The extreme ultraviolet and x-ray radiation from solar flares is absorbed by the daylight side of Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular the ionosphere, and does not reach the surface.
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.
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.
[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.
I just looked it up on Wikipedia.
What else should I know?
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.
Electrocuted? Or shocked?
Electrocuted as in they received injuries from an electric shock.
I’m generally a linguistic descriptivist, but in the case of “electrocuted”, I do think the distinction is worth having.
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.
[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.
I’m a big fan of words being used wrong so often that they change meaning. Glad my education was largely useless.
Tbf, education isn’t a thing that ever ends, just gotta learn the new definitions is all.
Iirc it’s only electrocution if you die
Google and the Oxford dictionary disagree.
You mean the opinion of Google is different from that of the Oxford dictionary?
Electrocution = death
Google and the Oxford dictionary disagree.
And Cambridge says it means to die from it.
I wonder if the origin of the word was a portmanteau of electricity and execute.
Execute to death, of course
Could be, but there’s other words with that same ending
This is what I get for skipping Latin…