this post was submitted on 11 May 2024
54 points (68.2% liked)

memes

10327 readers
1655 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 54 points 6 months ago

Not a solar flare but a coronal mass ejection. And while the subsequent G5 geomagnetic storm can do damage to various technological systems, it shouldn't be anything too bad.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 51 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What about it? It's a big solar flare, but my understanding is that it's still not big enough to do any real damage.

[–] kewwwi@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

no real damage. this time.

[–] WIPocket@lemmy.world 48 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I just looked it up on Wikipedia.

The extreme ultraviolet and x-ray radiation from solar flares is absorbed by the daylight side of Earth's upper atmosphere, in particular the ionosphere, and does not reach the surface.

What else should I know?

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 49 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You should know that this wasn't a solar flare, but a coronal mass ejection. Look that up instead. No, it's nothing too bad either. The one in 1859 was a big one and some people got electrocuted at telegraph stations, but this ain't like that.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 12 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 9 points 6 months ago (3 children)

Electrocuted as in they received injuries from an electric shock.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 15 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm generally a linguistic descriptivist, but in the case of "electrocuted", I do think the distinction is worth having.

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I think there's a distinction between "electrocuted" and "electrocuted to death". Same as with "stabbed" vs. "stabbed to death" or any other such verb that can, but may not necessarily result in death.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

[Edit- I'm blind, the definition I give below does include injury. However, I stand by the fact the word has changed over time, and there is at least some value in following the "old" definition.]

Per Merriam-Webster:
1: to kill or severely injure by electric shock
2: to execute (a criminal) by electricity

Now, granted, because the word is used often enough to mean "shocked", there is a "descriptivist" argument to be made that we should accept the new definition (like "literally" meaning "not literally").

While I'm generally in favour of this approach, I think the distinction here being literally life-and-death (especially when used in a workplace context) warrants some push-back against this new definition.

That said, English doesn't have language police, so you're more than free to disagree with my take, haha.

[–] Default_Defect@midwest.social 7 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I'm a big fan of words being used wrong so often that they change meaning. Glad my education was largely useless.

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

Tbf, education isn't a thing that ever ends, just gotta learn the new definitions is all.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The definition does include mere injury. Though it does add the qualifier "severely" so now I need to know how that dictionary defines "severe."

Also: The Internet has proven for years that the Language Police exist for all languages. Though they're more like gestapo. Hence the moniker "Grammar Nazi." 😌

[–] kakes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Oh shoot, you're totally right! I'll admit I skimmed - thank you for calling me out on that.

I'll still stand by the fact the definition has changed over time, but I can't really argue much of anything after such a big fuckup lmao.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I just find it interesting because I saw a video on this exact definition the other day, being pedantic about electrocution specifically meaning death. It must have been like the definition for "literally" where because of its usage, now includes the definition of "figuratively."

[–] Malfeasant@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

This is why we base scientific words on Latin - dead language doesn't change.

[–] gerbler@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Iirc it's only electrocution if you die

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Google and the Oxford dictionary disagree.

[–] Cosmicomical@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

Google and the Oxford dictionary disagree

You mean the opinion of Google is different from that of the Oxford dictionary?

[–] BleatingZombie@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Google and the Oxford dictionary disagree.

Definition of electrocution: injure or kill by electric shock

[–] Miaou@jlai.lu 3 points 6 months ago

And Cambridge says it means to die from it.

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I wonder if the origin of the word was a portmanteau of electricity and execute.

Execute to death, of course

[–] Deme@sopuli.xyz 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Could be, but there's other words with that same ending

[–] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago

This is what I get for skipping Latin...

[–] wirehead@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

... you mean the skies are looking Fantastic tonight?

[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

mhmm tasty evolution juice

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The best way to describe it!

[–] DavidGarcia@feddit.nl 3 points 6 months ago

it's good that you properly capitalized your name

[–] WallEx@feddit.de 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I live in Germany, nothing happened. So this is barely news.

[–] arudesalad@sh.itjust.works 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It was visible in the uk as well, it was best seen through a camera, almost impossible to see without one

[–] WallEx@feddit.de 3 points 6 months ago

Ah, right, didnt know, thanks! Only heard about it afterwards

[–] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don't know and I wanna. What's so bad about it?

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago

It's the Internet, so I assume buttholes.

[–] JoMomma@lemm.ee 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Don't look directly at the solar flair

[–] Aurenkin@sh.itjust.works 19 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If the solar flare approaches you, do not engage with it

[–] halvar@lemm.ee 19 points 6 months ago

Lay down and pretend you are dead. This way the solar flare will most likely lose intrest and leave.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 1 points 6 months ago

It's only 1 though. We need to talk with the sun about its flair.

It claimed it wanted to express itself, but the Crab Pulsar expresses itself every 0.8 seconds.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

This only makes me want to do it more

[–] bbuez@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago

And life goes on...