← Back to context Comment by aadhavans 9 months ago I believe they meant an additional $110, which would be a 110% markup. 3 comments aadhavans Reply pseudalopex 9 months ago Why do you believe this? lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9 months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43787992> of paying $2 to $3 more on a $100 item, not paying $110 more on a $100 item$110 more on a $100 item would be $210. I have no idea where pwg got the “$110 more”, though. Seems the in-context comparison would be “$85 more”. d1sxeyes 9 months ago Probably because that’s approximately in line with the article.
pseudalopex 9 months ago Why do you believe this? lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9 months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43787992> of paying $2 to $3 more on a $100 item, not paying $110 more on a $100 item$110 more on a $100 item would be $210. I have no idea where pwg got the “$110 more”, though. Seems the in-context comparison would be “$85 more”. d1sxeyes 9 months ago Probably because that’s approximately in line with the article.
lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 9 months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43787992> of paying $2 to $3 more on a $100 item, not paying $110 more on a $100 item$110 more on a $100 item would be $210. I have no idea where pwg got the “$110 more”, though. Seems the in-context comparison would be “$85 more”.
Why do you believe this?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43787992
> of paying $2 to $3 more on a $100 item, not paying $110 more on a $100 item
$110 more on a $100 item would be $210. I have no idea where pwg got the “$110 more”, though. Seems the in-context comparison would be “$85 more”.
Probably because that’s approximately in line with the article.