7 ms·

I keep seeing people saying that kind of things, and at the same time, seeing _professional_ in the sector all agreeing that the way France managed their infras

by cauch 2y ago

I keep seeing people saying that kind of things, and at the same time, seeing _professional_ in the sector all agreeing that the way France managed their infrastructure was terrible. It does not mean a nuclear pathway is not good. But it really makes you look very uneducated on the subject and very biased when you need to twist the reality that way.

Kuinox 2y ago
Thanks you for this ad homimem attack. Adding additional information the author didn't mentioned looks very uneducated, thanks you for this observation.
- cauch 2y ago
  "Ad nominem" is saying "this argument is wrong because this person is bad". Here, what I'm saying is that the arguments are wrong because they are simplistic, looks unbalanced and don't correspond to what people who work on the subject have observed. I've brought new information: in the professional sector, including pro-nuclear actors, France situation is presented as "the example to not follow", and the reasons are way more diverse and unbiased than "it's because of the bad anti-nuclear". You can check if it's the case if you don't trust me. It's a bit like if someone says "python is never used to do ML stuff", and I answer "but I see plenty of people using it, it looks like it's not really an educated argument: the person seems to not know the community who do ML stuffs". Is that an ad nominem? If yes, does it mean that the first person argument cannot be criticized?
  - Kuinox 2y ago
    I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known. You come and spew out anectodal evidence, which you fail to notice that can be heavily biased, and present it as "the professional sector", and reduce what I said to "the bad anti nuclear". Then you try to parallel with an example, like this was our scenario. At least, bring some source when you say someone doesn't know anything.
    - cauch 2y ago
      > I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known. And what I'm saying is that, as usual, pro-nuclear people like you (there are intelligent pro-nuclear people that are way less unbiased) will explain the situation by cherry picking explanation that fit their ideology rather than also accepting the elements that don't. You had the opportunity to say "it's of course not just due to that but ...", but you did not, you really cherry pick as if the French situation is due to sabotage while it is in great part due to plenty of other factors, include intrinsic to the difficulty of nuclear. And, sorry, I cannot really bring source so easily, because I work in the sector, and when I keep hearing someone casually saying "well, France difficulties is due to ... and ...", I don't make a note thinking "I need to keep the source for Kuinox in 3 years from now". I think it's a good proof that you are not working in the sector: the sector does not play the ridiculous "renewable vs nuclear" game, it knows it's way more complicated than that in consequence does not pretend one is better than the other. It's just not how it works. As usual, fake news and cherry picking takes few minutes for you to generate, and if I want to source that it's crap, I will have to spend hours and hours digging up in my conference notes from years and years in the past. And for what? You have absolutely no idea of the reality and you will just say "na, you are bad, you lie, I don't believe you". You are clearly not worth the effort. If you are honest and want to make sure you don't spread misleading info, the ball is in your corner, you can have a deeper look to check if what I brought to the table is bringing useful nuance (it does). But I doubt you will, you will just reject the idea that maybe you, the armchair militant who only read things that goes in the convenient direction, maybe does not understand the complex situation so perfectly.
      - Kuinox 2y ago
        You blame me of sharing misleading information but you claim I said things I did not say, then claim I'm an idiot. You didn't brought nuance, from the beginning you personally attacked me, you never directly contested any claim I made. I'll welcome discussing the points I brought up and the one you brought (none so far, except saying I'm an idiot).

by cauch 2y ago

Kuinox 2y ago

Thanks you for this ad homimem attack. Adding additional information the author didn't mentioned looks very uneducated, thanks you for this observation.

cauch 2y ago
"Ad nominem" is saying "this argument is wrong because this person is bad". Here, what I'm saying is that the arguments are wrong because they are simplistic, looks unbalanced and don't correspond to what people who work on the subject have observed. I've brought new information: in the professional sector, including pro-nuclear actors, France situation is presented as "the example to not follow", and the reasons are way more diverse and unbiased than "it's because of the bad anti-nuclear". You can check if it's the case if you don't trust me. It's a bit like if someone says "python is never used to do ML stuff", and I answer "but I see plenty of people using it, it looks like it's not really an educated argument: the person seems to not know the community who do ML stuffs". Is that an ad nominem? If yes, does it mean that the first person argument cannot be criticized?
- Kuinox 2y ago
  I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known. You come and spew out anectodal evidence, which you fail to notice that can be heavily biased, and present it as "the professional sector", and reduce what I said to "the bad anti nuclear". Then you try to parallel with an example, like this was our scenario. At least, bring some source when you say someone doesn't know anything.
  - cauch 2y ago
    > I made some claims, that invalidate the data the author is using to make claims, some were sourced, the others can be easily verified and are well known. And what I'm saying is that, as usual, pro-nuclear people like you (there are intelligent pro-nuclear people that are way less unbiased) will explain the situation by cherry picking explanation that fit their ideology rather than also accepting the elements that don't. You had the opportunity to say "it's of course not just due to that but ...", but you did not, you really cherry pick as if the French situation is due to sabotage while it is in great part due to plenty of other factors, include intrinsic to the difficulty of nuclear. And, sorry, I cannot really bring source so easily, because I work in the sector, and when I keep hearing someone casually saying "well, France difficulties is due to ... and ...", I don't make a note thinking "I need to keep the source for Kuinox in 3 years from now". I think it's a good proof that you are not working in the sector: the sector does not play the ridiculous "renewable vs nuclear" game, it knows it's way more complicated than that in consequence does not pretend one is better than the other. It's just not how it works. As usual, fake news and cherry picking takes few minutes for you to generate, and if I want to source that it's crap, I will have to spend hours and hours digging up in my conference notes from years and years in the past. And for what? You have absolutely no idea of the reality and you will just say "na, you are bad, you lie, I don't believe you". You are clearly not worth the effort. If you are honest and want to make sure you don't spread misleading info, the ball is in your corner, you can have a deeper look to check if what I brought to the table is bringing useful nuance (it does). But I doubt you will, you will just reject the idea that maybe you, the armchair militant who only read things that goes in the convenient direction, maybe does not understand the complex situation so perfectly.
    - Kuinox 2y ago
      You blame me of sharing misleading information but you claim I said things I did not say, then claim I'm an idiot. You didn't brought nuance, from the beginning you personally attacked me, you never directly contested any claim I made. I'll welcome discussing the points I brought up and the one you brought (none so far, except saying I'm an idiot).