Talk:2142: Dangerous Fields - Revision history

141.101.98.244: Completing the intervention.

2024-10-08T17:32:03Z

Completing the intervention.

42.book.addict at 16:13, 8 October 2024

2024-10-08T16:13:50Z

Kvarts314: mathematics kill 100% of people

2022-01-18T07:49:26Z

mathematics kill 100% of people

172.68.132.149: Sorry/thanks

2019-05-02T07:02:00Z

Sorry/thanks

Gir at 17:37, 30 April 2019

2019-04-30T17:37:08Z

162.158.106.48: added data - but vulcanology seems out of place

2019-04-29T18:46:34Z

added data - but vulcanology seems out of place

EmuSam: volcanologist comment

2019-04-29T17:33:54Z

volcanologist comment

Ianrbibtitlht at 13:07, 29 April 2019

2019-04-29T13:07:45Z

Kynde at 09:59, 29 April 2019

2019-04-29T09:59:41Z

Kynde at 09:58, 29 April 2019

2019-04-29T09:58:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:32, 8 October 2024
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Can the incomplete notice be removed? It looks pretty complete and the notice only mentions "please add percentages." They are already in the transcript, which I think is more than enough. I'd argue even that including pixel counts there is too much distraction and does not add much value. [[User:Gir\|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir\|talk]]) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)		Can the incomplete notice be removed? It looks pretty complete and the notice only mentions "please add percentages." They are already in the transcript, which I think is more than enough. I'd argue even that including pixel counts there is too much distraction and does not add much value. [[User:Gir\|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir\|talk]]) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

−	I'm not going to change it, but I think it's a little silly to say 'nearby supernovas' & 'distant magnetars' could kill us. For one thing, I think it's fairly well established & a safe bet that there flat out aren't any of those in range to affect us. Regardless, implying magnetars are dangerous at greater ranges, especially by starquakes, is incorrect. Magnetars are formed in supernovae, which release way more energy than starquakes. A large core collapse supernova that forms a black hole, which focuses its radiation into a beamed hypernova doesn't involve a magnetar at all & it's vastly more powerful at much longer ranges. {{unsigned ip\|172.68.132.149}}	+	I'm not going to change it, but I think it's a little silly to say 'nearby supernovas' & 'distant magnetars' could kill us. For one thing, I think it's fairly well established & a safe bet that there flat out aren't any of those in range to affect us. Regardless, implying magnetars are dangerous at greater ranges, especially by starquakes, is incorrect. Magnetars are formed in supernovae, which release way more energy than starquakes. A large core collapse supernova that forms a black hole, which focuses its radiation into a beamed hypernova doesn't involve a magnetar at all & it's vastly more powerful at much longer ranges. {{unsigned ip\|172.68.132.149\|07:02, 2 May 2019}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 8 October 2024
Line 50:		Line 50:
	Can the incomplete notice be removed? It looks pretty complete and the notice only mentions "please add percentages." They are already in the transcript, which I think is more than enough. I'd argue even that including pixel counts there is too much distraction and does not add much value. [[User:Gir\|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir\|talk]]) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)		Can the incomplete notice be removed? It looks pretty complete and the notice only mentions "please add percentages." They are already in the transcript, which I think is more than enough. I'd argue even that including pixel counts there is too much distraction and does not add much value. [[User:Gir\|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir\|talk]]) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

−	I'm not going to change it, but I think it's a little silly to say 'nearby supernovas' & 'distant magnetars' could kill us. For one thing, I think it's fairly well established & a safe bet that there flat out aren't any of those in range to affect us. Regardless, implying magnetars are dangerous at greater ranges, especially by starquakes, is incorrect. Magnetars are formed in supernovae, which release way more energy than starquakes. A large core collapse supernova that forms a black hole, which focuses its radiation into a beamed hypernova doesn't involve a magnetar at all & it's vastly more powerful at much longer ranges.	+	I'm not going to change it, but I think it's a little silly to say 'nearby supernovas' & 'distant magnetars' could kill us. For one thing, I think it's fairly well established & a safe bet that there flat out aren't any of those in range to affect us. Regardless, implying magnetars are dangerous at greater ranges, especially by starquakes, is incorrect. Magnetars are formed in supernovae, which release way more energy than starquakes. A large core collapse supernova that forms a black hole, which focuses its radiation into a beamed hypernova doesn't involve a magnetar at all & it's vastly more powerful at much longer ranges. {{unsigned ip\|172.68.132.149}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:49, 18 January 2022
Line 11:		Line 11:

	:: You could say the either Medicine, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics kill 100% of people.		:: You could say the either Medicine, Biology, Chemistry, and Physics kill 100% of people.
		+
		+	::: And since Physics is just applied Mathematics, mathematics kill 100% of people. [[User:Kvarts314\|Kvarts314]] ([[User talk:Kvarts314\|talk]])

	Reminds me of this comic: [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]. And also [[1904: Research Risks]]. [[User:Herobrine\|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine\|talk]]) 23:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)		Reminds me of this comic: [[1895: Worrying Scientist Interviews]]. And also [[1904: Research Risks]]. [[User:Herobrine\|Herobrine]] ([[User talk:Herobrine\|talk]]) 23:06, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:02, 2 May 2019
Line 47:		Line 47:

	Can the incomplete notice be removed? It looks pretty complete and the notice only mentions "please add percentages." They are already in the transcript, which I think is more than enough. I'd argue even that including pixel counts there is too much distraction and does not add much value. [[User:Gir\|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir\|talk]]) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)		Can the incomplete notice be removed? It looks pretty complete and the notice only mentions "please add percentages." They are already in the transcript, which I think is more than enough. I'd argue even that including pixel counts there is too much distraction and does not add much value. [[User:Gir\|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir\|talk]]) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	I'm not going to change it, but I think it's a little silly to say 'nearby supernovas' & 'distant magnetars' could kill us. For one thing, I think it's fairly well established & a safe bet that there flat out aren't any of those in range to affect us. Regardless, implying magnetars are dangerous at greater ranges, especially by starquakes, is incorrect. Magnetars are formed in supernovae, which release way more energy than starquakes. A large core collapse supernova that forms a black hole, which focuses its radiation into a beamed hypernova doesn't involve a magnetar at all & it's vastly more powerful at much longer ranges.

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 30 April 2019
Line 45:		Line 45:
	I tried to use data from as few sources as possible so that they are roughly comparable.		I tried to use data from as few sources as possible so that they are roughly comparable.
	Given the numbers I have been able to find so far, the positions of several of the items is puzzling. Vulcanology in particular. While volcanos are dramatic, and on occasion they have large impact, in general they don't seem to cause near as many deaths as chemicals or crime, or even weather. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.48\|162.158.106.48]] 18:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)		Given the numbers I have been able to find so far, the positions of several of the items is puzzling. Vulcanology in particular. While volcanos are dramatic, and on occasion they have large impact, in general they don't seem to cause near as many deaths as chemicals or crime, or even weather. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.48\|162.158.106.48]] 18:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
		+
		+	Can the incomplete notice be removed? It looks pretty complete and the notice only mentions "please add percentages." They are already in the transcript, which I think is more than enough. I'd argue even that including pixel counts there is too much distraction and does not add much value. [[User:Gir\|-- //gir.st/]] ([[User talk:Gir\|talk]]) 17:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 The title text puts me in mind of the quotation, variously attributed to Talleyrand or to Metternich.
-On hearing of the death of a Turkish ambassador, Talleyrand is supposed to have said: "I wonder what he meant by that?" More commonly, the quote is attributed to Metternich, the Austrian diplomat, upon Talleyrand's death in 1838. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/jan/01/jd-salinger Happy birthday Salinger by Xan Brooks ]
+On hearing of the death of a Turkish ambassador, Talleyrand is supposed to have said: "I wonder what he meant by that?" More commonly, the quote is attributed to Metternich, the Austrian diplomat, upon Talleyrand's death in 1838. [https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2009/jan/01/jd-salinger Happy birthday Salinger by Xan Brooks ][[Special:Contributions/162.158.106.48|162.158.106.48]] 18:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 As requested by the explanation note, I measured the distances of the fields along the horizontal line of the chart. I used the unaltered original image from the page at the time of the edit. If anyone can put the data into a more pleasing form, you are welcome to do so. The measurements are +/- 1-2 pixels, due to there rarely being a pixel in the exact center of the dots marking the field placings. (Was the 666px overall measurement deliberate?) [[User:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For]] ([[User talk:These Are Not The Comments You Are Looking For|talk]]) 01:12, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 Previously when doing such comics like in [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] the item from the title text was not in the graph because it would be so far to one side than all the others would end up on top of each other... Could he mean the same by epidemiologist... I mean sure old age kills some people, but as said above, no one is actually diagnosed as dying from old age anymore. Cancer, heart attack, etc. Also many will die in accidents and from diseases that may not be related to age. So maybe epidemiologists are much more likely to die from their study than even those studying Gerontology... And that is why they have not been included on the line as it would have moved Gerontology so close to all the others as to not make any distinction... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 :I actually thought about this detail too.  I think the epidemiologist is in the title text instead of the chart because it's not about what they study killing them, but is instead about them becoming the very thing they study: a statistic! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 13:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 29 April 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:

	For the record, the comic is about the probability that the thing you're studying will kill you, not that it will kill you because you're studying it. I think that's an important distinction that might be confusing readers, loosely related to a previous comment about being killed "while" you're studying something. As an example, gerontologists would not be killed by old age because their studying it, but they are likely to die from old age just because that's how many people die, even if they're no longer studying it due to retirement. The comic is more about what kills you and less about how it kills you. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 12:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)		For the record, the comic is about the probability that the thing you're studying will kill you, not that it will kill you because you're studying it. I think that's an important distinction that might be confusing readers, loosely related to a previous comment about being killed "while" you're studying something. As an example, gerontologists would not be killed by old age because their studying it, but they are likely to die from old age just because that's how many people die, even if they're no longer studying it due to retirement. The comic is more about what kills you and less about how it kills you. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 12:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
		+	:Volcanologists are probably a lot more likely to be killed by volcanos than non-volcanologists are. --[[User:EmuSam\|EmuSam]] 5:33, 29 April 2019

	The title text puts me in mind of the quotation, variously attributed to Talleyrand or to Metternich.		The title text puts me in mind of the quotation, variously attributed to Talleyrand or to Metternich.

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 29 April 2019
Line 39:		Line 39:

	Previously when doing such comics like in [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] the item from the title text was not in the graph because it would be so far to one side than all the others would end up on top of each other... Could he mean the same by epidemiologist... I mean sure old age kills some people, but as said above, no one is actually diagnosed as dying from old age anymore. Cancer, heart attack, etc. Also many will die in accidents and from diseases that may not be related to age. So maybe epidemiologists are much more likely to die from their study than even those studying Gerontology... And that is why they have not been included on the line as it would have moved Gerontology so close to all the others as to not make any distinction... --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)		Previously when doing such comics like in [[388: Fuck Grapefruit]] the item from the title text was not in the graph because it would be so far to one side than all the others would end up on top of each other... Could he mean the same by epidemiologist... I mean sure old age kills some people, but as said above, no one is actually diagnosed as dying from old age anymore. Cancer, heart attack, etc. Also many will die in accidents and from diseases that may not be related to age. So maybe epidemiologists are much more likely to die from their study than even those studying Gerontology... And that is why they have not been included on the line as it would have moved Gerontology so close to all the others as to not make any distinction... --[[User:Kynde\|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde\|talk]]) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
		+	:I actually thought about this detail too. I think the epidemiologist is in the title text instead of the chart because it's not about what they study killing them, but is instead about them becoming the very thing they study: a statistic! [[User:Ianrbibtitlht\|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht\|talk]]) 13:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 Isn't everything really just applied mathematics (and wasn't there an XKCD comic on that a while back)? Chemical reactions, physics, economics, etc. -- all math in motion. So, broadly speaking, shouldn't mathematics be rather far to the right, up there with the study of aging/old age?
 :Applying mathematics and studying mathematics are not the same thing. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
-:The comic you think of was probably: [[435: Purity]] --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
+:The comic you think of was probably: [[435: Purity]]. Everything is applied physics is the pun, but mathematics is more pure, but has nothing to do with the real world, as stated in the title text... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 09:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 For the record, the comic is about the probability that the thing you're studying will kill you, not that it will kill you because you're studying it. I think that's an important distinction that might be confusing readers, loosely related to a previous comment about being killed "while" you're studying something. As an example, gerontologists would not be killed by old age because their studying it, but they are likely to die from old age just because that's how many people die, even if they're no longer studying it due to retirement.  The comic is more about what kills you and less about how it kills you. [[User:Ianrbibtitlht|Ianrbibtitlht]] ([[User talk:Ianrbibtitlht|talk]]) 12:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)