Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
by zaphar on Monday December 12, 2022 @10:00PM
(#33964169)
Colloquially speaking, which your conversation here is, nuke has always meant bombs not reactors. He's not pearl clutching, he's reacting to what sounds like unnecessarily negative terminology.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
by Schroedingersat on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @03:36AM
(#33966204)
It unambiguously means nuclear reactor in context and is widely used. The only people who even pretend it doesn't are the ones simultaneously making disingenuous arguments about why renewables are terrible and we immediately need to drop them and wait 50 years for nuclear to save the day.
The mock outrage is tiresome and transparent.
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
by deathcakes on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @07:58AM
(#33968247)
Wikipedia disagrees:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuke
As do I, I personally have never heard someone refer to a nuclear fission power plant as a nuke, but I guess I don't hang around with the same people as you...
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
by kennend3 on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @12:39PM
(#33972489)
As i have posted here many times, i live very close to a nuclear power plant.
Everyone in the area simply calls it "the nuke plant".
It is a directional landmark : "yeah, so once you get to the nuke plant turn left...."
"Once you see the nuke plant you know you are getting close"..
Its full name is a mouth full : Pickering Nuclear Generating Station.
Citing wikipedia sometimes backfires.
Re:Fusion energy breakthrough by Livermore Lab
by Schroedingersat on Tuesday December 13, 2022 @08:04AM
(#33968300)
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/nuke
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nuke
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuke
Your mock ignorance is tiresome and transparent