Alfred Nobel invented dynamite by stabilizing nitroglycerin with fine sand. He regretted his contribution to the efficacy of warfare, so he created the Nobel Peace Prize.
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?
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.
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”
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.
“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” "
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”
Alfred Nobel invented dynamite by stabilizing nitroglycerin with fine sand. He regretted his contribution to the efficacy of warfare, so he created the Nobel Peace Prize.
This story hasn’t ever been verified.
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?
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.
My man’s just now verified it by typing it on the internet
I heard about it in Bill Nye
Cunningham’s Law, where are you?
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”
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.
“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” "
Smokeydope’s law right there. Typical telltale signs.
No.