Holland Gibson
Never have I read a book I disliked so much despite agreeing with the underlying premise. After 90 pages I could endure it no longer. The problem is that the author tries too hard to be funny, which ok some humor is an acquired taste, but he rags on all sorts of professions (doctors, accountants, professors, etc) for them being intrinsically unethical - a hard stretch. Furthermore, he uses evidence that is wrong. The last straw was “…Fukushima nuclear reactor, which experienced a catastrophic failure in 2011 when a tsunami struck. It had been built to withstand the worst past historical earthquake, with the builders not imagining much worse…” which is patently false (see below). Ultimately the author is to focused on everyone else being wrong rather than showing what’s right and it got too distracting to finish.
Addendum: The reactor did not account for the rest of Japan being out of power for so long and should have been caught, yes, but the design spec was to survive a 8.25 magnitude earthquake, which was a very statistically rare event and within worldwide standards. Not to mention it survived the 9 magnitude earthquake just fine (it was the tsunami that was the problem).
Never have I read a book I disliked so much despite agreeing with the underlying premise. After 90 pages I could endure it no longer. The problem is that the author tries too hard to be funny, which ok some humor is an acquired taste, but he rags on all sorts of professions (doctors, accountants, professors, etc) for them being intrinsically unethical - a hard stretch. Furthermore, he uses evidence that is wrong. The last straw was “…Fukushima nuclear reactor, which experienced a catastrophic failure in 2011 when a tsunami struck. It had been built to withstand the worst past historical earthquake, with the builders not imagining much worse…” which is patently false (see below). Ultimately the author is to focused on everyone else being wrong rather than showing what’s right and it got too distracting to finish.
Addendum: The reactor did not account for the rest of Japan being out of power for so long and should have been caught, yes, but the design spec was to survive a 8.25 magnitude earthquake, which was a very statistically rare event and within worldwide standards. Not to mention it survived the 9 magnitude earthquake just fine (it was the tsunami that was the problem).
Never have I read a book I disliked so much despite agreeing with the underlying premise. After 90 pages I could endure it no longer. The problem is that the author tries too hard to be funny, which ok some humor is an acquired taste, but he rags on all sorts of professions (doctors, accountants, professors, etc) for them being intrinsically unethical - a hard stretch. Furthermore, he uses evidence that is wrong. The last straw was “…Fukushima nuclear reactor, which experienced a catastrophic failure in 2011 when a tsunami struck. It had been built to withstand the worst past historical earthquake, with the builders not imagining much worse…” which is patently false (see below). Ultimately the author is to focused on everyone else being wrong rather than showing what’s right and it got too distracting to finish.
Addendum: The reactor did not account for the rest of Japan being out of power for so long and should have been caught, yes, but the design spec was to survive a 8.25 magnitude earthquake, which was a very statistically rare event and within worldwide standards. Not to mention it survived the 9 magnitude earthquake just fine (it was the tsunami that was the problem).
Never have I read a book I disliked so much despite agreeing with the underlying premise. After 90 pages I could endure it no longer. The problem is that the author tries too hard to be funny, which ok some humor is an acquired taste, but he rags on all sorts of professions (doctors, accountants, professors, etc) for them being intrinsically unethical - a hard stretch. Furthermore, he uses evidence that is wrong. The last straw was “…Fukushima nuclear reactor, which experienced a catastrophic failure in 2011 when a tsunami struck. It had been built to withstand the worst past historical earthquake, with the builders not imagining much worse…” which is patently false (see below). Ultimately the author is to focused on everyone else being wrong rather than showing what’s right and it got too distracting to finish.
Addendum: The reactor did not account for the rest of Japan being out of power for so long and should have been caught, yes, but the design spec was to survive a 8.25 magnitude earthquake, which was a very statistically rare event and within worldwide standards. Not to mention it survived the 9 magnitude earthquake just fine (it was the tsunami that was the problem).
