Thanks for the correction. I think I got that list from this New Yorker profile: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1958/03/15/adventures-of-a-pacifist But it’s from, umm, 1958, and a bit of searching suggests that modern scholarship no longer supports any of that, and honestly I should have known better to use that without checking it. Regarding fulminated mercury, you’re clearly correct. I think I’ll revise to some wishy-washy “few explosives” language. (Though let me know if you think that’s still misleading.)
No problem dynomight. The history of technology as an academic subject has exploded in size and depth since the mid 20th century, I’d say as a rule of thumb, recentness matters more for it than many other fields of history. And yeah I think “few explosives” would be perfectly accurate.
Thanks for the correction. I think I got that list from this New Yorker profile: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1958/03/15/adventures-of-a-pacifist But it’s from, umm, 1958, and a bit of searching suggests that modern scholarship no longer supports any of that, and honestly I should have known better to use that without checking it. Regarding fulminated mercury, you’re clearly correct. I think I’ll revise to some wishy-washy “few explosives” language. (Though let me know if you think that’s still misleading.)
No problem dynomight. The history of technology as an academic subject has exploded in size and depth since the mid 20th century, I’d say as a rule of thumb, recentness matters more for it than many other fields of history. And yeah I think “few explosives” would be perfectly accurate.