Re:A Hydrogen Bomb by any other name
by rm_-rf_slash on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @10:37AM
(#10887985)
I understand that, I merely intended to demonstrate that ignorant simplicity is not a preferred quality of the New Yorker among its readers.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Why is that a point worth making in reply to a comment that is merely defending simplicity, not ignorant simplicity?
Re:A Hydrogen Bomb by any other name
by rm_-rf_slash on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @10:52AM
(#10888078)
To separate the criticisms regarding simplicity generally and the nomenclature specifically. I was downvoted for what I said and I need imaginary internet points to feel like my life has meaning.
Re:A Hydrogen Bomb by any other name
by nikdaheratik on Tuesday January 12, 2016 @10:24PM
(#10892139)
From what I can tell, you were downvoted because you either didn't read and understand the article, or you didn't understand the context in which it was written.
1. N. Korea claims it has a "Hydrogen Bomb".
2. The U.S. and others respond skeptically.
3. The New Yorker points out that the U.S. has made this response before (earlier in the cold war) and that the term itself has some ambiguity because of the different types of weapons that could have a fusion based element. Readers learn more about cold war history and the differences in different types of atomic weapons.
4. You make a snide comment that doesn't seem to register the entire context of all this, and get downvoted.