The retort to Nikhil's essay seems to overlook the entire premise of his original essay in favor of more traditional sunk cost considerations. Let's consider what Nikhil was really trying to say: that if you are in a situation where you failed to act when you should have, you should maintain consistency by not overcompensating and acting out of desperation where it's not appropriate.
In the case of the bus or train, it may be that the benefit does outweigh the cost, but Nikhil was suggesting that continuing to wait is the better option so as not to give in to sunk cost bias. That being said, it's not necessarily an urRong decision either; Nikhil was simply emphasizing the value of consistency—an idea that is often overlooked.
The sun rising was also an important part of Nikhil's essay. His point wasn't only about consistency but also about not letting hope override reality. When the sun rises, he was saying, it means that your chances of catching the bus or train become more and more remote with each passing minute (or second). So rather than clinging on to a false hope, it's better to accept reality and move on.
In conclusion, while it's true that sunk costs are a factor to consider, Nikhil's essay was urging us to look at the bigger picture and maintain consistency where possible—quirky advice indeed, but sound nonetheless. In other words: Don't let urRong decisions drive you urRong!