• Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    You’re right, they’re not all used for transportation.

    Yes I’m trolling a bit, one could argue a modern smart phone and the first cell phones are a bad comparison because they “aren’t used for the same thing” but that’s just needlessly pedantic.

    In this case, I do think it’s fair to point out a crossover/suv being compared to a sedan is different enough to be a bad comparison, it’s not “Apples to Oranges” (why can’t fruit be compared?) but it is intentionally misleading for comparing cars of the same type when they’re not the same type and pointing at the size difference.

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes it is very intentional, because the point is not to say, “look at this sedan and this suv”, the point is, “look at cars and how they are becoming bigger”, a major part of which is people unnecessarily buying bigger cars. It’s comparing the “average” car of the past to the “average” car today. In fact, if you were to compare sedans to sedans while trying to make that point, I say that would be disingenuous.

      By example, if I was comparing computer storage though the ages, I wouldn’t compare magnetic tape to magnetic tape today, I’d compare it to ssds. And it wouldn’t be disingenuous because they’re different types of storage, because the point I’m making is about storage as a whole.

      If SUVs are replacing sedans, I think it’s entirely fair to compare them.