That's brilliant, really. A beautification movement.

You don't have to be wealthy to have clean streets, manicured gardens, etc. It starts with a lack of tolerance for substandard conditions.

Absolutely right. There are many cultures where despite poverty, public areas are well organized and clean.

Inner city USA and much of India, sadly, are not so.

Please stop posting unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

Call Mike Wallace. Who knew?

And yet why only Spotify? In fact, the article makes no mention of it and the word "Spotify" only appears in the title.

Perhaps I should be thankful that this wasn't a blatant advert for Spotify. But you have to ask...

They even link to it streaming...on BandCamp.

Indeed. Why Spotify, when it's available DRM-free and in FLAC on Bandcamp...

Lame

Why are we pretending binge-watching entertainment is the same as the judicial process?

My understanding is that this is a documentary on the failings of judicial process in Wisconsin. I mean: it is not very entertaining, far less so than fictions on Netflix.

If you take away the main case (admittedly murkier), there is nothing more cringe-inducing that the details about the nephew’s case. It is just painful to listen to; everything about it talks about how a mentally handicapped relative, who had nothing to do with the case, was (on camera) abused by authority figures, and then wronged at every step of the judicial process. This is the least entertaining thing that I have seen all week (and I watched videos on how to set-up Docker), by far. It seems to me that this part is a highly relevant documentary on key failings of the process for younger or uneducated people. That kind of description cannot be satisfied by fiction. That kind of description is necessary to set up and improve the judicial process.

You can pay and get something or pay and get nothing.

If you don't go to the doctor and don't need medicine, the "something" isn't valuable especially if it's more expensive than the "nothing". (I say that as someone with a preexisting condition who is happy to pay my premiums and get the medicine I need; I also grew up in a family where we didn't have insurance but somehow always had cigarettes and cable TV, so I know multiple perspectives)

I'm 30 years old and haven't been to a doctor in about 10 years outside of simple things that I paid out of my own pocket. Nothing that a year of healthcare would cover, and considerably lower than it'd cost.

I'd have paid in tens of thousands of dollars over the course of that time, and for what? What ifs?

When you're 60 years old you're going to want doctors and nurses who know what they're doing. That means someone needs to pay now to train them and their replacements.

So what you're saying is if I don't go to the doctor for 10 years, but pay $350/mo over the course of that 10 years for an insurance plan, the insurance company uses the money to fund college education for nurses and doctors?

Doubt it.

Do you know how insurance works?

Are you familiar with the concept of "insurance"? Most people would ascribe value to it.

Paying more for something that you don't need is a sunk cost.

Right. And if you get nothing, you pay less.

What about it?