5 ms·

I'm increasingly of the view that any comments complaining about 'clickbait' titles are worse than the actual practice (such as it is). There is no mention of

by oska 6y ago

I'm increasingly of the view that any comments complaining about 'clickbait' titles are worse than the actual practice (such as it is). There is no mention of a reactor in the original title. So probably you are referring to 'Mexican Chernobyl'. Yes, Chernobyl was a nuclear accident involving a reactor but not all nuclear accidents involve a reactor and Chernobyl is being used in this context as a well-known disastrous nuclear accident (not necessarily involving a reactor). And the original title clarifies that they are talking about this greater set. Furthermore, HN, as is its admirable practice, has rewritten the title anyway. If you have an issue with the title you can easily get the mods attention by mentioning 'title' in your comment and making some constructive criticism (which yours wasn't). (I wouldn't usually spend so much time responding to a bad comment but taking this one as just an example of this particular genre of bad comments.)

ASalazarMX 6y ago
'Mexican Chernobyl' clearly primes the reader to expect a nuclear reactor disaster, like, you know, the Russian Chernobyl. I'm Mexican, know about this cobalt source case, and yet I wondered if the article was about a disaster in our sole nuclear reactor, Laguna Verde, that I didn't know about. 100% pure clickbait. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna_Verde_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna_Verde_Nuclear_Power_Sta...
- oska 6y ago
  > 100% pure clickbait And thus you undermine your case. It obviously isn't "100% pure clickbait". (What would that even mean?) Confirming again that people who use this word are usually engaging in a hyperbolic criticism, when they could simply point out any concerns they have with the title in a level manner. p.s. Chernobyl was and is in the Ukraine, not Russia.
  - octoberfranklin 6y ago
    > "100% pure clickbait". (What would that even mean?) It would mean that one hundred percent of the title was pure clickbait. Like, for example, the title "Mexican Chernobyl".
  - ASalazarMX 6y ago
    > p.s. Chernobyl was and is in the Ukraine, not Russia. My bad. When it happened, Ukraine was still part of the USSR, which was interchangeably with Russia back then. Also, would it have been better if I had said "pure clickbait" instead of "100% pure clickbait"? Both are equivalent, although yes, 100% pure is redundant. I was excited. Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? Isn't that an overreaction?
    - oska 6y ago
      > Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? It didn't invalidate your argument. You made a good point about the phrase "Mexican Chernobyl" leading some people to think they were talking about a reactor accident. I agree that that phrasing is somewhat problematic. What I am objecting to is the use of the word 'clickbait' and again, quite obviously, that the title wasn't 'pure clickbait'. The title was still informative and gave a fairly good indication of what the article was about. There is an issue with the title, yes, but that can be pointed out without indulging in hyperbole, which is what undermines (not invalidates) your point. But your comment was still much, much better than the original one I objected to; I wouldn't have said anything in reply to your comment except for it being in that thread under the one I first replied to.

by oska 6y ago

ASalazarMX 6y ago

'Mexican Chernobyl' clearly primes the reader to expect a nuclear reactor disaster, like, you know, the Russian Chernobyl. I'm Mexican, know about this cobalt source case, and yet I wondered if the article was about a disaster in our sole nuclear reactor, Laguna Verde, that I didn't know about. 100% pure clickbait. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna_Verde_Nuclear_Power_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna_Verde_Nuclear_Power_Sta...

oska 6y ago
> 100% pure clickbait And thus you undermine your case. It obviously isn't "100% pure clickbait". (What would that even mean?) Confirming again that people who use this word are usually engaging in a hyperbolic criticism, when they could simply point out any concerns they have with the title in a level manner. p.s. Chernobyl was and is in the Ukraine, not Russia.
- octoberfranklin 6y ago
  > "100% pure clickbait". (What would that even mean?) It would mean that one hundred percent of the title was pure clickbait. Like, for example, the title "Mexican Chernobyl".
- ASalazarMX 6y ago
  > p.s. Chernobyl was and is in the Ukraine, not Russia. My bad. When it happened, Ukraine was still part of the USSR, which was interchangeably with Russia back then. Also, would it have been better if I had said "pure clickbait" instead of "100% pure clickbait"? Both are equivalent, although yes, 100% pure is redundant. I was excited. Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? Isn't that an overreaction?
  - oska 6y ago
    > Why did a lone hyperbole invalidate my whole argument? It didn't invalidate your argument. You made a good point about the phrase "Mexican Chernobyl" leading some people to think they were talking about a reactor accident. I agree that that phrasing is somewhat problematic. What I am objecting to is the use of the word 'clickbait' and again, quite obviously, that the title wasn't 'pure clickbait'. The title was still informative and gave a fairly good indication of what the article was about. There is an issue with the title, yes, but that can be pointed out without indulging in hyperbole, which is what undermines (not invalidates) your point. But your comment was still much, much better than the original one I objected to; I wouldn't have said anything in reply to your comment except for it being in that thread under the one I first replied to.