Lotta hate in here, but try not to focus on that. Remember that HN is an unrepresentative group of the entire audience that article addresses. I'd guess most HN readers are probably doing a-ok salary-wise in the frugality world (but if you _must_ live in {SF,NYC} forever, then probably not).
Spending-wise? No idea. But I'd recommend trying not to be too put off on the "work hard" advice, you probably already work hard and will get more out of the "spend carefully" side of the savings equation.
Life isn't a code review. Even if you think something is 99% wrong, it might still be 1% right. And if that 1% can get you retired a decade earlier, I'd give it some serious thought and just ignore what you think is wrong.
I agree on this: debt in deflation is rough. Maybe the lesson is that people/governments should stay out of debt, not that deflation is the boogeyman. That'd certainly be more anti-fragile.
The metric 'percent-of-race-to-be-flagged' is more a measure how how homogenous the names of people of that race are and inadequate for this analysis.
If they actually wanted to show prejudice they should've normalized for that factor, then shown that certain people were still targeted at a higher rate.
That a strategy works better or worse for certain races may be racial, but is only racist if it was designed to work that way.
I've learned a lot in the last few years about living efficiently. Being financially independent is less about how much you earn, and more about what percent of your income you save along with getting some rate of return on your savings.
Spending-wise? No idea. But I'd recommend trying not to be too put off on the "work hard" advice, you probably already work hard and will get more out of the "spend carefully" side of the savings equation.
Life isn't a code review. Even if you think something is 99% wrong, it might still be 1% right. And if that 1% can get you retired a decade earlier, I'd give it some serious thought and just ignore what you think is wrong.