Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 320 posts

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#151

Post by siphor »

Chris2048 wrote: post #99
Xero wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Children are not an all or nothing proposal." I'm not sure I understand this mentality. Why force a life into this existence if you don't do everything in your power to make it as accommodating as you can? Modern life in it of itself will be working against it.

Should we strive for an equal society? As such, shouldn't all children be born with equally (or minimally) committed parents?

What? This comment reads to me that you want a homogenous society... The people who do great things take big risks. Shit happens. This is a thread for startups, where many people eschew the "safe" corporate jobs in order to create or do something that many people don't think are possible.

You're reading about an accident, and then assuming the amount of risk involved without knowing anything about the sport. Accidents happen all the time, in all sorts of ways. It's very possible to do something like this and have a large safety margin, as has been shown by his 24yr history of doing it. Someone who is this experienced at what they do, in a dangerous seeming sport, will be very well aware of possible mistakes, and how to mitigate them. I personally think teaching your child to be "safe" and not take "risks" is kind of stupid. I'd much rather teach my child to learn how to push the limits intelligently, and see what in this world is possible.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#152

Post by Barbara454 »

wfunction wrote: post #123
pdonis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because fathers can be replaced with money and children wouldn't feel a thing. That's not what I said. What I said was that it's not necessarily an argument for not taking risks. You have to balance the risk against the potential cost. That is perfectly compatible with there being a cost that can't be made good with money. And it's also perfectly compatible with minimizing the cost--yes, you can't replace a father…

> That's not what I said. Says the guy who translated "actively go around risking your life" into "taking risks" ?

I'm making $86 an hour working from home. I was shocked when my neighbour told me she was averaging $95 but I see how it works now. I feel so much freedom now that I'm my own boss. This is what I do, ==http://archive.is/VORZm

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#153

Post by fulafel »

wfunction wrote: post #119
nvahalik wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are ways to enjoy life, or take "risks", that do not involve mortal danger. Depends on how you look at it. We are fragile creatures and the world is a fairly dangerous place. People die every day driving cars, riding bikes, going for walks—doing things far more mundane than cave-diving.

Yeah, except it's kinda hard to find jobs/stores/daily-places-that-you-need-to-go that don't require transportation on the road, but it's kind of easy to find jobs/stores that don't require going into underwater caves or jumping off cliffs/airplanes or the like. If only one out of thousands of people ever needed to drive on the road, we'd probably criticize them too. The entire argument is so ridiculous that I can't…

Order groceries delivered to your home, and work remotely?

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#154

Post by fulafel »

vertex-four wrote: post #61
Chris2048 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rather than never take any big risks With kids at home? specifically ?! There are ways to enjoy life, or take "risks", that do not involve mortal danger. > Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? .. Someone who commutes .. in a car that has a poor safety rating? Are those as dangerous? If so, then yes, I think so. > People who travel for work for days or weeks at a time? People…

Taken to the extreme, your suggestion would be to never drive a car (or indeed go anywhere near a public road), as that is one of the most dangerous things we do every day. Travelling for a holiday would be a definite no-no, as it's likely more dangerous than staying at home. And so on and so forth.

Not driving a car is good advice for other reasons.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#155

Post by neurotech1 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #145
macspoofing wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A key responsibility of being a parent is to make sure arrangements are made for you children should you die. Could you even get life insurance if you engage in high-risk activities?

> Could you even get life insurance if you engage in high-risk activities? Probably, though you may need a specialized carrier and policy to have those activities covered.

Lockheed does have special arrangements for life insurance for their test pilots, as getting regular life insurance would be difficult.

In the last 30 years, Lockheed has lost only two test pilots in crashes. One in 1993 and another in 2009.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#157

Post by Chris2048 »

siphor wrote: post #151
Chris2048 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should we strive for an equal society? As such, shouldn't all children be born with equally (or minimally) committed parents?

What? This comment reads to me that you want a homogenous society... The people who do great things take big risks. Shit happens. This is a thread for startups, where many people eschew the "safe" corporate jobs in order to create or do something that many people don't think are possible. You're reading about an accident, and then assuming the amount of risk involved without knowing anything about the sport. Accident…

> you want a homogenous society

Can you tell me what that means?

> people who do great things take big risks

Parents? With their lives? Can you describe such a scenario?

> This is a thread for startups

Is the risk involved in startups of the same impact to their children as their deaths?

> then assuming the amount of risk involved

Am I? Is this considered a safe pastime then?

> and have a large safety margin, as has been shown by his 24yr history of doing it

Now who's assuming? 24 years of not telling anyone he's going on a dive?

> I personally think teaching your child to be "safe" and not take "risks" is kind of stupid

You're playing semantics. mortal/life-threatening risk/safety is clearly different from other forms of usages of the same word(s).

You absolutely should teach your children to avoid those kinds of risks, or at least, in the context of having dependants.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#158

Post by pdonis »

Chris2048 wrote: post #128
pdonis wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They accept that duty though, so it's the same thing - instead of "is it ok for a soldier to go to war" it's "is it ok to become a soldier". But if it's not ok to become a soldier if you have kids, that severely limits who can be a soldier. (For example, many soldiers get married and start families during their careers as soldiers. Should they instantly get discharged if that happens? Taken off all possibly dangero…

> that severely limits who can be a soldier But that's an economic problem, isn't it? Maybe if children stopped working, we couldn't make enough matches? But unless we recognise the morally undesirable, why would we care to change anything? You can recognise something as morally undesirable, yet for some other reason unavoidable. There are many things that fall into that category. It's also a slippery slope - if some…

> that's an economic problem, isn't it?

Only if you think the need of any society to be able to defend itself is an economic problem.

> to what extent does America really need (a certain amount) of soldiers?

That depends on what threats we expect to have to deal with.

Also, if you argue that people with children should not be soldiers, you are taking out of the decision loop people who are likely to have a more restrained view of when violence should be used.

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#159

Post by wfunction »

fulafel wrote: post #153
wfunction wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, except it's kinda hard to find jobs/stores/daily-places-that-you-need-to-go that don't require transportation on the road, but it's kind of easy to find jobs/stores that don't require going into underwater caves or jumping off cliffs/airplanes or the like. If only one out of thousands of people ever needed to drive on the road, we'd probably criticize them too. The entire argument is so ridiculous that I can't…

Order groceries delivered to your home, and work remotely?

Are you serious?

Re: Two days in an underwater cave running out of oxygen

#160

Post by aesh2Xa1 »

andrewfong wrote: post #134
rdtsc wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick. > The good news is that once you become a father, you'll get to decide (possibly with a partner) what the acceptable level of risk is for you and your family. That's a obvious. What I think is being questioned is if they made a good decision. In othe…

> Given the choice of having a father at home or have one dead in cave but famous for exploring cool places I don't think it's hard to guess what most children would pick. Not that it necessarily changes the argument, but the "choice" is probabilistic. That is, it isn't father at home vs. dead, but "probably boring dad but most likely alive" vs. "maybe famous dad but some chance of death".

That doesn't sound right. How many cave-going dads are there that you could make the claim? And do a majority of kids believe their fathers are boring? I just don't buy it. And is taking a risk like this the best way to be "not boring?" Definitely don't buy it.

You can have fun and be adventurous without taking heavy risks. It's fair to say that someone who continues to put himself at harm is foolish in one capacity or another.

Post reply on HN