4 ms·

Reactors don't have staff either - and unlike bus stops or jail cells, they don't even have any kind of human in them when they're functioning. The equivalent t

by vacri 10y ago

Reactors don't have staff either - and unlike bus stops or jail cells, they don't even have any kind of human in them when they're functioning. The equivalent to your jail or museum is a power plant, not a reactor. Yes, reactors have caretakers, but so do jail cells (and bus stops, in nicer places).

Dylan16807 10y ago
Many people would point at the entire facility and call it a 'reactor'. Anyway you're getting really picky now. I've demonstrated that inanimate locations can "say" things by the standards of headline-writers, so I'm done. It was flat-out wrong to imply such a thing is a non-fluent mistake. Also you should stop conflating "has a pun" and "is a garden-path sentence" in your other line of conversation, thanks. You're mostly arguing for the former there, other people are arguing against the latter, and they are totally orthogonal.
- vacri 10y ago
  > Also you should stop conflating "has a pun" and "is a garden-path sentence" in your other line of conversation, thanks Yeah, a niche journal targeting the power industry should be careful not to instill momentary panic in their specialist readership that way. They should definitely use the blandest terms possible. It's just another reason why these complaints about titles are irritating - people demand titles for the general public from sources catering to specialists, implying that it's bad journalism to do otherwise. > by the standards of headline-writers, so I'm done If you were going by the standards of headline-writers, you wouldn't have started here. This kind of headline has been par for the course for almost as long as there's been headlines.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    You are completely misreading me somehow. I like the pun. The pun is great. My dislike of the garden-path sentence has nothing to do with the pun. I do not want bland terms at all. Pun headlines are standard, garden-path ones are not. If there had only been one claim then "Molten Salt Reactor Claim Melts Down Under Scrutiny" would be a great headline. Witty but not grammatically confusing.

by vacri 10y ago

Dylan16807 10y ago

Many people would point at the entire facility and call it a 'reactor'. Anyway you're getting really picky now. I've demonstrated that inanimate locations can "say" things by the standards of headline-writers, so I'm done. It was flat-out wrong to imply such a thing is a non-fluent mistake. Also you should stop conflating "has a pun" and "is a garden-path sentence" in your other line of conversation, thanks. You're mostly arguing for the former there, other people are arguing against the latter, and they are totally orthogonal.

vacri 10y ago
> Also you should stop conflating "has a pun" and "is a garden-path sentence" in your other line of conversation, thanks Yeah, a niche journal targeting the power industry should be careful not to instill momentary panic in their specialist readership that way. They should definitely use the blandest terms possible. It's just another reason why these complaints about titles are irritating - people demand titles for the general public from sources catering to specialists, implying that it's bad journalism to do otherwise. > by the standards of headline-writers, so I'm done If you were going by the standards of headline-writers, you wouldn't have started here. This kind of headline has been par for the course for almost as long as there's been headlines.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  You are completely misreading me somehow. I like the pun. The pun is great. My dislike of the garden-path sentence has nothing to do with the pun. I do not want bland terms at all. Pun headlines are standard, garden-path ones are not. If there had only been one claim then "Molten Salt Reactor Claim Melts Down Under Scrutiny" would be a great headline. Witty but not grammatically confusing.