Need to let loose a primal scream without collecting footnotes first? Have a sneer percolating in your system but not enough time/energy to make a whole post about it? Go forth and be mid: Welcome to the Stubsack, your first port of call for learning fresh Awful you’ll near-instantly regret.

Any awful.systems sub may be subsneered in this subthread, techtakes or no.

If your sneer seems higher quality than you thought, feel free to cut’n’paste it into its own post — there’s no quota for posting and the bar really isn’t that high.

The post Xitter web has spawned soo many “esoteric” right wing freaks, but there’s no appropriate sneer-space for them. I’m talking redscare-ish, reality challenged “culture critics” who write about everything but understand nothing. I’m talking about reply-guys who make the same 6 tweets about the same 3 subjects. They’re inescapable at this point, yet I don’t see them mocked (as much as they should be)

Like, there was one dude a while back who insisted that women couldn’t be surgeons because they didn’t believe in the moon or in stars? I think each and every one of these guys is uniquely fucked up and if I can’t escape them, I would love to sneer at them.

  • skillissuerEnglish
    10·
    5 months ago

    it’s less of this and more of prop65 the size of rationalist footnote

    actual pictograms are not vibes based, there are thresholds for toxicity, flash point etc

    • YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systemsEnglish
      6·
      4 months ago

      You know, I would expect the at-a-glance symbolic information to be more useful just from sheer accessibility. But I never would have expected them to be more accurate and rigorous than the detailed safety sheets.

      • skillissuerEnglish
        5·
        4 months ago

        MSDS is a multi-page document that is mostly filled with boilerplate, but you could expect some more detailed precautions and instructions, like for example in case of HF burn apply calcium gluconate cream, use special glass for diazomethane because it can explode in contact with ground glass surface, pay special attention around whatever-class of compounds because these are potent sensitizers, or such. most of the time it’s not there, because people that write it never used these compounds, and people that do don’t read that and don’t need reminder after that detailed advice propagated to them via what is basically folk tales from labmates. it’s more useful to have a comprehensive chemical engineering handbook or similar resource (as searchable pdf) that has listed dangers for common dangerous reagents

        from that second link upthread:

        Experienced chemists know to go to sources like Sax’s or Bretherick’s for more useful advice, and tend to ignore safety data sheets entirely. But they’re not really made for experienced chemists (nor, apparently, by them either). For more general users, you would want these things to do some good, or at least do no harm, but the idea of a safety data sheet that actually makes its readers less safe is really unacceptable.