4 ms·

Super interesting. I have been reading Cleopatra: A Life, recently, and it is amazing to think that the Egyptian civilization is measured in millennia. For refe

Super interesting. I have been reading Cleopatra: A Life, recently, and it is amazing to think that the Egyptian civilization is measured in millennia. For reference, this tomb is about 2 millennia older than the rule of Cleopatra. Complete side note, but the other articles on that news website are full of clickbait and sensational news. So kind of surprised to also find this article on there.

gaoshan 2y ago
As soon as I see "dailymail" I, correctly, reasonably and thoughtfully IMO, start doubting whatever is linked.
- vkazanov 2y ago
  Dailymail is dailymail but this particular article is boring. Things like this happen every year, thanks to both the tomb building tradition and the climate of the region. Middle kingdom did thrive about 4k years ago, this is the height of the classic Egyptian culture. Numerous tombs were escavated already. Thr comment you replied to reasonably noted how the culture survived for 2.7k years. They kept track of every pharaoh they had, as well as dynasties, and key events. This is amazing. Not the boring tomb. Although I love tombs.
kosmozaut 2y ago
It is indeed amazing. Like, the death of Cleopatra in 69 BC is closer to our present day than it is to the building of the great pyramid of Khufu (~2600 BC).
- vkazanov 2y ago
  What's even more interesting is that even the great pyramid itself wasn't the beginning of it all, they built it in the later Old Kingdom period. And we know so much because of the unusual culture of having to carve out one's achievements on the tombstone. In fact, serious people of the Nile cared more about the afterlife than life itself.
justinclift 2y ago
> ... Egyptian civilization is measured in millennia. It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for time periods multiple times as long as that. Perhaps they should, and also put some fake tomb stuff inside them. Then they can have real curse stuff happening along the lines of "anyone who goes in there dies with a few weeks" or "their kids are born with severe deformities" (etc). What a gift to future generations. o_O </rant>
- wslh 2y ago
  > It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for time periods multiple times as long as that. I imagine that someone will discover a better way to dispose or "recycle" nuclear material before that.
  - FraterSKM 2y ago
    I'm basically a troglodyte so this could very well be a dumb question, but... couldn't we just launch that shit into space? The only limiting factors I can think of would be the weight of the waste and the fuel cost to get it up to escape velocity.
    - fred_is_fred 2y ago
      Ignoring the fact that launching stuff into space is quite expensive, the failure mode of a rocket full of nuclear waste blowing up is also rather bad.
    - loudmax 2y ago
      The fuel cost to launch is significant here, as you'd want to put this into quite a high orbit. You absolutely don't want this stuff in low orbit where it will be taken down eventually by atmospheric drag, or by slamming into some other spacecraft. Another issue is the reliability of your launch vehicle. Sometimes these things blow up on launch, which you really don't want happening when it's loaded with radioactive waste. Developments made by SpaceX might contribute positively to both of these, by lowering the cost and increasing the reliability. A third issue is that this stuff might turn out to be valuable after all. Hopefully not for making bombs, but future technology might come up with socially positive uses for material that's currently considered dangerous waste.

gaoshan 2y ago

As soon as I see "dailymail" I, correctly, reasonably and thoughtfully IMO, start doubting whatever is linked.

vkazanov 2y ago
Dailymail is dailymail but this particular article is boring. Things like this happen every year, thanks to both the tomb building tradition and the climate of the region. Middle kingdom did thrive about 4k years ago, this is the height of the classic Egyptian culture. Numerous tombs were escavated already. Thr comment you replied to reasonably noted how the culture survived for 2.7k years. They kept track of every pharaoh they had, as well as dynasties, and key events. This is amazing. Not the boring tomb. Although I love tombs.

kosmozaut 2y ago

It is indeed amazing. Like, the death of Cleopatra in 69 BC is closer to our present day than it is to the building of the great pyramid of Khufu (~2600 BC).

vkazanov 2y ago
What's even more interesting is that even the great pyramid itself wasn't the beginning of it all, they built it in the later Old Kingdom period. And we know so much because of the unusual culture of having to carve out one's achievements on the tombstone. In fact, serious people of the Nile cared more about the afterlife than life itself.

justinclift 2y ago

> ... Egyptian civilization is measured in millennia. It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for time periods multiple times as long as that. Perhaps they should, and also put some fake tomb stuff inside them. Then they can have real curse stuff happening along the lines of "anyone who goes in there dies with a few weeks" or "their kids are born with severe deformities" (etc). What a gift to future generations. o_O </rant>

wslh 2y ago
> It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for time periods multiple times as long as that. I imagine that someone will discover a better way to dispose or "recycle" nuclear material before that.
- FraterSKM 2y ago
  I'm basically a troglodyte so this could very well be a dumb question, but... couldn't we just launch that shit into space? The only limiting factors I can think of would be the weight of the waste and the fuel cost to get it up to escape velocity.
  - fred_is_fred 2y ago
    Ignoring the fact that launching stuff into space is quite expensive, the failure mode of a rocket full of nuclear waste blowing up is also rather bad.
  - loudmax 2y ago
    The fuel cost to launch is significant here, as you'd want to put this into quite a high orbit. You absolutely don't want this stuff in low orbit where it will be taken down eventually by atmospheric drag, or by slamming into some other spacecraft. Another issue is the reliability of your launch vehicle. Sometimes these things blow up on launch, which you really don't want happening when it's loaded with radioactive waste. Developments made by SpaceX might contribute positively to both of these, by lowering the cost and increasing the reliability. A third issue is that this stuff might turn out to be valuable after all. Hopefully not for making bombs, but future technology might come up with socially positive uses for material that's currently considered dangerous waste.