• go $fsck yourself@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 hours ago

    This is just intentionally phrased poorly to create a rise out of people. It’s like referring to water as “dihydrogen monoxide”.

    • Donkter@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      23 minutes ago

      How so? I would certainly call something from 1894 to be from the "late 1800s’ or late 19th century. I mean, we’re a quarter of the way through this century, at some point it turns into history.

      • woodenskewer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I put this on an unlabeled squirt bottle once at work. It was wrong to do because technically it’s an OSHA violation for being improperly labeled because it was just in sharpie and not a standard label. But it was night shift I was bored and the bottle was already unlabeled so it was already out of compliance. Why not write on it?

        A week or so later I heard people talking about this squirt bottle that said dihydrogen monoxide. Two safety guys were there so I didn’t take credit for my shenanigans based on the reception not being great.

        I said I think it’s just water, but the chemical name. Ya know? Nope, they didn’t get it. The kind of doubled down and started talking about things in that link because they “researched the name” and it was actually harmful.

        It was a strange experience.