[burritofanatic]

> It’s a phenomenon that Richard Socher, the dishevelled 30-something (or 20-something?) lecturer who just sold his company for several hundred millions yet still biked to campus, mentioned in his class: “Companies keep asking my students to drop out to work for them.”

Why would anyone not continually bike for commuting purposes once they are wealthy? Biking is such a joy whether you're 7 or 70, rich, or poor.

[mncharity]

> Companies keep asking my students to drop out to work for them.

I've been told Berklee College of Music makes it very easy for students to leave and later come back, even years later, exactly to enable students to grab transient professional opportunities without sacrificing their education. I wonder how engineering schools stack up in comparison.

[kyrre]

Offtopic: Did salesforce really pay 'several hundred millions' for metamind? I assumed it was an aquihire of sorts.

[wfunction]

Safety concerns?

[semi-extrinsic]

Several studies have shown that the net health benefit of bicycling to/from work is large even when you account for accidents. Not hard to believe when you hear it halves the risk of cardiovascular disease, which is the most common cause of death in the US.

E.g. these authors find the health improvement statistically increases your life expectancy by up to 14 months, while traffic accidents statistically reduce it by up to 9 days. That's a ratio of 47 to 1.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2920084/

[wfunction]

I don't think people think in terms of life expectancy. Do you? Is a 1% chance of dying on your next ride and otherwise living 100 years equivalent to not riding your bike and living 99 years to you?

Edit regarding your comment: Oh, I see why you're confused. I didn't need to do the math because I was talking about a 1-time bike ride as an example to just get the point across -- it's already scary for 1 ride. But if you want the actual math for a lifetime, there's a ~1/5000 lifetime odds of dying in 1 year of biking. That's still pretty damn high. I don't know about you but I'd rather just give up on the 78th expected year of my life and lose the 0.1% chance of dying in the next 5 years.

[semi-extrinsic]

I'm assuming you didn't do the math there - in your hypothetical scenario I'd likely be dead within a year if I rode a bike every day. Then I obviously wouldn't do it.

But the point of bringing up the statistic is to check "is this risk worth worrying about, to the extent that I'm not gonna do thing X"? That's what a rational person does in all situations - is the risk of flying so high that I shouldn't go on holiday? No. Is the risk of falling if I climb that cellphone tower so high that it's not worth it for the view? Yes.

[posterboy]

That's distorting the numbers and a ridiculous question because the choice isn't based on the statistic, unless you are planning an economy.

[wfunction]

It sounds like we're agreeing? I was also saying, just like you, that the choice is not based on the statistics. The parent one is the one that used the statistic to justify the choice of biking.

[tnecniv]

I mean, you could just never leave your house if you were concerned about safety.

[wfunction]

> I mean, you could just never leave your house if you were concerned about safety.

I'd take a 1/1000000 chance. I wouldn't take a 1/1000 chance. Get the point?