Do you really want to trust the technical merits of an article whose auther cannot resist throwing in some ideological axe-grinding completely unrelated to the actual topic?

> axe-grinding completely unrelated to the actual topic?

Isn’t that an accurate description of considering skin color, etc., when deciding who to hire to build nuclear power plants?

Is that something that is actually widely done (or at all)? The article gives absolutely no indication, just throws it in. Right after putting environmental concerns into scare quotes and portrying them as "opposition to any human future which does not involve half-naked pithecanthropoids digging for grubs with dull sticks".

That's very much not evoking the image of someone doing impartial technical analysis.

You're inventing stupid straw men to beat, for what? Some internet points? No one is going to be convinced that this could ever be a real problem unless they've already immersed themselves in hateful rhetoric. You've added precisely nothing to the conversation -- no, less than nothing, you've wasted time and resources publishing something that just strokes your tribalistic ego and cements your view of yourself as somehow threatened by someone who exists only in your own mind. I'm offering a mirror, whether you actually look in is your call.

Harvard and UNC just lost a civil rights lawsuit because they were openly racist to Asian applicants.

They guised that organized hate as “diversity, inclusion, and equity”.

Please stay on topic. Demonstrate for the class what you think that has to do with operating nuclear power plants.

> demonstrate for the class

Can somebody enlighten me on what he meant by this? Is this a condescending kind of "we are in a class room, you are a student, I asked you a simple question that you failed to answer, try again"?

> Demonstrate for the class what you think that has to do with operating nuclear power plants.

Ask that to the people at Harvard discriminating against Asians wanting to study, among other things, nuclear engineering.

Owning the libs by playing identity politics even harder isn't the winning move you seem to think it is.

Also your lib radar is pretty far off.

The Titan submarine imploded literally due to wokeness, because the CEO didn't want to hire "50yo white males". People are already dying due to the competency crisis.

There is a disease of seeking brownie points in this manner by uttering the right incantations in public. I'm not sure how much to take a career grifter at his literal word.

Surely the choice to hire young has nothing to do with bloated, outsized contracts for ex-DoD people vs exploitable, eager-to-please new grads.

Notably, the quotes from Rush don't exclude the possibility that he just hired 20-something white guys. You may be falling for the kinds of narrative-building that are so prominently used to keep people clicking on websites. There is also a disease of what I would call "dichotomism", an ideology that posits there are only ever two sides to an argument and the positions held by either side are governed entirely and exclusively on where you think the line is between them. Seems to be an outgrowth of the kind of snippet-sharing, hot-take-having, 280-character-summarizing kinds of discourse that are present in Very Online individuals. I assure you people's opinions are generally more complicated and nuanced than that.

I do not care for brownie points, I regularly reset my HN account every couple of months. I do not have Twitter, so your 280-char comment does not apply to me. The CEO literally used the words "50yo white males". There is nothing to sugarcoat about this. And if he cheaped out because 20yo noobs have a lower salary than 50yo experienced males, then that's kind of the same thing isn't it?

Wow, you're not even moving the goalposts, you're trying to pick up the entire pitch and rotate it 180°.

My experience in discussions like this is very consistent in that gullible and non-critical folks just assume that everyone else takes what they read online equally at face value as they do and so aren't careful with their rhetoric, thinking it won't be questioned or at least considered by the readers.

It doesn't matter if you have Twitter, you're still immersed in the Internet Discourse culture and are ultimately playing the same games. It takes conscious effort to move past such petty and unproductive tactics.

They ended up hiring 25-30yo white males. It wasn't about color. They just didn't want to pay full wages and didn't want to be told a hard "no" because of obvious safety problems.

Hellish flamewar is not ok on this site, regardless of how wrong other people are or you feel they are. Your comments stand out in this flamewar as being distinctly the most hellish. Not only that, you've broken the site guidelines so egregiously elsewhere (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36744128) that I think we have to ban this account.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [email protected] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Edit: I changed my mind and unbanned you because your recent comments before these two threads don't look this egregious, although you've still been breaking the site guidelines and that's not ok. Please fix this going forward.

I appreciate your eternal level-headedness and poise. I need checks as much as anyone. I won't disparage HN's community; I have become sour to the image of tech-oriented rationalists vs the reality and am projecting expectations onto Toms, Dicks, and Nancys. My weight to bear of course.

If you continue to post unsubstantive comments and/or take HN threads further into flamewar, we are going to have to ban you. Your account has been doing a ton of this, and that's seriously not ok. It's not what this site is for, and destroys what it is for.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.