• Deme@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.

      • Deme@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Electrocuted as in they received injuries from an electric shock.

        • kakes@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          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
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            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
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              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.

                  • 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.”