California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic

Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic by mikeash on Monday November 23, 2015 @10:23AM (#10615040)

You said the cost itself was a benefit. What you're describing here is when the extra cost allows for other features which are benefits.

With your notebook computer analogy, the extra cost of a MacBook Pro is not a benefit. The benefits are all the various things that are better about it, with the extra cost being worth it to have those benefits. The only way you'd say the extra cost of a MacBook Pro was itself a benefit would be if you wanted to show off how rich you are or something equally silly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic by Dylan16807 on Monday November 23, 2015 @10:29AM (#10615081)

The context of calling the cost a benefit was in picking between reasonable and competitively-priced options. You're not arguing against the point that it's a commitment to better transit, you're trying to pull a cheap gotcha.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California's DOT Admits That More Roads Mean More Traffic by mikeash on Monday November 23, 2015 @10:46AM (#10615197)

I'm not trying to pull a gotcha anything. I'm legitimately trying to understand the point that was being made. The point looked to me to be that spending more money is by itself a benefit because it represents a greater commitment. I then verified that I was understanding correctly, and was told that this was not in fact what was intended.

[ Parent | on HN ]