• watson@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    That’s precisely what I said, with slightly different wording. But thanks for the additional detail.

    • towerful@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I mean, I guess? Kinda?

      You said you didn’t know the specific on the bombs dropped.
      Ok, so 0 information on the bomb dropped.

      But that Chernobyl created a massive cloud of fallout that impacted neighbouring countries and caused acid rain.
      Well, that’s true. But that wasn’t a fusion explosion.

      So, it felt like you were trying to relate 2 unrelated things. Like an apples-to-oranges situation.

      I feel that I clarified that the bombs dropped were designed to converted all fusable material to energy. They were literally designed to weaponise fusion.
      And that the fallout from Chernobyl wasn’t caused by material turning into energy (ie fusion), but from particle dispersion.

      So, I guess.
      In that you said you had 0 knowledge of Thing A, and stated an unrelated fact about Thing B. Where both things are true, and are related by the fact that nuclear fuel is involved. But that’s as far as the relationships go

      But everything you said after “yes” does nothing to support the “yes”

      • watson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        That’s a really long way to admit that I was right, and you just didn’t like my answer anyway.