zlacker

>>jger15+(OP)
As someone who is getting older, I have this to say: don't take a life advice from a 20-something, no matter how well meaning they are.

>>varjag+gu1
This is the definition of ad hominem.

I am in my mid-30s and highly resistant to change; the article resonates. I'm not ready to leave my job (I have two more years of RSUs to collect), but I am moving houses within my city solely for the change of scenery and pattern. I expect in the next few years, unless I meet someone life-changing, that I will leave my city or even take a multi-year sabbatical until I feel the urge or need to go back to my profession.

Notable quotes:

>But for the relatively sane, by the time you’re mostly ready to leave a job, or a city, or a relationship, you probably have good reason to.

>At any given time, your motion is being constrained by an agglomeration of previous decisions made by a previous you, decisions that might have little to do with your current wants.

I think these are good points to consider if one is the kind of person who accumulates "stuff" or has existential anxiety.

>>unethi+2x2
This was a categorical statement about 20-somethings and as such isn't ad hominem. I would still say that if their advice was just as eloquently stated opposite.

>>varjag+Q63
My Latin is rusty, then it is perhaps "ad populum", attacking the people. In any case, you're not addressing the message.

"Ceterus paribus" yes, older people are more wise due to experience, but I have met 28 year olds which are much wiser than millions of old, insular, dumb 50-80 year olds.

>>unethi+iq3
Sometimes you have to address the merits of large groups of people however, no other way doing that. "Childless advice on parenting is dubious" in the sister comment for example. And come on, every one of us was in their 20s some time.