3 ms·

Let me fix that quote for you: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,". ALL

Let me fix that quote for you: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,". ALL OF THEM. Not just nuclear.

ben_w 3y ago
You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Nuclear is… just another mega project, just like the rest. You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense when it's everything including your darling.
- illiarian 3y ago
  > You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say or imply > You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense I literally said nothing of the kind
  - ben_w 3y ago
    Even ignoring all those words you used meaning to me what I said they mean (and hence unavoidably "implying" even if you now wish to say you were misunderstood, which is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse): You know we can see your comments, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian And you've got a… distinct… writing style, so I recognised you from a few days ago before seeing your user name: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522
    - illiarian 3y ago
      > You know we can see your comments, right? Yes, I do. > And you've got a… distinct… writing style Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. So. This is what I actually wrote, and not what you pretend I wrote. The original statement was this: "If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors" To which I replied: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average" Which means only one thing: renewable projects are just as prone to time and buget overruns as nuclear. That is it. How you imagined what you think I wrote, I cannot even begin to comprehend.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        This: > Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. Makes this: > is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse A case in point. I'm not even going to bother now with the rest; the abrasiveness you approach this topic with is uninteresting to me, and does not help me learn new things. That's also not an ad hominem, by the way; it's a critique, sure, but not even intended as a response to the attempted argument.

Let me fix that quote for you: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average,". ALL OF THEM. Not just nuclear.

ben_w 3y ago

You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Nuclear is… just another mega project, just like the rest. You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense when it's everything including your darling.

illiarian 3y ago
> You're the one promoting nuclear as if it's better than the rest in this regard. Do not ascribe words to me that I didn't say or imply > You don't get to use that quote to say everything else is more expense I literally said nothing of the kind
- ben_w 3y ago
  Even ignoring all those words you used meaning to me what I said they mean (and hence unavoidably "implying" even if you now wish to say you were misunderstood, which is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse): You know we can see your comments, right? https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=illiarian And you've got a… distinct… writing style, so I recognised you from a few days ago before seeing your user name: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35618522
  - illiarian 3y ago
    > You know we can see your comments, right? Yes, I do. > And you've got a… distinct… writing style Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. So. This is what I actually wrote, and not what you pretend I wrote. The original statement was this: "If you push for renewables instead of wasting money on over due and over budget nuclear reactors" To which I replied: "Almost three-quarters of hydropower, water, coal and nuclear infrastructure projects were over budget by 49% on average" Which means only one thing: renewable projects are just as prone to time and buget overruns as nuclear. That is it. How you imagined what you think I wrote, I cannot even begin to comprehend.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      This: > Ad hominem is not as good an argument as you think it is. Makes this: > is totally a thing I get and have experienced in reverse A case in point. I'm not even going to bother now with the rest; the abrasiveness you approach this topic with is uninteresting to me, and does not help me learn new things. That's also not an ad hominem, by the way; it's a critique, sure, but not even intended as a response to the attempted argument.