6 ms·
I’d say that > why don’t they just divert the Columbia river. Is very different from the actual comment, > I am sure they have thought of this but why don’t
by doctor_eval 3y ago
I’d say that
> why don’t they just divert the Columbia river.
Is very different from the actual comment,
> I am sure they have thought of this but why don’t they “just” divert the Columbia river.
I think it’s an interesting hypothetical question that’s worth asking in good faith, just to understand more.
HN is supposed to be curious, no?
- deno 3y agoThis “shut up so you seem smarter” attitude is so annoying, especially online. You are not allowed to be curious about something without becoming an expert on the subject. People too wrapped up in their own egos.
- randac 3y agoSimply rephrasing the question would get better responses. "I'm sure they thought of this, but could someone explain why they don't just divert...?"
- CPLX 3y agoWhy don’t they divert the Columbia River is a probably obvious but potentially interesting question. It’s the addition of “just” that gives it its present hilarious form.
- lazide 3y agoThe Columbia River is massive - think the Siene, or Danube, or Rhine. And the topology there is far from flat - it’s at the bottom of a valley. Trying to get that much water going anywhere it isn’t already going to go will require a project similar in scale to the Hoover Dam or California Aquaduct system. It’s a bit like asking why we can’t ‘just’ build some walls to stop hurricanes from screwing over Florida. It sounds simple enough, right?
- doctor_eval 3y agoI think framing the “just” with quotes was supposed to do the work of showing an understanding that this is not an easy solution. And unlike your example, rivers have indeed been diverted. The question can then be reasonably interpreted as, why not this one? And, of course, you answered that question. Thanks!