this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
695 points (99.6% liked)

Science Memes

12577 readers
4918 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
695
no ragrets (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
93 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TheTechnician27 65 points 1 day ago (2 children)

This story hasn't ever been verified.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah it doesn't even make sense. Nitroglycerin was used in mining before dynamite was invented. Usually they'd just have some minority (Chinese most commonly I think) just carry it in. One little bump and boom, that person is dead. So the Invention of dynamite saved a lot of lives.

Also it's not like he invented gunpowder. A story about Mr. Gatling having deep regrets over his invention I could believe. But a guy inventing something that saved a lot of lives in the mining industry? And remember the invention of dynamite was after the US civil war, so warfare was already extremely bloody at that time without any dynamite involved. And how often is dynamite actually used in warfare as opposed to other kinds of explosives?

[–] wolfpack86 14 points 20 hours ago

But doesn't it though? Stabilizing it for transport saves lives in mining, but it also means it can be carried in the throes of war. Imagine lugging grenades filled with nitroglycerin instead of something stable. I can't verify the story, but it's a stretch to say it doesn't make sense.

The better point is your last, I don't think dynamite specifically was widely used.

[–] whostosay 39 points 1 day ago (2 children)

My man's just now verified it by typing it on the internet

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 hours ago

I heard about it in Bill Nye

[–] [email protected] 6 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Cunningham's Law, where are you?

[–] Smokeydope 11 points 23 hours ago (4 children)

Why does there gotta be so many psudo-scientific internet 'laws' of common human behavioral archetypes with a half baked Wikipedia entry? Can I have SmokeyDopes Law where if more than two humans ever exhibit the same behavior or particular complex that eventually there will be some armchair academic undergrad who will attempt to needlessly define it just to get to say "complex-fancy-sirname's law"

[–] TheTechnician27 1 points 7 hours ago

Tbf, Cunningham's law doesn't have a Wikipedia entry unto itself, just a subsection in the biography of the sort-of kind-of coiner of the aphorism. And it's not trying to be scientific or academic; the law is just a light-hearted joke that people are less likely to answer questions on the Internet than they are to correct statements.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 14 hours ago

"Why does there gotta be so many psudo-scientific internet 'laws' of common human behavioral archetypes with a half baked Wikipedia entry?"

Because of SmokeyDope's law.

"If more than two humans ever exhibit the same behavior or particular complex that eventually there will be some armchair academic undergrad who will attempt to needlessly define it just to get to say "complex-fancy-sirname's law" "

[–] foofiepie 10 points 22 hours ago

Smokeydope’s law right there. Typical telltale signs.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 22 hours ago

Can I have SmokeyDopes Law where if more than two humans ever exhibit the same behavior or particular complex that eventually there will be some armchair academic undergrad who will attempt to needlessly define it just to get to say "complex-fancy-sirname's law"

No.