> No it isn't. YT Premium in the UK is £12.99.

https://www.google.com/search?q=12.99+GBP+in+USD

> It's funny how people are so dishonest on HN

seriously?

> Or just pay for it?

So I do now, but only since I moved to a country where it doesn't cost so much. I watch maybe 6 hours absolutely tops of YouTube a month? I get charged $7/m for it, which still feels usurious, but in the UK they want almost $17/m which is firmly in "go fuck yourself" territory. I'd like them to tier pricing so casual users like me aren't paying for people who are using YouTube as their primary entertainment mechanism.

> It's like trying to replace coffee with caffeine

Given how many people drink artificially caffeinated beverages this feels like a poor example

Current line-up for paid is WSJ, WashPo, and The Economist.

WSJ has been excellent. Coverage and analysis are absolutely top notch. The editorials are … right wing trash, but usually well written. The Economist is slower news which is a good alternative; inserts its editorial stance into the actual news, but as a classical liberal I’m fine with that.

I’ll probably let WashPo lapse; not sure it’s providing anything more than WSJ is at the moment for me.

Others I’ve subscribed to: FT — it was good, slightly slower news than WSJ but faster than The Economist. Spectator — right wing trash but exceptionally well-written — if you want to know what the mean-spirited right are feeling on any issue, this will tell you. Foreign Policy — great analysis but honestly felt like news that was too slow.

I wonder at what point all the self-driving code becomes replaceable with a multimodal generalist model with the prompt “drive safely”