3 ms·

Based on this long quote, I don't see how it's worth reading the whole thing, the thinking on display is very unscientific, it reads more like a confirmation-bi

Based on this long quote, I don't see how it's worth reading the whole thing, the thinking on display is very unscientific, it reads more like a confirmation-bias poem.

hayst4ck 1y ago
Well, you couldn't be more factually wrong. That man is one of the top engineers of the 20th century and gave America nuclear submarines in 4 years and he's talking to non experts. Congress frequently asked him specifically about nuclear policy. They asked him explicitly about 3 mile Island: Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was later asked to tell Congress why naval nuclear propulsion (as used in submarines) had suffered no reactor accidents, defined as the uncontrolled release of fission products to the environment resulting from damage to a reactor core. In his testimony, Rickover said: Over the years, many people have asked me how I run the Naval Reactors Program, so that they might find some benefit for their own work. I am always chagrined at the tendency of people to expect that I have a simple, easy gimmick that makes my program function. Any successful program functions as an integrated whole of many factors. Trying to select one aspect as the key one will not work. Each element depends on all the others. Rickover is about as far as you get from magical unscientific thinking and as close as you can get to an expert on nuclear safety. He was the epitome of an engineer and his nuclear safety record was as good as it gets. Maybe his "doing a job" would convince you he's not a magical thinker, I can't imagine anyone who actually does engineering disagreeing with it: https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm
- polotics 1y ago
  I was in no way passing judgement on the man, just the text here. Geniuses have bad days, and everyone makes mistakes. I think he had an agenda and tailored his speech to what he thought of his audience.

Based on this long quote, I don't see how it's worth reading the whole thing, the thinking on display is very unscientific, it reads more like a confirmation-bias poem.

hayst4ck 1y ago

Well, you couldn't be more factually wrong. That man is one of the top engineers of the 20th century and gave America nuclear submarines in 4 years and he's talking to non experts. Congress frequently asked him specifically about nuclear policy. They asked him explicitly about 3 mile Island: Admiral Hyman G. Rickover was later asked to tell Congress why naval nuclear propulsion (as used in submarines) had suffered no reactor accidents, defined as the uncontrolled release of fission products to the environment resulting from damage to a reactor core. In his testimony, Rickover said: Over the years, many people have asked me how I run the Naval Reactors Program, so that they might find some benefit for their own work. I am always chagrined at the tendency of people to expect that I have a simple, easy gimmick that makes my program function. Any successful program functions as an integrated whole of many factors. Trying to select one aspect as the key one will not work. Each element depends on all the others. Rickover is about as far as you get from magical unscientific thinking and as close as you can get to an expert on nuclear safety. He was the epitome of an engineer and his nuclear safety record was as good as it gets. Maybe his "doing a job" would convince you he's not a magical thinker, I can't imagine anyone who actually does engineering disagreeing with it: https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm https://govleaders.org/rickover.htm

polotics 1y ago
I was in no way passing judgement on the man, just the text here. Geniuses have bad days, and everyone makes mistakes. I think he had an agenda and tailored his speech to what he thought of his audience.