Hacker News Reader

It works all the time when ignoring the times it didn't.

Now that's intellectual dishonesty. You start with using wrong numbers (or manipulating numbers in a dishonest way to prove your point), then when someone calls you out on that you give that sort of troll answer. 98% is on par with the best female contraceptive methods, and it probably better than what we could achieve with male pills.

What? He cited a failure rate of 18%, which the article supports and you quote as the "typical" failure rate, taking into account that condoms do break and are used incorrectly at times.

If a manufacturer says their manual transmission car gets 45 miles to the gallon, and Fuelly says that same car gets 39 mpg (averaged over a million user mileage submissions), is it intellectually dishonest to use 39 as the working figure when budgeting for gas?

What you interpret as a troll answer, I interpret as a reasonably clear explanation of why he chose the figure he did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com