Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Not exactly surprising that it’s in Sweden, as many rare earth metals were first discovered here and are named after Swedish things:

- Scandium from Scandinavia

- Yttrium, Terbium, Erbium and Ytterbium from the village of Ytterby

- Holmium from Stockholm

- Thulium from Thule




Quite impressive that little Sweden has found the second most elements in the world, 19 of them.

https://tf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com/legac...


Sweden has been an industrial powerhouse for centuries, due to its rich deposits of various ores in its relatively young mountains, and excellent access to the rest of Europe by sea.

No wonder chemistry was in high regard there for quite some time.


The Nova program 'Race to Zero'(I think) has a great overview on Bohr and his contemporaries to induce liquid phase of the lowest elements.


Bohr was Danish though, so how is this related? Other than Sweden being a boat trip away?


Sweden has produced a great chemist or two for sure.


[flagged]


Some of those elements they discovered (e.g. chlorine, silicon) hardly require geographic luck to discover, just a beach. Could it be that Sweden just had some enterprising chemists at the right time, rather than just hand-waving their discoveries away as geographic luck?


I think they used impressive colloquially. I guess more fitting would be "interesting/amusing"

Although, I think yours is a far bigger offence: being intentionally ignorant for the purpose of being an asshole online


i'm genuinely curious what about their comment makes them an asshole. the comment is a bit dismissive, but hardly assholish


The combination of being dismissive and adding nothing to the conversation is what makes it assholish. Their only contribution was to shoot down what was an interesting aside.


I don't particularly like the way the comment was delivered either, but it does add to the conversation (as evidenced by the other comments that respond to its content and not its tone). The comment in question is bringing up the point that geography may have something to do with the reported stats, which is another interesting thing to keep in mind.


It just reads as a snarky comment for me, doesn't really add value as everybody with a modicum of english knowledge should be able to understand.


Others have pointed out what struck me as assholeish: perceived snarky tone, seems antagonistic for no reason, and completely unproductive. Like, why did they make that comment? I can't see any point other than criticizing and demeaning the other person for their statement (which also seems to be intentionally misinterpreted).

Of course, there could be a language barrier (which I didn't think of immediately), in which case I'm the asshole


I actually find it quite interesting that people are jumping to the conclusion that the comment is demeaning. Ambiguous and lacking a particular effort to be explicitly positive, sure. But where is the "criticizing and demeaning" the author part? The comment is bare and terse, questioning whether it's really that impressive when you factor in geography or whether it's more or less to be expected. There is no ad hominem attack.

For instance, Japan has good sea food cuisine. Sure that's awesome and nothing to disparage, but neither is it especially impressive considering they're an island. I think this is the point the comment is attempting to communicate.


> actually find it quite interesting that people are jumping to the conclusion that the comment is demeaning. Ambiguous and lacking a particular effort to be explicitly positive, sure.

Maybe most of us had worse experience with people than you, and have developed a more cynical model of human behaviour.

> But where is the "criticizing and demeaning" the author part?

This is just my quick analysis of what is probably more intuitive in my head than well fleshed out. I didn't think about this very hard, but I wanted to indulge you since you put effort into your comment of the situation.

It was written very tersely, it was disguised as a question, and it was directly aimed at the author of the comment, not the content of their comment. Also the way they clung onto a narrow definition of impressive seems like a petty attempt to reconstruct the narrative around the original comment's content to show how they're smart and the original poster isn't for "giving kudos" (ie being impressed) to a geographical area.

Like I said earlier though, maybe I read too much into it.

Also, I have higher standards for comment etiquette on HN than I would on other platforms. Why? I don't really know. Maybe that's a mistake too, clearly.


Collapse of the behavioral wave function due to observation?


It's also stupid and insulting, because those discoveries have far more to do with the capability of Swedish chemists than they do with geography.


[flagged]


We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.


[flagged]


Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. That only makes everything worse.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: you've been doing repeatedly lot lately, and we ban such accounts. Please see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34385788.


ta ock nu sueidi sät din sist potatis


It's not geographic luck.

It's a combination of historical industrial strategy, a culture with love of learning and individuals with a great love of learning who happened to be creative and innovative enough to discover these elements.

It's not like these elements are nowhere else. In fact, I don't think any yttrium, ytteribum, etc. is mined in Sweden at all.


What may be impressive about is that Sweden has all these natural resources without falling prey to the resource curse.


The word's definition doesn't exclude it.


[flagged]


If you keep breaking the site guidelines, we're going to end up having to ban you. We've warned you more than once before (not counting the other place in the current thread):

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32100785 (July 2022)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26010177 (Feb 2021)

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.


Would Thorium be part of that list as well?

Edit: I kinda know that because I have some weird passion about the elements of periodic table and because I'm reading "Periodic Tales: A Cultural History of The Elements From Arsenic To Zinc" which I really recommend!


Indeed, good catch : > Thorium was discovered in 1828 by the Norwegian amateur mineralogist Morten Thrane Esmark and identified by the Swedish chemist Jöns Jacob Berzelius, who named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium


There’s also tungsten: “tung” is heavy, and “sten” stone in Swedish.


Which interestingly is called Volfram in Swedish.


Tungsten refers to the rock where the element is found. The english language reused the name for the actual element.


And in English we use both Tungsten and Wolfram. The former is more popular, but the latter is still the basis of the element's symbol.


I don't know anyone who refers to the element as wolfram in English. The abbreviations are internationally standardized and many don't stand for the English words anyway (Latin is quite common, e.g. Pb means plumbum, for lead).


I also don't know anyone who refers to it as wolfram, but wolfram is all over the tungsten wikipedia page.


The symbol is W, which stands for Wolfram. So everyone refers to it that way, at least initially.


That's gonna be people either in specialized areas, or non-native English speakers using their own words. I see British English spelling all over Wikipedia, for example, but I never see anyone in my actual life in the US use it except for one guy who is from, you can guess.


There's also Gadolinium after Johan Gadolin


But he was Finnish


But a Swedish speaking Finn and it seems he made his discoveries while living in Sweden.

From wikipedia:

"Johan Gadolin was born in Åbo (Finnish name Turku), Finland (then a part of Sweden)." [0]

"In 1779 Gadolin moved to Uppsala University."

Uppsala is in Sweden.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_Gadolin


Also most of todays Finland was under Swedish rule until 1809.


Was any part of todays Finland not under Swedish rule 1809?


The area around Viborg was lost to the russians in 1721 and 1743. The western part of that, Lappeenranta and part of Kymenlaakso, are part of Finland today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Finland


> Finland (then a part of Sweden)

If Gadolin is Finnish, then, by the same logic, Immanuel Kant is Russian, because his birthplace, Koenigsberg, is a Russian exclave now.


Gadolin was Finnish by the same logic Benjamin Franklin was American. Or would you consider him an Englishman? He was born in the British colony, after all.


> But a Swedish speaking Finn

this is the argument Russia has used to invade Ukraine...


That Finland has a sizable Swedish-speaking minority? The guy was considered Swedish back then; Finland was simply the Eastern half of the Swedish kingdom.

There's plenty of Finnish speaking Swedes too. Is that also an argument for invasion?


No, that speaking Swedish means you are not Finnish or, in any remote way, makes you "closer to being Swedish"


What's your opinion on Belgians and the Swiss?


that language != nationality?


Swedish is an official language in Finland nowadays. Back then, it was just a part of Sweden (Finland was not independent)


the point is that just because a Finnish person speaks Swedish as native language does NOT make them Swedish! or any less Finnnish


Reminds me of Tesla. Was he Serb or Croatian


He was an American.


Right


Isn't Thule on Greenland (or are there multiple Thule around?)


Thule comes from a Greek cartographer, Pytheas. Thule was supposed to be an island to the north of Britain, but nobody knows what he referred to or if whatever place he referred to even was real. Some people, especially 19th century Scandinavian nationalists, associate Thule with Scandinavia.


this is possibly in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doggerland


Unlikely. Thule was supposed to exist in 330 BC, long after Doggerland had disappeared. There are many other candidates which would make more sense and fit better with his descriptions, including Norway.


There seems to be multiple Thule, but none of them in Sweden: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_(disambiguation), although there seems to be a Swedish brand with the name as well, but unrelated to the location as far as I can tell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thule_Group


Multiple I think. I believe Thule was the capital of the Greenland Norse civilization, but it's also a local story about a high culture that disappeared.


Aluminum (American pronunciation) not being 'from/ of the Earth', or 'of Scandinavia', it would appear.


Also, Tungsten.


Annoyingly, even though tungsten literally means "heavy stone" in Swedish, the name of the element in Swedish is "volfram".


Thus the chemical symbol W (Wolfram) for tungsten.


But "Wolfram" comes from German, as it was described in the 16th century already. The isolation of pure tungsten then was done by Spanish scientists.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: