I have a couple of thoughts after listening to an interview with Bill over the last few days
First thought, Bill is not a reliable source. He is not a working class stiff trying to retire early. His net worth is around $60 million. His perspective is skewed.
Second, I kept disagreeing with his take on what, exactly, constitutes the FIRE 'community' and/or recommendations. He seems to set up a bit of a straw man on several points. He generally painted FIRE as work all the time, spend almost nothing, and then hope you live long enough to enjoy it. I personally never did this, and I doubt the majority of FIRE folks did either. He then sets up his Die With Zero philosophy against this straw man. But really, his plan is just FIRE with a *much* higher risk profile. He dismisses end-of-life care costs as trivial to deal with. He dismisses most people's fears of catastrophy and seems to think any risk can be insured against, which seems to ignore the age at which most people would retire at, which is a much higher premium level than his, not to mention the rising premiums throughout life. He also seems to hand-wave away any risk of inflation.
I have not done a quote-by-quote analysis, this is just my take on him after digesting the interview, which I think is this same one here on YouTube: