Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

neutronbytes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–76 of 76 posts

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#71

Post by defrost »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #52
defrost wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Federalist isn't an official source, just a US ultra conservative rag putting spin on early reasonable statements about airbourne transmission. That whole selective quoting out of context thing is a good example of misinformation though.

Sounds to me like you are attacking the source and not the content of the article. Are you saying that he lied under oath and that there was scientific reasoning behind the social distancing directive?

The content of article selectively quotes and frames things to suggest that advice to keep distance to reduce the rate of spread of a severe acute respiratory virus was bad advice.

It was very good advice.

It has been known to be good advice for decades, recent decades.

The fact that this had not been specificly reproven specifically with SARS-CoV-2 during the earliest days of a global outbreak isn't relevant to the value of that advice.

Sturgis, and numerous other outbreaks arising from events in the shit show that exampled the US approach to social distancing highlighted what happened as a result of not heeding such advice ... some of the highest per capita death rates in the world.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#72

Post by spookie »

fransje26 wrote: post #67
fallingknife wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly what I mean. Take the Obamacare exchange website for example. It cost $800 million, didn't work, and nobody got so much as fired for it because that money was wasted, not stolen, and the contract was given out in accordance to procedure. If the execs had pocketed any of that money, they would be in jail. In China it would have been given to a friend of the bureaucrat in charge of giving out the contra…

The F-35 program also comes to mind. Or the high speed train effort in California coming in at 10x the price per mile compared to European equivalents..

The F35 is going to make much more money than it ever took to go from drawing to reality. I don't know enough about that California.

Anyhow, being able to fail is a good thing, believe it or not.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#73

Post by wordofx »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #9

It really does seem relatively easy to raise money in nuclear power for making a few dubious claims about factory production, reactor performance, and delivery timeline. In the industry, we call the 10 years it takes to realize that it's a lot harder than newcomers initially think, and that the people who tried in the past didn't fail merely because they were idiots who didn't think about economics: "getting run over…

Apparently idiots on HN like to just flag rather than admit they are wrong.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#74

Post by fransje26 »

spookie wrote: post #72
fransje26 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The F-35 program also comes to mind. Or the high speed train effort in California coming in at 10x the price per mile compared to European equivalents..

The F35 is going to make much more money than it ever took to go from drawing to reality. I don't know enough about that California. Anyhow, being able to fail is a good thing, believe it or not.

The F-35 is going to join the long list of fighters that will be pulled from service as quickly as possible.

It might continue to fly in the Air National Guard, and in countries that don't have the means to renew their fleet, where it will have served its purpose: being so costly that it starved any possible competition.

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#75

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

defrost wrote: post #19
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every comment is a disagreement. You should read the link though. It’s two issues. Fact checkers are needed because of misinformation, “official sources” are spreading their own misinformation.

The Federalist isn't an official source, just a US ultra conservative rag putting spin on early reasonable statements about airbourne transmission. That whole selective quoting out of context thing is a good example of misinformation though.

> The Federalist isn't an official source

lol

> just a US ultra conservative rag

Ultra conservative huh? Good one. Tell me to go check NPR or BBC or your favorite state media next won’t you?

Re: Fact checking of claims about nuclear power projects

#76

Post by defrost »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #75
defrost wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Federalist isn't an official source, just a US ultra conservative rag putting spin on early reasonable statements about airbourne transmission. That whole selective quoting out of context thing is a good example of misinformation though.

> The Federalist isn't an official source lol > just a US ultra conservative rag Ultra conservative huh? Good one. Tell me to go check NPR or BBC or your favorite state media next won’t you?

You're clearly struggling.

The point here is that keeping distance from others is a sound strategy to slow the spread of respiratory infections.

The Federalist article is being delibrately obtuse and weasel framing an obviously politically motived line of questioning in a US committee.

It's the kind of thing intuitively obvious to the meanest intellect, regardless of leaning.

Dipshits in the US putting politics above public safety is par for the course.

What's preventing you from seeing that?

Post reply on HN