3 ms·

Wow. After reading this I would downvote this article if I had downvotes.

• dasil003 15y ago
  Why? Because you find it irritating that he finds it irritating that some people spend more time cutting others down than trying to improve themselves?
  • emu 15y ago
    The majority of comments on this post are of the form "his analysis is wrong, because it doesn't take into account factors x, y, and z". That's great --- we're having a civil discussion about the merits of his argument. Linking to his blog post in this way is tantamount to implying that the commenters on this thread are "complainypants", which I find quite rude. If that wasn't his intention, then he certainly could have done a much better job communicating it. (This is my last post on this topic.)
    • dasil003 15y ago
      The post he was responding too wasn't any kind of civil or even logical discussion. It just said his examples and analysis were borderline garbage with no justification.
      • roc 15y ago
        Which is a fair point. I actually had originally drafted a much longer reply which included additional problems with the figures and comparisons [1]. But after about 10 minutes I realized that the author wasn't making a financial argument from the numbers, he was making an emotional argument with hand-waved numbers for garnish. And that, despite my interest in the issue and agreement with his conclusion, it simply wasn't worth that kind of time. [1] e.g. $200/20,000 miles for car costs beyond oil/gas/tires is laughably low; ignoring parking/toll costs in the no-commute/used-car case; considering lost time in the commuting case but not lost-personal time in the no-commute case; assuming financing in the commuting case and savings for a used car in the no-commute case; ... generally just considering worst-case for the commuting case and best-case for the no-commute case in almost all things