[crcl]

I understand the sentiment, but disagree with the conclusion. If an information/continuing-education tool is exactly what I'm looking for and isn't prohibitively expensive for me, then it's worth it (note: recognizing that I'm assuming HN is such a tool for you). At $10/month, the tool is cheaper than what many folks pay for coffee.

Anecdotally, there are also lots of folks that say they can build something similar without having to spend the money, but how often do they actually build it? And how much time would they actually spend building it? If the existing tool works the way I want/need it to, I'm more likely to gain value by paying for that existing solution than building it myself.

[rozenmd]

The tool isn't coffee though.

https://blog.gingerlime.com/2020/the-cup-of-coffee-pricing-f...

[crcl]

Yeah, that article makes fair arguments, there are a lot of (often inaccurate) assumptions that go into comparing subscription services to the price of coffee.

I still think the comparison can be a useful way to measure one's own willingness to spend money because it can highlight how the cost of something seemingly mundane adds up. My armchair theory is that people don't always think about their cup of coffee (or anything that, in the moment, seems like a one-off expense) in terms of the annual cost, but they do think of subscription services in those terms (rightly so). And contextualizing e.g. coffee-spending in terms of annual cost can be a helpful way to determine for oneself whether a product is worth it.

And yes, it depends on how that individual values things, and it may not be the right comparison to make for you, but broadly, I think the exercise of thinking about how habitual costs add up is helpful. And again yes, this depends on the individual, maybe this is something you already do and have been doing for a long time so isn't helpful for you.

I agree the comparison isn't accurate and should be examined in context, but I don't think it should be avoided completely.