3 ms·

I think the HN title is missing a “ … in the US” qualifier - looks like China has had several of these same model running for several years.

• p1mrx 4y ago
  Yeah, here's the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Lists_of_Generation_III+_reactors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_III_reactor#Lists_o...
• dang 4y ago
  Submitted title was "The first Gen III+ Nuclear plant begins fuel loading". We've changed it to what the article says. Submitters: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  • lucb1e 4y ago
    The original title was more descriptive, fwiw. The current one means nobody has any idea what makes this fuel loading newsworthy, unless they already know and then they don't need to read about it on HN
    • dang 4y ago
      If a submitter (or anyone) wants to say what they think is important about an article, that's fine, but they should do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then their view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so... The title is not the place to do this; on HN, being the submitter of an article doesn't confer any special right to frame the topic for everyone else. That's super important, because titles are overwhelmingly the dominant influence on discussion.
      • DisjointedHunt 4y ago
        On HN, many people may run their own sites and thus able to freely editorialize however they choose. Editorializing headlines of a press release directed at a different audience with likely more context to make it accessible shouldn’t be seen as a bad thing. It spurs discussion. Perhaps the boundaries of editorializing headlines need to move to accommodate for this. So long as there isn’t opinion inserted, it seems fine. The earlier submissions title was imperfect for being too short and missing the qualifier “The first . . . In the US”
        • pvg 4y ago
          It spurs discussion. It often ends up spurring discussion about titles. Plus, HN has no shortage of discussion and comments do a pretty adequate job of spurring discussion. The 'level playing' thing in the linked bit is the key part, though - you don't get a megacomment (which is what writing your own title essentially ends up being) just because you posted something.
          • DisjointedHunt 4y ago
            If you own your own site, you could rehash a press release on your own and use whatever “mega comment” title you choose. Hence not a level playing field for anyone else posting a link from a press release. If the title, as we see here is very niche, it will not spur discussion from people not inherently familiar with why “Vogtle Unit 3” is any different from 1 or 2. You’re adding layers of friction and reducing accessibility to information. People won’t research every oddball title they see and thus get stuck in content/ranking bubbles. The title of the press release is targeting people with a lot of context. This industry has very long cycles and thus not a lot of people will have all the context.
            • pvg 4y ago
              You’re adding layers of friction If you haven't had a chance, you should take a look at some of the decade's or so worth of Title Thought that's gone into the way it works now - dang's link is a good jumping off point. The results are surely imperfect but if you want to promote change, it helps to have some familiarity with the system you want change.