← Back to context Comment by GenerocUsername 6 days ago Cmon man, it's a comment not a research paper. Off by one isn't worth a follow up snark 3 comments GenerocUsername Reply cwnyth 6 days ago Off by 10+1. Someone who graduated college in 2000 = 25 + 22 (4 years of college from 18) = 47, not 57, and not anywhere close to the retirement age. It might be pedantry, but the original comment should have said 1990, not 2000. sokoloff 6 days ago Their main point was it is off by 10; then they introduced an additional confusing question of “is it off by 10, 11, or 12?”
cwnyth 6 days ago Off by 10+1. Someone who graduated college in 2000 = 25 + 22 (4 years of college from 18) = 47, not 57, and not anywhere close to the retirement age. It might be pedantry, but the original comment should have said 1990, not 2000.
sokoloff 6 days ago Their main point was it is off by 10; then they introduced an additional confusing question of “is it off by 10, 11, or 12?”
Off by 10+1. Someone who graduated college in 2000 = 25 + 22 (4 years of college from 18) = 47, not 57, and not anywhere close to the retirement age. It might be pedantry, but the original comment should have said 1990, not 2000.
Their main point was it is off by 10; then they introduced an additional confusing question of “is it off by 10, 11, or 12?”