Hacker News Reader

I mean, there was the obvious solution of paying the money to have it captioned, which was the original order.

Berkeley instead offered this alternative solution, because they did not want to pay.

The obvious solution was for a school to use their resources not on their students but for the general public?

I guess they spent a tiny bit of money so why not 1000% times more?

I don't mind giving your child some candy on Halloween but I'm not going to pay for braces. Even though he may really need them.

As we all know, there is no middle ground between "paying for video captions" and "financing all money ever for the rest of time", and I think that's unfortunate.

I feel like there is a logical paradox here. You're using a bigger hyperbole to criticize a hyperbole. If this argument is valid then it invalidates itself.

It would be nice if they revisited it in light of AI captioning services.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com