It's the most applicable comparison I could drum up. You could also say it's one typical lunch for two people.
It only keyed in my memory because I watch people pay $4 for coffee every work day but balk at something that's $80/month, or even $20/month (in this case). Perspective is strange.
I don't mean to sound snarky, I just thought it was a wonderful summary of the stereotypical HN reader - reading a paid Times subscription on an iPad and comparing the value to Starbucks coffee.
I don't think it's reasonable to consider that a stereotypical HN reader - after all, the discussion started with an observation of how many people apparently do not read a paid Times subscription, on an iPad or otherwise.
And I can only speak for myself when I say I consider Starbucks coffee prohibitively expensive. In that respect, the comparison is apt.
It only keyed in my memory because I watch people pay $4 for coffee every work day but balk at something that's $80/month, or even $20/month (in this case). Perspective is strange.