Hacker News Reader

Comment by corbulo | Hacker News Reader

I've seem that. Thats not news thats commentary, its a big distinction that not enough people are aware of. My sources are pretty broad.

News is original reporting and going to the primary sources of a given story. Commentary sources usually function as secondary or tertiary sources and typically lack the resources to hound government officials, wait outside their office, spend tons of time digging up FOIAs for issues that may or may not pan out, etc.

Figuring out whats happening with a hazardous derailment is not the job of a Tucker or Watters, thats the job of an inquisitive on the ground journalist. Which every news agency employs but very selectively uses.

View on HN

So what are some actual questions you want answered? The one example you gave was: why haven't "they" even bothered asking FEMA for help.

Who even is "they"? And how do you know FEMA hasn't been asked for help by "them"?

They being the local government. FEMA said on their own twitter.

https://twitter.com/fema/status/1625617600104259584?s=20

Why has FEMA not been contacted for assistance? What went into the decision to burn it off? What are the implications of that for local residents? How long are local residents going to live with this? What are we going to do to help the local ecology? What recourse is there for local residents who develop health issues from this? How long is this whole thing supposed to last in the water table? What are they gonna do to help prevent it?

I could go on. Genuinely asking, could you not think of one of those? Aren't you curious about the decisions being made?

> Why has FEMA not been contacted for assistance?

>> We are monitoring the incident and remain in close contact with local officials who are handling the response on the ground.

Sounds good to me. Not every happening in the country needs a dedicated slush fund. If officials determine that this does, FEMA has already been in close contact with the people who they need to be in close contact with. You want to be the one who determines this? Run for office or apply for the job.

> What went into the decision to burn it off? What are the implications of that for local residents?

To prevent an explosion, as explained here: https://www.newsweek.com/did-control-burn-toxic-chemicals-ma...

This was very easy to find on Bing. Did you do any research at all or just expect the media to spoon feed you answers?

> How long are local residents going to live with this?

Not something that can be answered by anything but waiting and seeing.

> What are we going to do to help the local ecology? How long is this whole thing supposed to last in the water table?

I don't expect this to be something that is known right now. But I can bet that scientists the country over are investigating.

> What are they gonna do to help prevent it?

Literally the main question in the media. Assigning blame to some party/policy/whatever, in order to adopt a change.

Plenty more of Fox relaying EPA analysis and demanding action from government here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ohio-republican-invites-but...

>Sounds good to me. Not every happening in the country needs a dedicated slush fund. If officials determine that this does, FEMA has already been in close contact with the people who they need to be in close contact with. You want to be the one who determines this? Run for office or apply for the job.

You may be satisfied by tweets when it comes to government accountability but the point is not that they should have it's an explanation why not.

> Did you do any research at all or just expect the media to spoon feed you answers?

The sourcing in the article you provided is not the govt. It's random people from tiktok and a random expert (who didn't make the claim you're asserting). It appears you're the one not doing the research. Try reading before condescending.

>Not something that can be answered by anything but waiting and seeing.

absolutely false.

The difference here is not one of opinion, it's how easily satisfied you are with the information that is already out there. FEMA tweets vaguely, a tiktoker explains hazmat science, and satisfies your every curiosity. I'm not so easily satiated for one of the largest eco disasters in recent memory at least.

> You may be satisfied by tweets when it comes to government accountability but the point is not that they should have it's an explanation why not.

Does not parse grammatically. Try again.

> The sourcing in the article you provided is not the govt

The only people you trust are the government? Odd. Very odd. But since you insist, here's the governor of Ohio saying the same: https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/east-palestin...

> absolutely false.

Justify.

> I'm not so easily satiated for one of the largest eco disasters in recent memory at least.

If this were true I'd expect you to be the one to have found all the sources I've been linking to, answering the questions you've been asking. But instead I have. And I'm sick and tired of running around doing your research for you while you move the goalposts.

From now on: if you choose to respond, include a source.

You may be satisfied by tweets when it comes to government accountability but the point is, not that they should have, it's an explanation why not.

Source what? Lmao you're the one making claims citing crap sources that you're not even reading telling me to do my own research. I'm not making claims, i'm asking questions.

The government would be the ones who were party to the decision. Are you even reading what you're replying to?

>Justify.

Not a new compound, long history of use near and on humans.

>And I'm sick and tired of running around doing your research for you while you move the goalposts.

Search queries and skimming headlines is not research.

> Not a new compound, long history of use near and on humans.

Then find the answer yourself.

> claims citing crap sources

Hilarious. I cite experts, you say they don't count unless they're in the government. I cite the government, you call it a "crap source". Quit digging through HN replies and read an article.

> I'm not making claims, i'm asking questions.

> > Here's an issue that has very grave implications for us all and suddenly they're not interested in asking the right questions of the right people anymore.

That's a claim the questions you presented (What went into the decision to burn it off?) weren't asked. And I resoundly proved it false. But you've gone on to move the goalposts to kingdom come.

Do you even have an argument at this point?

>Then find the answer yourself.

I'm not qualified in the field of hazmat exposure. I do know there are experts in it, and it is extensively studied. The answer i'm looking for is bespoke to this particular situation. I don't have live stats on the PPM dilution of Vinyl Chloride or its byproducts in every area it has reached.

I didn't call your gov link a crap source. I was referring to the newsweak article you didn't read that cited a tiktok account as a source.

>That's a claim the questions you presented (What went into the decision to burn it off?) weren't asked. And I resoundly proved it false.

The gov article you linked is from 2/6, today the Governor came out and revealed info that demonstrates that article is a very limited perspective of what went into the decision to burn it off (such as consulting the DoD). There's still a lot more information that needs to be fleshed out pertaining to that question; it hasn't been fully answered. It may never be.

Are you arguing to argue? I'm not sure what your argument is . Our only difference this entire time is what amount of information satisfies us as i've already pointed out. You've said Jesse Watters and Tiktok accounts should be plenty satisfying, i'm saying this requires lots of questions and investigation it hasn't yet gotten.

It's amazing you've made it this deep without linking a single decent source.

Couldn't have responded better for me

Reply on news.ycombinator.com