Hacker News Reader

Comment by lavela | Hacker News Reader

These are quite a few reports for one day for a technology we purportedly have under full control, nothing to worry.

Which do you consider as being under better control: a technology that we exhaustively create reports on even in the face of incidents like this where the only real chance of harm was that the guy couldn't swim and might have drowned; or a technology where we don't report on anything at all whatsoever and thus have no idea what's actually going on?

Reports don't mean danger, and they don't mean lack of control. Reports are information.

Of the eight reports I only see one that relates to a guy being able to swim or not (and I suspect the same is true for the estimated 1400 reports so far this year). Also having transparency is obviously good and I don't understand what you want to prove with arguing that a worse situation would be worse. It clearly would be worse.

I'm also not totally against nuclear, in case you are suspecting that. I do think though, that we as a society aren't at the point where we have the ability to completely control such technology, contrary to what proponents of much higher utilization of nuclear like to claim. Reports of fuses seemingly without failover or stolen equipment seem to support that argument.

Did a coal miner write this comment?

Worse, an environmentalist.

Miner vs. straw man, who wins? :o)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com