My stepdad was a mechanic. He always complained about how insufferable doctors were compared to anyone else. He hated working on their cars.

Quick w/o googling name the other traffic hit.

Dear Mr fantasy ldo

Well played - old.

I think I had all their albums at one point.

You must have smoked a lot of weed.

Every time somebody argues about the correct price of WaPo, the terrorists win.

I was never into weed. Beer was enough. And now I can't spare any brain cells so rarely drink either. Also donated all my vinyl. *sigh*

Come on dealer! One time!

The guy did such a poor job of articulating his idea that I'm not even sure I agree with him, but to share an anecdote:

At the 1-8 'gifted' school I attended, one of the 'dumbest' kids, relatively speaking, who didn't wash out went on to get a PhD in chemical engineering whereas others, let's say, me, for example, who were off the charts of the IOWA test by 3rd grade didn't even graduate HS. This kid was also a good friend of mine and I informally tutored him for years, well into HS. He just couldn't intuitively grasp the concepts like the sharper kids but he just worked so damn hard at it, probably harder than anybody else I can think of off the top of my head.

Again, I'm not entirely sure this is what that poster was getting at, but it's what occurred to me. Understand this kid and I were two opposite ends of the spectrum and most fall in the middle.

This pricing seems absurd to me. People have the preconceived expectation that reading an article on the internet shouldn't cost anything. Charging as much as a Netflix or Amazon prime subscription to read news on the internet can't be the most profitable way to do things. If they charged like $1-$2/month and made it one of those auto-renew things that takes a 45-minute phone call with some customer service center to cancel, I'm pretty damn sure they'd rake in a lot more money from online subscriptions. I want to read this article right now, but it's behind a paywall? Fk it, I'll pay $1.75, and never bother to cancel it. $9.50/month to read a few news stories online? Hell no.

It seems so obvious to me that there's got to be something else at play here. Like they'd rather make 10 million dollars a year from a specific demographic than make 50 million a year from the public at large. Something's definitely screwy with the online newspaper subscription business.

To me it sounds what WH employees would say while having a beer after work, right before they rant on how Ivanka and Jared, while completely unqualified are no their bosses.I wouldnt expect it to happen though.

Bombshells like "Trump always gets two scoops of ice cream" or bombshells like "they were selling secrets to Russia?"

@Adebisi: It's a more than fair price. Literally 25 cents per day. The people who have your mentality generally won't pay any amount more than zero. I'd be shocked if they could quintuple their subscriptions by charging $2 per month instead of $9. Charging the highest amount that the average person who's willing to pay will pay is a solid tactic.

Edit: There's also a large contingent of people like zikzak who are paying not so much for a product they use, but to support the creators of work they appreciate. So the options for these people are currently 9 dollars per month or no support. Imo anyone who had the impulse to buy WaPo as a show of support would not find < 30 cents per day prohibitively expensive.

They were selling ice cream to russia

ALL

ALONG

I've had this damn idea since the 90s - let me pay $10-20/month for a subscription to NYT, WaPo, WSJ, LA Times, Boston Globe, Economist and whatever else. Get ****tier papers to actually pay to be on the list. Don't make me sign up and put my credit card information on 10 different websites and get spammed by 10 different papers.

WHY HAS THIS NOT HAPPENED YET?

I bet anything it's because these idiot executives think their Big Data spamming lists are so damn valuable that they can't be shared with anyone. Morons.

I am paying for LA Times and WaPo online - literally just to try to support investigative journalism. That cannot be a sustainable business model.

And freaking LA Times has already pissed me off half a dozen times by making it nearly impossible for me to cancel the Sunday paper, which I just threw away every week, and felt psychic stress over. They basically said they would charge me more if I switched to online only - because I had some special deal for online + Sunday paper for 6 months. So I waited 6 months, called back, dude said the same thing. I said - then why are you offering online only right now on your website for cheaper than I am paying? Oh. Yeah ok we'll cancel your Sunday paper and give you that price.

Ugh - openly hostile to your customers is not a good business model either.

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/868532527337746432

GTFOOH we're losing allies over another personal vendetta? And he DGAF about anything and just blurts that out?

WHAT ELSE DID BLABBERMOUTH DO OVERSEAS?

*Cue Ezra Klein voice*

This idea might not exist for all the competing papers, but plenty of good magazines have chosen to participate in just that with the texture app.

Bloomberg businessweek, forbes, fortune, newsweek, the new yorker, the atlantic, national review, new york magazine, rolling stone, time magazine, just to name a few are all available on the texture app, with over a hundred others in various categories. one monthly fee, all your magazines, one place. Texture

https://twitter.com/yashar/status/868621881699704832

Thread on the Twitter chatter of the NYT follow-up explaining that Jared's meeting was about Syria and why 1) regardless of the subject of the meeting, the subject doesn't preclude criminal activity, and 2) creating a secret backchannel with Russia to discuss Syria (with Russian perspective and alignment) is even worse than just creating a secret backchannel with Russia.

Previous Republican and Democrat Admins:
"We need to go on with our daily lives. Otherwise, the terrorists win."

Trump's DHS Head John Kelly:
"If people knew what I knew about terrorism, they would never leave the house."

Im actually content with what i wrote, i dont think its unclear.

Your anecdote example here is very good. You cant necessarily change your IQ or recall ability etc by reading books, but you fill your mind with content and models that lets you become alot more reflected than other people that didnt read anything. So your abilities remains the same more or less, but you appear alot more intelligent since you actually know something. A smart guy without books cant even read and cant even math, which is pretty damn useful if you are going to be a reflected person on various topics.

Am I crazy or are you basically saying you want the newspaper version of cable companies, where you pay an absurd amount of money for stuff you never read? Like, I'd love for everything on my TV to be a la carte instead of paying whatever the subscriber fee is for CNBC and Animal Channel, but it seems like you're saying you'd love that?

LC but fun...

There were a treasure trove of tweets overnight. Don Junior actually liked this reply to Mark Cuban's request for Presidential qualifications, thinking it scored points lol:


https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/868554079928295425https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/s...61607000956928

I won't debate that horrific list, not even "Necessary firings" (hahaha), but I will ask "Is that the best you can do??" We're talking about POTUS, not president of an Italian-American social club.

Deplorables trying to tout Trump's accomplishments makes for some golden comments. Take a look at the Scott Adams ones if you have time. Two of my favorites were "approval is 50% and climbing" and "foreign relationships." The comments show how very duped these people are. It's as if none of the giant scandals are even happening.

EDIT: How are some of these serious replies NOT parodies? Really...

https://twitter.com/americashawk/sta...29852005568512
https://twitter.com/CountrygirlTP/st...41845219348480
https://twitter.com/poseyjt/status/868573631743352832

Hand shakes?

I guess "necessary firings" can be valid, if you don't consider who it was necessary for and why. I'll never be able to read Dilbert the same way again.