Dhaka, Bangladesh, has been named the second-least livable city in the world, and social-media users in Bangladesh have reacted with sardonic humor.

The Economist Intelligence Unit annual global survey awarded Dhaka this perhaps less-than-enviable distinction. The BBC and local news outlets report 40 percent of social-media comments expressed disappointment Dhaka came in only second and not first. 

The situation reminds me of my freshman year undergraduate basketball team. The squad lost every game, except the very last. It seemed a shame to have spoiled an otherwise perfect record.

One might think it can’t be noticeably worse to live in the absolutely most unlivable city than in the second-worst, so why not aim for the bottom spot? If a city is going to be cast toward the bottom of the livability list; it might as well be hurled all the way down. Yet, as The Economist found the very worst city to live in is Damascus, Syria, maybe second-place is a lot better than first.

While warfare and terrorism earned Damascus the final slot, infrastructure shortcomings apparently were a main factor in the dubious distinction awarded to my current post. True, the careening buses hurtling at ramming speed across multiple lanes of traffic here literally can be deadly. We had a week of student protests after a fatal bus accident caused by insanely reckless driving. We also have crime and have had terrorist incidents. Nonetheless, the chances of violent death in Dhaka are far less severe than in Syria. Electrical outages, air pollution, plumbing deficiencies and overcrowding seem far less daunting than aerial bombings and booby traps.