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

The baseline premise that it’s more expensive is wrong. It can be as it’s a very big marketplace. But your entire stance is based on this static absolute that the cost is premium and that’s a wrong assumption.

Different people like different things at different times.

what does that even mean?

you’re bragging about being above mcdonalds. on an internet forum.

chill


synchronous vs asynchronous entertainment.

I took the advice as to remove the stress and pressure of assuming kids need synchronous attention to stay entertained. They sure will want it. resist.


but then no one can say anything to anyone about anything.

its ok to say what you mean and have it land in different ways for different people.


> but then no one can say anything to anyone about anything

I was going to say that this is an absurd leap, but going off your username I suspect that was the point.


Is that not reasonable? The cost on society is a measure of justice.

What? after reading your first sentence many times it’s basically saying you’re of the mind that a criminal very likely has way more crimes that we’ve just haven’t seen so they should be prosecuted heavily for the one we did see just to make sure we get our prosecution-bang for the buck?

Not sure where you got that idea. No where did I express interest in punishing the perpetrator for anything more than what they were caught. My point is that their "solution" to justice does not solve vandalism the way that it they think it does.

what do you mean when you say the $500 is for what they were caught doing not the total damage caused?

Do you mean like $500 may be the estimate of repair but living in a heavily graffitied neighborhood lowers property values? so net damage is way more?


Do you seriously believe that this person only tagged once in their life and got caught the first time? Even they just happened to be very unlucky, do you think they would never do it again? I'm not talking about how the law should treat them. They should still receive a punishment fit for a $500 crime. The person responded claimed this was a waste of everyone's time and money, but that's missing the point. If the vandal has absolute no consequences they have no incentive to stop.

If the punishment is equal to the value of the crime then as long as the rate at which you are caught is less than 100% crime is a profitable option.

Doesn’t that prove actually that the act of theft is not some calculated needs based negotiation in need of “the right threshold” to deter crime?

Like fare hopping, first half of my life i thought how unfair that i have to drone away as a tool of society and pay like a shmuck meanwhile these freeloaders have happily escaped the matrix.

second half of life i realized being unwilling or unable to pay $2.50 for public transist is an issue between that person and their life situation. If that’s what they need, I support the subsidy.


safe transit is important exactly for the people who barely have a few dollars for transit. subsidized tickets are the way to go. by enabling and allowing fare evasion for those who need it unfortunately allows those to get in who don't need to.

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2026/news20260908


Good framing. its a better way to convey that crime isn’t simply solved by punishing the “bad” people.

If you can’t pay for your next meal $20 might as well be $2 thousand or $20 thousand. Thats why overdraft fees are exploitative.

A person doesn’t steal a sandwich from 7-11, not get caught, then suddenly realize they can drain unsuspecting grandmas’ bank accounts by implementing a long con through masquerading as a long lost nephew through Facebook.


Im sure you’re familiar with the problem that lower thresholds creates a tool for selective application.

Consider applying for YC's Winter 2027 batch! Applications are open till November 2.

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

Search: