than common sense and civic duty?

Why would anyone propose, and why would anyone agree to, Digital/Physical ID becoming mandatory for mundane transactions? It doesn't make any sense and it would never fly.


Betting sites set their odds to maximise their revenue, not reality ;)

Polymarkets currently has him at 3%

https://polymarket.com/event/nobel-peace-prize-winner-2025?t...


On the one hand, betting markets are fantastic predictors. I do really admire the "skin in the game" aspect tracking future outcomes better than polling or "expert" opinion.

But that comes at a steep cost. It's a huge negative externality. Placing bets on future outcomes like this isn't the same as placing bets on future outcomes by starting companies, investing in companies, doing fundamental research, or even putting your money in the public markets.

It's like sports betting. We're making the marketplace rich and separating gambling addicts from their livelihoods. Without enriching society.

We should tax this to pay for education or have some kind of societal upside. It's all bad, otherwise.


Which of these are meant to be unbland?


"disproportionately affects men AND WOMEN" is nonsensical.

"disproportionately affects men" makes sense.


The latter is no longer true


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: