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

‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

longreads.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 474 posts

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#51

Post by bitexploder »

emtel wrote: post #48

One time, I was driving at night in the Sierra after a storm - roads were covered in snow. It's a drive I've made close to 100 times without incident. Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. I stopped and…

Couple of thoughts: Probably just leaking voltage, so not a full circuit shock, that is my first guess. Also, even wet your skin has high-ish resistance. It also may have traveled on the outside of your body to ground, path of least resistance? I have been bit by 120 and 240. When it is a full load it hekkin hurts.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#52

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

emtel wrote: post #48

One time, I was driving at night in the Sierra after a storm - roads were covered in snow. It's a drive I've made close to 100 times without incident. Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. I stopped and…

> You really can't do worse than standing barefoot, soaking wet, on a stone floor, and grabbing a live fixture, can you?

Would the wetness have actually helped? Why go through all that higher resistance human flesh when the current can go straight to ground via the electrolyte solution that's around you instead?

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#53

Post by rob74 »

alocasia-1 wrote: post #10
rob74 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and the more we try to legislate away any possible source of danger we might encounter in our day-to-day lives, the less prepared we will be for places where nature is left to fend for itself.

The author made decisions to put herself in dangerous situations. What does that have to do with seatbelt laws or food inspection guidelines?

Ok, maybe my statement was too generic... it's more about the environment in cities that looks suspiciously similar to nature but isn't - trees that are tested regularly for stability, paths that are kept free of roots or stones you might trip over, guardrails and warning signs everywhere there might be the slightest possibility of danger etc.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#55

Post by giantg2 »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #46
giantg2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see it as more of a vicious cycle. The "don't put this plastic bag on your mouth" warnings come about because the public supports those laws/cases. Those people are at the point were they rely on other to be responsible for them rather than using common sense. Those laws/cases create an environment where people come to expect warnings for everything rather than rely on their own common sense. I do think you're righ…

Are those warning labels there because they've been proven to be effective, or because someone sued and that's their way to mitigate that? I have a problem visualizing the venn diagram of people who are so stupid they'll put the bag in their mouth but also people who will listen to the words written on said bag.

I mean, all the time people slip and fall on ice and then sue. You can see it, you walk on it, but you don't assume the risk and force the property owner to pay. I assume that most warnings are just there because someone got sued or doesn't want to get sued.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#56

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

giantg2 wrote: post #55
SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are those warning labels there because they've been proven to be effective, or because someone sued and that's their way to mitigate that? I have a problem visualizing the venn diagram of people who are so stupid they'll put the bag in their mouth but also people who will listen to the words written on said bag.

I mean, all the time people slip and fall on ice and then sue. You can see it, you walk on it, but you don't assume the risk and force the property owner to pay. I assume that most warnings are just there because someone got sued or doesn't want to get sued.

People do, it's true. The question I have is would a "Danger! Slippy ice!" actually stop people from hurting themselves? Because I don't think it would, it would just make the sueing harder.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#57

Post by blackbrokkoli »

the_af wrote: post #49
user3939382 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first thing to learn is to have respect for the harsh reality of the environment. You’d be surprised how many people get killed because they don’t (looking at you Christopher McCandless). So your awareness itself is already a good start.

I don't understand why McCandless was idolized (I do know there was backlash from actual knowledgeable people, like park rangers). He purposefully put himself in harm's way and didn't have any relevant skills that would have helped him survive. So what's admirable or romantic about the way he died?

Well he most likely died due to poisoning himself with a misidentified plant that was only ever documented as dangerous in an ancient encyclopedia over 100 years old. Nothing romantic about it, but nothing screaming "no relevant skills", either.

Don't think this is the part people romanticize, I think it's the whole "I think careers are a 20th century invention and I don't think I want one" and the "Instead, I will walk into the wild" that does it for people.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#58

Post by itsmemattchung »

bombcar wrote: post #42
itsmemattchung wrote: post #26

Some tips on where to begin to learn more about nature and survive in the wild? Maybe an REI class? I'm a little embarrassed to admit that should I ever venture out into the wilderness, I would definitely not survive. I lack basic survival skills and nature would eat me alive. That being said, I always admired folks who could go camping for days (or weeks), who could cook up a warm (and edible) meal over a campfire.

Honestly the three things you can do easily: 1. Only go deep into nature (out of cell range) with someone experienced. 2. Obtain a rescue device (Apple satellite cell, Garmin GPS emergency beacon, etc). 3. If stranded in a vehicle stay with the vehicle!

> 1. Only go deep into nature (out of cell range) with someone experienced.

I think the above is probably the most important. Having someone experienced within arms reach would be the best bet when/if shit hits the fan.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#59

Post by Filligree »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #52
emtel wrote: post #48

One time, I was driving at night in the Sierra after a storm - roads were covered in snow. It's a drive I've made close to 100 times without incident. Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. I stopped and…

> You really can't do worse than standing barefoot, soaking wet, on a stone floor, and grabbing a live fixture, can you? Would the wetness have actually helped? Why go through all that higher resistance human flesh when the current can go straight to ground via the electrolyte solution that's around you instead?

Only really the case if the available power is limited, so flowing around you means the voltage drops. Otherwise it'll just do both. That, and wet skin has (massively) lower resistance than dry skin. It's unlikely to work out for you.

Skin is also hydrophobic. You're unlikely to have a complete circuit with no breaks on the outside of your body, unless you're currently standing in the shower.

Re: ‘That girl is going to get herself killed’ (2022)

#60

Post by ealexhudson »

emtel wrote: post #48

One time, I was driving at night in the Sierra after a storm - roads were covered in snow. It's a drive I've made close to 100 times without incident. Going around a bend, I saw a car in the ditch on the outside of the curve. I stopped the car, put on the hazards, and went to see if there was anyone in the car. As I was about to cross the highway a car come sliding around the bend more or less sideways. I stopped and…

I've done the whole "why is my arm vibrating thing" before, except in my case I was trying to get the end of a light fitting off, and both the hot and cold prongs were in my hand. Got a nice couple of blisters where they touched the skin.

My guess would be not enough of the main current was passing across your heart to kill you? I didn't think mains electricity was necessary powerful enough to kill people in most scenarios, just that it is powerful enough to do it in an unlucky few. I'd also imagine the floor wasn't really conducting to earth.

Post reply on HN