3 ms·

So let me summarize what this thread has been, it’s been a huge effort just to say, “no the comment is wrong because at the time they set it off they’d ruled ou

by mint2 5y ago

So let me summarize what this thread has been, it’s been a huge effort just to say, “no the comment is wrong because at the time they set it off they’d ruled out an ice nine situation because it was actually a couple years before exploding it that they considered the situation to be a serious enough concern when detonating the first nuclear bomb to actually run the calculations. The original comment was utterly wrong because it had the timeline goofed even although the main point about scientists considering an ice nine type scenario was accurate” (which was the main point, no the exact timing). That’s this thread. And my original statement has two reading because the “when” is ambiguous, and only one of those readings would be wrong if the first is assumed wrong for sake of argument.

eesmith 5y ago
This thread has been: - you made a short and incorrect comment about timing - pfdietz at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28434032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28434032 made a short comment that you were wrong about the timing. (Note that pfdietz's comment is basically your summary of the thread.) - you doubled-down by presenting information which you thought supported your viewpoint - I pointed out that the documents did precisely the opposite - You tripled down by presenting another document to support your viewpoint - I pointed out that it still did not do that. I don't know how "when they set off the first nuclear bomb" can be ambiguous. Had you written "before", yes, but "when"? No. You also stated "It’s a strong claim to say they proved it couldn’t happen when they didn’t even know the bomb would work for sure.", which is hard to believe because you can read their proof yourself, and it was linked-to in your first reference. In any case, your sources highlight how contentious this topic has been, which should make you realize how important it is to not being ambiguous about this topic.
- mint2 5y ago
  “It’s funny that scientists actually thought an ice nine type situation had a minuscule but non-zero chance of occurring” That without context doesn’t make any sense. Adding “when they detonated the first nuclear bomb” tells when the ice nine situation could occur, when the scientists were still thinking that is not actually said. This whole thread has been about people unhappy that “at one time” was left out as below. “ It’s funny that [at one time] scientists actually thought an ice nine type situation had a minuscule but non-zero chance of occurring when they set off the first nuclear bomb: the entire atmosphere would ignite.” Does adding in the implied “at one time” help you see the ambiguity? Of course a thread will turn contentious when someone bluntly says “ No, they didn't.” when it’s a situation where they aren’t actually wrong about the main point. Those reply comments come off needlessly aggressive when in reality if they thought the timing was off, the commenter could have said “yeah they did consider that ice nine situation but ruled it out a few years before the first test”. Instead they went on how “no they didn’t, it was impossible because xyz”

by mint2 5y ago

eesmith 5y ago

This thread has been: - you made a short and incorrect comment about timing - pfdietz at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28434032 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28434032 made a short comment that you were wrong about the timing. (Note that pfdietz's comment is basically your summary of the thread.) - you doubled-down by presenting information which you thought supported your viewpoint - I pointed out that the documents did precisely the opposite - You tripled down by presenting another document to support your viewpoint - I pointed out that it still did not do that. I don't know how "when they set off the first nuclear bomb" can be ambiguous. Had you written "before", yes, but "when"? No. You also stated "It’s a strong claim to say they proved it couldn’t happen when they didn’t even know the bomb would work for sure.", which is hard to believe because you can read their proof yourself, and it was linked-to in your first reference. In any case, your sources highlight how contentious this topic has been, which should make you realize how important it is to not being ambiguous about this topic.

mint2 5y ago
“It’s funny that scientists actually thought an ice nine type situation had a minuscule but non-zero chance of occurring” That without context doesn’t make any sense. Adding “when they detonated the first nuclear bomb” tells when the ice nine situation could occur, when the scientists were still thinking that is not actually said. This whole thread has been about people unhappy that “at one time” was left out as below. “ It’s funny that [at one time] scientists actually thought an ice nine type situation had a minuscule but non-zero chance of occurring when they set off the first nuclear bomb: the entire atmosphere would ignite.” Does adding in the implied “at one time” help you see the ambiguity? Of course a thread will turn contentious when someone bluntly says “ No, they didn't.” when it’s a situation where they aren’t actually wrong about the main point. Those reply comments come off needlessly aggressive when in reality if they thought the timing was off, the commenter could have said “yeah they did consider that ice nine situation but ruled it out a few years before the first test”. Instead they went on how “no they didn’t, it was impossible because xyz”