A forum for discussing and organizing recreational softball and baseball games and leagues in the greater Halifax area.
Runes
-
It's technically slightly visible in air; if actually visible at all in air it means the level of radiation is ludicrously deadlyIt's not so much that it's visible in air, it's just that your eyes have water in them
-
[My favorite podcast did an episode about that!](https://youtu.be/34rdxDgpaaA) Highly recommend if you like leftism, and want to listen to an engineer talk at length about what this blue glowing powder is, the series of bad decisions that led to some scrap collectors finding it, and the even longer series of even worse decisions people made regarding what to do with this blue glowing powder You can skip the Goddamn News if you want, discussion of the spicy rocks starts at 20:28
-
I asked Chat GPT: Approximate unshielded dose rates: At 1 m: ≈ 5.2×10^4 Sv/h (≈51,800 Sv/h) — fatal essentially instantaneously (seconds or less). At 3 m: ≈ 5.8×10^3 Sv/h — fatal within seconds. At 10 m: ≈ 5.18×10^2 Sv/h — fatal within tens of seconds. At 30 m: ≈ 5.8×10^1 Sv/h — severe, life‑threatening in minutes. At 100 m: ≈ 5.2 Sv/h — dangerous; a few hours would produce fatal/serious acute radiation syndrome. (For perspective: an acute whole‑body dose of ~4–5 Sv often causes death without intensive medical care; 1 Sv already causes significant radiation sickness.) These are conservative, point‑source, unshielded estimates for whole‑body dose from the gammas. Being closer, or in contact, or staying in the field increases dose proportionally.ChatGPT is a text generator. Any "information" it delivers is only correct by chance, if at all. Without the knowledge to check the answers yourself, you can't possibly tell whether you're falling for random error. More in-depth, ChatGPT has learned how likely certain word patterns are in combination. Something like "1+1=" will most often be followed by "2". ChatGPT has no concept of truth or mathematical relationship, so it doesn't "understand" why this combination occurs like that, it just imitates it. You can actually see the slight randomisation in the inconsistent way 5.18 is rounded to 5.2 instead. If this was correct – I'm not qualified to comment on that – and written by a human, you'd expect them to be more consequent with the precision. It's likely that ChatGPT learned these number-words from different sources using different precision and randomly picks which one to go with for each new line. So what happens when it decides a word combination seems plausible, but it doesn't actually make sense? Well, for example, [lawyers get slapped with a fine for ChatGPT citing case law that doesn't exist](https://apnews.com/article/artificial-intelligence-chatgpt-fake-case-lawyers-d6ae9fa79d0542db9e1455397aef381c). They _sounded_ valid, because that's what ChatGPT is made for: generating plausible word combinations. It doesn't know what a legal case is or how it imposes critical restrictions on what's actually valid in this context. There's an open access paper on the proclivity of LLMs to bullshit, [available for download from Springer](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10676-024-09775-5). The short version is that it's entirely indifferent to truth. It doesn't and can't care or even know whether the figures it spits out are correct. Use it to generate texts, if you must, but don't use it to generate facts. It's not looking them up, it's not researching, it's not doing the math – it's making them up to sound right.
-
This post did not contain any content.
https://inis.iaea.org/records/5hxba-wnv29 “Drop & Run” by IAEA. -
They have "ray of frost". They can understand "radiation". Not necessarily what is radiating but the word itself is old. radiation(n.) mid-15c., radiacion, "act or process of emitting light," from Latin radiationem (nominative radiatio) "a shining, radiation," noun of action from past-participle stem of radiare "to beam, shine, gleam; make beaming," from radius "beam of light; spoke of a wheel" (see radius).The latin source word is much older than 1500s, but the question is whether they understand what it's about. Both the 15th century "radiacion" and the latin "radiationem" are about emitting light and are synonymous with "to shine" or "to glow" (though without the heat connotation). None of that conveys the sense of danger and fear of death that the modern word "radiation" means. Kinda like how the word "plane" was in use in English in the 1600s and derives from the much older Latin word "planum", but if I'd tell some from 1600s England or from ancient Rome that I took a plane/planum to another country, they'd be utterly confused about what that means. The word is the same (or at least very similar), but the concept is unknown. So you need to find a concept that's similar to what you want to convey, and then use the fitting word. For example, someone from the 1600s might understand the term "flying machine" (which was a well-known word in use in research and "science fiction" at that time).
-
The latin source word is much older than 1500s, but the question is whether they understand what it's about. Both the 15th century "radiacion" and the latin "radiationem" are about emitting light and are synonymous with "to shine" or "to glow" (though without the heat connotation). None of that conveys the sense of danger and fear of death that the modern word "radiation" means. Kinda like how the word "plane" was in use in English in the 1600s and derives from the much older Latin word "planum", but if I'd tell some from 1600s England or from ancient Rome that I took a plane/planum to another country, they'd be utterly confused about what that means. The word is the same (or at least very similar), but the concept is unknown. So you need to find a concept that's similar to what you want to convey, and then use the fitting word. For example, someone from the 1600s might understand the term "flying machine" (which was a well-known word in use in research and "science fiction" at that time).
-
This glyph clearly portrays the object with the
️ symbol bringing someone back from the dead! We should consume the blue powder inside this metal case, as it's clearly a kind of medicine -
I mean, testing showed it generally got the point across even if people didn't understand *why* it was dangerousI'm curious what testing and what people. Unless it's an as-yet uncontacted tribe in the Amazon rainforest, I'm not convinced that they successfully made a universally understood sign of danger
-
I'm curious what testing and what people. Unless it's an as-yet uncontacted tribe in the Amazon rainforest, I'm not convinced that they successfully made a universally understood sign of danger
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_nuclear_waste_warning_messages People have put alot of thought into this exact topic and there's no easy answersI'm well aware. Personally, I like to think of it from the opposite perspective; what message might we find that someone could have written 10,000 years ago that would convince us not to mess with something? The only proposals that work are ones that involve translating the dangers of radioactivity to new languages. Every physical marker is just *begging* for an archaeologist to discover why exactly they were constructed.
-
I'm not feeling creative today so I'll just write "Dildo joke".
-
No, they don't convey the sense of danger, I agree. But "light-emitter" would be worse than "it radiates death/evil", imhoYou think? A light emitter could be quite useful. If I am in a low-tech society, having a device or material that would emit light in the dark could be pretty desirable. It might confuse me though, because that "light emitter" doesn't actually emit any light at all. Maybe this ancient society was full of liers or maybe their devices are all expired and broken. Probably their warnings aren't worth anything either.
-
I'm well aware. Personally, I like to think of it from the opposite perspective; what message might we find that someone could have written 10,000 years ago that would convince us not to mess with something? The only proposals that work are ones that involve translating the dangers of radioactivity to new languages. Every physical marker is just *begging* for an archaeologist to discover why exactly they were constructed.
