4 ms·

> When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. What happened

> When you choose to remove harmless "balls" but not to remove actively harmful "balls Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. What happened to them if they weren't removed? Are you always in disagreement with reality or is this an exception? This is even weirder than the person that claimed a decrease is an increase because it wasn't big enough.

fsflover 5y ago
> Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. Ok, maybe you understand it better if I reformulate: When you choose to remove more harmless "balls" and less harmful "balls", it means you support the latter, even if both numbers decreased. How else would you call it if not supporting? Those got money and resources which they should not have obtained. > Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. What happened to them if they weren't removed? In this hypothetical case, they would be also be unreasonably supported, even stronger. It's better now than that, but not nearly good enough. Personal attacks are against HN rules. It's always easy to claim that the opponent is stupid and you are a genius. Try to understand instead (as I do).
- locallost 5y ago
  It's not a personal attack to say it's weird to call removing something, I quote: "not to remove actively harmful "balls"". If calling this weird is against HN rules, I don't want to be here in that case. This is really only about you googling for stories that coal use in Germany went up, reading half the headline and not realizing it's not saying what you want it to say, and that coal is in fact drastically down. To call yourself understanding in that case is, uh... So now I am faced with a living breathing example of backfire effect, which is potentially annoying, but not really as the bottom line is this: last year renewables almost 300GW of new capacity, nuclear roughly 0GW (I did not actually check the numbers, but am pretty confident it's almost 0 since it almost always is). To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over".
  - fsflover 5y ago
    > that coal is in fact drastically down Did I say otherwise? I didn't. I said it's not down enough, even if you think it's down "drastically". I didn't understand one thing. Do you actually accept or deny that due to not enough decrease of coal the world got a lot unnecessary harmful CO2 and radiatioin, or not? > To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over". Maybe in Germany, but not necessarily elsewhere.
    - locallost 5y ago
      > Did I say otherwise? I didn't. Um, no, you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 "actually it's not even going down" Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. It's called reinforcing my wrongly held beliefs. So after saying "removing something" means "not removing something", now saying "it's not even going" down means "I never said it's not even going down". Am I again breaking HN rules by repeating the contradicting things you keep saying? New capacity in nuclear worldwide last year was roughly zero. There is around 50GW of in construction nuclear currently that will be finished god knows when and, which is about 1/6 of renewables that got deployed last year without a lot of fuss, being over budget and late. It's very much game over, and poor mental gymnastics you're showing here cannot change that.
      - fsflover 5y ago
        > Um, no, you did. >Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end. What matters is the choice which harms the health of people and the environment. It's very sad if you are right about the end of nuclear. I see no reason for that except unscientific fears, and many scientific reports suggest that nuclear is the solution to the climate change.

fsflover 5y ago

> Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. Ok, maybe you understand it better if I reformulate: When you choose to remove more harmless "balls" and less harmful "balls", it means you support the latter, even if both numbers decreased. How else would you call it if not supporting? Those got money and resources which they should not have obtained. > Yet somehow there is less of what you call harmful balls. What happened to them if they weren't removed? In this hypothetical case, they would be also be unreasonably supported, even stronger. It's better now than that, but not nearly good enough. Personal attacks are against HN rules. It's always easy to claim that the opponent is stupid and you are a genius. Try to understand instead (as I do).

locallost 5y ago
It's not a personal attack to say it's weird to call removing something, I quote: "not to remove actively harmful "balls"". If calling this weird is against HN rules, I don't want to be here in that case. This is really only about you googling for stories that coal use in Germany went up, reading half the headline and not realizing it's not saying what you want it to say, and that coal is in fact drastically down. To call yourself understanding in that case is, uh... So now I am faced with a living breathing example of backfire effect, which is potentially annoying, but not really as the bottom line is this: last year renewables almost 300GW of new capacity, nuclear roughly 0GW (I did not actually check the numbers, but am pretty confident it's almost 0 since it almost always is). To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over".
- fsflover 5y ago
  > that coal is in fact drastically down Did I say otherwise? I didn't. I said it's not down enough, even if you think it's down "drastically". I didn't understand one thing. Do you actually accept or deny that due to not enough decrease of coal the world got a lot unnecessary harmful CO2 and radiatioin, or not? > To quote Amory Lovins: "it's game over". Maybe in Germany, but not necessarily elsewhere.
  - locallost 5y ago
    > Did I say otherwise? I didn't. Um, no, you did. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29890517 "actually it's not even going down" Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. It's called reinforcing my wrongly held beliefs. So after saying "removing something" means "not removing something", now saying "it's not even going" down means "I never said it's not even going down". Am I again breaking HN rules by repeating the contradicting things you keep saying? New capacity in nuclear worldwide last year was roughly zero. There is around 50GW of in construction nuclear currently that will be finished god knows when and, which is about 1/6 of renewables that got deployed last year without a lot of fuss, being over budget and late. It's very much game over, and poor mental gymnastics you're showing here cannot change that.
    - fsflover 5y ago
      > Um, no, you did. >Googling for proof that should validate your wrong beliefs is not called understanding. I didn't Google for the proof. I am well aware of the confirmation bias. I simply took this reference from the same discussion, different thread. Moreover, my original argument wasn't based on this reference and I'm ready to stand corrected if it's wrong. It doesn't matter whether it goes down on not in the end. What matters is the choice which harms the health of people and the environment. It's very sad if you are right about the end of nuclear. I see no reason for that except unscientific fears, and many scientific reports suggest that nuclear is the solution to the climate change.