• WIPocket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    6 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      ·
      6 months ago

      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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            6 months ago

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

            • Deme@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              ·
              6 months ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                [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.

                • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  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
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    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.