What? You mean that the producers of a film used creative licensing to tell a story of a “based on actual events” event is not 100% exactly what happened because what happened is really boring so they spiced it up a bit?
You want to nit pick that the telling of the story has been tweaked, but you totally let the fact the actual incident didn’t happen until well after Fat Man and Little Boy had both already been dropped and the war was over, so the incident had nothing to do with the Trinity Test?
Golly, that is a lot of hostility. I know how movies work, and just thought you and other readers may be interested in reading the non-dramatized retelling, having read it for the first time myself earlier in the day. FWIW, I didn’t think it was really boring, I thought it was interesting, especially to compare to the film retelling, hence why I shared it here.
Wowee? Hostility? Your fact check got fact checked. You come out like your clearing the story, but you only told part of the story that was convenient to your narrative. You took some creative licensing just like you’re critiquing someone else’s decisions.
My "narrative?" Holy cow, I have no idea what your problem is. Your reaction is unreasonable and I have to assume doesn't actually have much to do with what I posted. You are quite apparently reading an attitude into my post that I absolutely did not write into it. My sharing the true story behind a fictionalized retelling you enjoy was not meant as an attack on you or a smarmy "fact check," it was just to share the true story in context to the retelling. I read HN for intellectual curiosity and that's why I post things here too. This isn't the comment section on some politics website.
By the way, HN's community guidelines:
>Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
>Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
You have assumed bad faith and are swiping at me as you cross-examine your theory of why I "really" posted what I did, which is wrong. That's why I didn't break down the entirety of the movie's correspondence to reality, because you are imagining, and insisting, I was doing something here that I am not.
** edited out the rest because I won't argue about whether I was trying to pick an argument either. Take my word for it, you are completely wrong in your characterization of why I conversed with you with something I thought was of mutual interest. Good luck to you.
