[jdminhbg]

> As long as for-profit companies are running the reactors, they’ll end up saving everywhere, and, like we’ve seen before and before, it ends up in meltdowns (for example, due to refusing to maintain the emergency generators properly, see fukushima)

And don't even get me started on the rapacious capitalists running Chernobyl...

[kuschku]

Just because — as I mentioned in the original comment, which you would know, if you could read — a state-owned solution is even worse doesn't mean a company omptimizing for lowest quality and highest profits they can get away with is a "good" concept.

[dang]

> which you would know, if you could read

We ban accounts that repeatedly post uncivil comments to Hacker News, so please don't do this.

[kuschku]

Could you please clarify how I should answer when people ask questions that I directly, and obviously answered already?

Especially when multiple – in this case 2 (!) – people ask the very same question, again and again.

Asking redundant questions is also discouraged in the guidelines.

[tomhoward]

Anything that can be said with an insulting implication (I.e., you are illiterate) can be said more effectively without the personal abuse.

When multiple people miss the point you're trying to make, it's safe to assume that you haven't made your point as clearly or convincingly as you'd hoped.

In which case it's perfectly fine to respond and further develop your point, but your point will carry much more weight if you're polite and respectful in the way you phrase it.