18 ms·

> Because it's not a problem. Have you seen John Oliver's piece about that and can you point out the flaws?

by beders 6y ago

evgen 6y ago
Are you actually trying to use an ill-informed rant by a mid-tier comedian as the primary support for your argument? Seriously?
- Pfhreak 6y ago
  Wait, we're better than this on HN. If you have concerns about an argument being made it's important to articulate the concerns. Pointing out someone's career/reputation is an appeal to authority, and a form of bias. It's possible that a comedian could be well informed from a staff, for instance, doing research. I am not familiar with John's arguments, but I wanted to address that dismissing him out of hand seems perfunctory.
  - evgen 6y ago
    Sorry, that was probably too glib of a response. How about this: John Oliver has a history of making ill-informed rants that conveniently skip relevant facts or counter-arguments for the sake of having a pithy little segment that sounds funny and which complements his English mock-outrage. It is not a good argument against nuclear power and in fact it generally only takes a few minutes to point out the rows and rows of strawmen he has set up so that he can knock them down with comedic zingers. We should have higher standards here.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    >Wait, we're better than this on HN No were not. We're just more polite and consider it customary to google up someone else who agrees with you that you can cite. Humans are pretty consistent. The rules of conduct vary between tribes. And FWIW John Oliver seems to be a pretty decent comedian. His filter bubble certainly informs his work and he's prone to bias but he's an entertainer by trade so I don't count those against him.
  - colonwqbang 6y ago
    But no arguments were cited in the comment, there was only a John Oliver name drop.
    - colinmhayes 6y ago
      No. The comment pointed out an argument against nuclear and asked for a counter-argument.
      - cbmuser 6y ago
        Well, just ask NASA: > https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ And looks at this pollution map: > https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/
- loeg 6y ago
  John Oliver does accessible introductions to subject areas for non-experts. I don't recall the segment on nuclear, but in general his pieces are high-level, attempt to be accurate, and like other pop journalism, will inevitably disappoint experts in the field. (I don't think your ad hominems are warranted.)
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
noja 6y ago
(You need to write the flaws here so someone can address each of them)

> Because it's not a problem. Have you seen John Oliver's piece about that and can you point out the flaws?

by beders 6y ago

> Because it's not a problem. Have you seen John Oliver's piece about that and can you point out the flaws?

Are you actually trying to use an ill-informed rant by a mid-tier comedian as the primary support for your argument? Seriously?

Pfhreak 6y ago
Wait, we're better than this on HN. If you have concerns about an argument being made it's important to articulate the concerns. Pointing out someone's career/reputation is an appeal to authority, and a form of bias. It's possible that a comedian could be well informed from a staff, for instance, doing research. I am not familiar with John's arguments, but I wanted to address that dismissing him out of hand seems perfunctory.
- evgen 6y ago
  Sorry, that was probably too glib of a response. How about this: John Oliver has a history of making ill-informed rants that conveniently skip relevant facts or counter-arguments for the sake of having a pithy little segment that sounds funny and which complements his English mock-outrage. It is not a good argument against nuclear power and in fact it generally only takes a few minutes to point out the rows and rows of strawmen he has set up so that he can knock them down with comedic zingers. We should have higher standards here.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  >Wait, we're better than this on HN No were not. We're just more polite and consider it customary to google up someone else who agrees with you that you can cite. Humans are pretty consistent. The rules of conduct vary between tribes. And FWIW John Oliver seems to be a pretty decent comedian. His filter bubble certainly informs his work and he's prone to bias but he's an entertainer by trade so I don't count those against him.
- colonwqbang 6y ago
  But no arguments were cited in the comment, there was only a John Oliver name drop.
  - colinmhayes 6y ago
    No. The comment pointed out an argument against nuclear and asked for a counter-argument.
    - cbmuser 6y ago
      Well, just ask NASA: > https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/kharecha_02/ And looks at this pollution map: > https://www.electricitymap.org/ https://www.electricitymap.org/
loeg 6y ago
John Oliver does accessible introductions to subject areas for non-experts. I don't recall the segment on nuclear, but in general his pieces are high-level, attempt to be accurate, and like other pop journalism, will inevitably disappoint experts in the field. (I don't think your ad hominems are warranted.)

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

noja 6y ago

(You need to write the flaws here so someone can address each of them)