> They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news in Economist / FT / WSJ / WashingtonPost etc...
> Well except paying $300 a month
It looks like the WSJ is available for $2/mo or the WaPo for $2.50 mo. You probably don’t need all of them simultaneously as they frequently cover the same topics, including pretty much all of the big news stories - subscribe to one for a year then switch to another. And even if you aren’t subscribed to all of them you are still contributing in a small way to keeping good journalism alive.
My reply was to help the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news". If you already have multiple paid news subscriptions that are working great for you, you can ignore my suggestions. Edit: Ah, you were the grandparent commenter who said "They are the only reliable way for me to read proper news."
Is that sarcasm, or do you really need 20 of them? I'm an avid news reader, and there is no way I could get through even a fraction of that number of news sources daily.
And isn't most major news covered by every one of the biggest news sources - one great source can accommodate the vast majority of news topics for someone, especially if they are on a tight budget.
> do you really need 20 of them ... no way I could get through even a fraction of that
We actually kind of need more than that. It is like here: we collectively select through ranking a number of pieces - but they are scattered (on a.com and b.org and c.info...).
I would also like to read through the whole of the Economist and the FT etc. - what we do instead is select what we read, and what we pick will come from many sources.
Fucking sucks, what's the alternative for people without money or people who the papers/businesses don't allow them to do subscribe because of the country they're from/in?
Tried searching for the submission article or even a mention of this event on their websites but I found nothing. Are you sure these are actually faithful replacements of everything that archive.is/.today unlocks for people? It's a lot of paywalls they remove, lots of stuff isn't reported elsewhere.
dmortin · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/business/entrepreneurship/burned-out-and-unemployed-young-people-in-china-are-launching-ai-startups-c5ebcdc3" rel="nofollow">https://www.wsj.com/business/entrepreneurship/burned-out-and...
Error: Invalid InterceptionId.
cluckindan · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidance" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Archive.today_guidan...
apexalpha · · focus · HN ↗
Well except paying $300 a month I guess.
no-name-here · · focus · HN ↗
> Well except paying $300 a month
It looks like the WSJ is available for $2/mo or the WaPo for $2.50 mo. You probably don’t need all of them simultaneously as they frequently cover the same topics, including pretty much all of the big news stories - subscribe to one for a year then switch to another. And even if you aren’t subscribed to all of them you are still contributing in a small way to keeping good journalism alive.
apexalpha · · focus · HN ↗
Just a matter of priorities.
no-name-here · · focus · HN ↗
javier2 · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
no-name-here · · focus · HN ↗
And isn't most major news covered by every one of the biggest news sources - one great source can accommodate the vast majority of news topics for someone, especially if they are on a tight budget.
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
mdp2021 · · focus · HN ↗
We actually kind of need more than that. It is like here: we collectively select through ranking a number of pieces - but they are scattered (on a.com and b.org and c.info...).
I would also like to read through the whole of the Economist and the FT etc. - what we do instead is select what we read, and what we pick will come from many sources.
cluckindan · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
no-name-here · · focus · HN ↗
embedding-shape · · focus · HN ↗
mitxela · · focus · HN ↗
Besides, if it's free, you're the product.