Local delivery of the NYT costs $5.85/week, or about $25/month. Outside of the NYC metro area, the print edition is $7.40/week or about $35/month. So $15/month for the same content anywhere in the country (more content, really, since the online version is updated throughout the day and includes video & interactive features) seems like a pretty good deal to me. DH is pretty addicted to the dead tree edition or I'd switch today.

$15 a month is a good deal compared to $35 a month, but a bad deal compared to $0 a month. It's all relative.

If we're paying for the articles, in this model, we're also paying for a lot of advertisements, and we are getting those in spades (aggressive ones, too).

The ads are the only thing that makes it possible for a newspaper to offer a reasonable subscription price in any format. Take out the ads and the subscription price just about triples.

I've been paying $12 a year for the crosswords in the NYT, but it also lets me read the online edition. I wonder if that will change.

One of the comments on the Times article notes that the commenter lives in India and $15 is about his daily salary, yet he reads the Times regularly online. They don't have differential pricing for the third world, which is interesting. I am sure they have their own numbers on where clicks are coming from, and have considered the issue; it would be fascinating to get some insight into the decision-making process.

In other possibly contentious news, for anyone interested in instant oatmeal (THE HORROR!), Serious Eats has done a series of taste-tests: [link]

Take out the ads and the subscription price just about triples.

I understand that. That wasn't really my point.

Hm, I pay $40/year for the crossword subscription.

I didn't know one could subscribe to just the crosswords! Damn, I should do that.

More remarkably, Tepco warned on Wednesday: "The possibility of re-criticality is not zero".

It's not zero, but right now it doesn't look likely, and several people more expert than I are confused by that statement. This is, however, a situation that has been as extreme an example of Murphy's Law as you're ever likely to see.

Tepco and the NRC are at odds about the status of the Unit 4 pool. Tepco says it has water; the NRC says it does not. The NRC has people in Japan, but there hasn't been any indication that they're on site. I'd guess they're extrapolating from the radiation readings, but they've gone up and down wildly. Tepco has increased the number of workers on site, which indicates they really don't think the fuel is uncovered. Ultimately, that would be hard to lie about, because there would be dead workers. Tepco says it has temperature readings in all the fuel pools of 60-70 C, and the temperature would have to go up about 2,000 degrees for criticality. I hope Tepco understand that by the time this event is picked over by hundreds of nuclear engineers, no lie will stand. At the same time, the NRC's first instinct in almost any situation is "Ur doing it wrong."

Criticality wouldn't mean it would blow up, but it would become much more radioactive, probably making it impossible to keep working on the site.

If they can just get the offsite power to the site, they can start normal cooling. Apparently they're fighting earthquake debris every inch of the way.

It looks like they're now consulting with the World Association of Nuclear Operators, which would include people in Atlanta, and WANO seems to concur that it's possible that containment has not been breached on Units 1-3, which is the good news.