Photo: Laura James

Whats the difference between safe Euclid and Keter?

Safe is a grenade. Euclid is a grenade without the pin, but someone is holding down the spoon and probably waving it around wildly. Keter is a grenade without the pin that someone has shoved down your pants after tying your hands behind your back.

scp-wiki.wikidot.com - Safe/Euclid/Keter - SCP Foundation - Wikidot

Why do I suddenly have rats in my house?

There are two main things that can attract mice and rats to your house – food and shelter. If you don't tidy up properly and there's food waste on...

Last updated Aug 20, 2018

Is it better to bike standing up or sitting down?

A study says a fair amount, but the reasons why might surprise you. According to a study in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise,...

Last updated May 12, 2021

Promotion

In which I propose revised Safe/Euclid/Keter definitions and suggest clarifications.

DICLAIMER: The author of this post is a newbie. There are no guarantees that the following post will not make you want to rip your eyes out.

Safe

The definition given by the SCP Object Classes page seems to indicate that Safe objects are both 1. relatively harmless— "only class of SCP object that anyone of O5-x clearance is permitted access to"— and 2. well understood, and therefore easily contained. The safe page, however, completely ignores the first criteria presented by the first definition. It presents a nuclear bomb as an example of a Safe object. My question is- does Safe mean reliably containable and relatively harmless, or just reliably containable and totally harmless only when contained? A nuclear bomb is certainly deadly if uncontained. If it's the former, we might want to change the tone of the first page to reflect that. I understand that it says that "Safe class objects are not completely harmless," but the examples immediately following that line are…rather weak. AK-47s and cars aren't exactly on the same level as a nuke. Fortunately, there isn't that much of a discrepancy between the two pages, so we just need to tweak the articles a bit.

Euclid

Both pages just say "unpredictable and not understood" for Euclid. Easy enough. I would just suggest a change on the SCP Object Classes page, because it says "does not obey known laws of nature and physics" to describe Euclid, when that line better describes every SCP, ever.

Keter

Oh goody.

Perhaps the biggest problem with Keter is that both pages say that the Foundation is trying to destroy them and will do so if it can. Meanwhile, we tell the newbies not to make SCPs indestructible. So…how would they write a destructible Keter, then, if the first thing that pops to mind is "Wait, why don't we just chuck this thing in a fire?" The Keter page says that we only keep a Keter that we can destroy around if it maintains strategic value or if it will wreck shit if we kill it. Most of the Keter pages fulfill neither of those criteria, yet they remain around. Yes, I know, each article is a snapshot in time, but it seems unlikely that this site documents dozens of Keter objects in between the brief timeframe from "this thing is Keter" to "Ok, we can destroy it, let's do so." As the HTWASCP page says, "For the same reason governments around the world keep samples of deadly, highly communicable viruses in quarantined labs, the Foundation contains SCP threats without outright destroying them." That needs changing. There are three options available to us. We can tell everybody that Keters either have to cooperate, they have to be indestructible, or they have to be like 231 and will kill everybody if it dies. We can claim that the documentation is a snapshot and that the actual artifact has already been destroyed. Or we can just change the definition. I propose the third option. The rest of the Keter definition is generally clear. It'll kill us all if it breaks containment, and containment is challenging to maintain. Finally, the existence of two different definition pages is…puzzling. Why do we keep SCP Object Classes around? Shouldn't we just have one definition? Of course, "there is no canon," but it seems wise to at least make sure we have consistent definitions.

Please don't kill me.

Can you run armoured cable along a fence UK?

At the end of the day it's about providing protection from a spade or digger if it's underground. You can run the cable as it is and just clip it...

Last updated Jul 17, 2018

Can you get an FHA loan to build a Barndominium?

Types Of Home You Can Build You also cannot use an FHA construction loan, VA One-Time Close, etc. to build a tiny house, a shipping container home,...

Last updated Oct 19, 2018

Can I build my own shed?

Yes, with the right plans you can build your dream shed.

Learn More »

Promotion

Is Keter waterproof?

Are Keter sheds waterproof? Keter sheds are water-resistant. Keter sheds are manufactured from high-quality, recyclable materials under rigorous control and supervision to protect against warping, rotting, fading, rusting, and peeling.

keter.com - 15 Most Asked Questions About Our Sheds - Keter

While Keter sheds are extremely durable and sturdy when built on solid and level ground, depending on the area conditions, it may be best to secure your shed to the ground. For example, if your shed is in a hurricane area or an area where weather conditions can be extreme, you may choose to secure your shed. All Keter sheds come with notches on the floor where anchors can be secured. The types of bolts that will work to secure your shed are included in the manual. The types of materials you may require, for example, a removable concrete screw and a rotary hammer, are dependent on the material of the ground you are securing your shed to.