3 ms·
Yet the piece parent links is far more detailed and informative than Fox's short summary. It would be the better HN link. It's unfortunate they wrote balanced
by oldcynic 9y ago
Yet the piece parent links is far more detailed and informative than Fox's short summary. It would be the better HN link.
It's unfortunate they wrote balanced as I don't think it's about balance or bias. Just amount of information content.
- masonic 9y agoThe MNN story is totally mute on the cost, which is relevant. I don't think the concept is a bad idea, but I would like to see a representative trial first before assuming it is a consequence-free benefit. That's how sound walls along freeways came along. Nobody considered that the materials were not at all sound-absorbent and therefore would just displace noise a bit farther away from the freeway.
- oldcynic 9y agoThey both mention the cost and life. Fully agree that some representative trials would be sensible first. Far too much of what we do turns out to have unintended consequences. Maybe they should explore possible glare from a white, coated, road surface. It'll be a poor scheme if it turns out to lead to an increase in auto accidents or pedestrians being run over because they're getting lost in heat haze.