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

421–430 of 474 posts

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

#421

Post by kerkeslager »

greenhorn360 wrote: post #402
JeremyNT wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've been on mountain peaks on nice summer days when storms appear as out of nowhere (not the typical afternoon rains), and there's lightning, high winds, and 50ºF temperature swings. In that kind of situation, things can turn very dangerous very quickly. Stuff that you take for granted suddenly isn't true any more: some rock which is rough and gives great traction suddenly gets slippery, winds that come from a pre…

Old school sysadmin, now "ops". Always been drawn to caves and mines. The more remote the better. Your Garmin won't work there. Better be sure you're ready for what might happen because you are the cavalry.

I'm a rock climber in an area with a lot of caves and there's a lot of overlap in the rock climbing and caving communities.

I've done some pretty bold climbing, and I've also done some climbing in some squeeze chimneys that would trigger a lot of people's claustrophobia. Heights can be a bit scary because there is objective danger, but tight spaces don't really bother me.

But the idea of something going wrong and having no way to call for backup absolutely terrifies me. It's why I have no interest in caving despite having been invited many times.

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

#422

Post by CamperBob2 »

hluska wrote: post #391
CamperBob2 wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of what Wikipedia says, if you take almost 1/10 mile to stop at 65 MPH, either you or your car is doing something wrong.

Between perception and reaction time, you’re already at approximately 1.5 seconds. At 65 mph, that’s roughly 140 feet. (Source - my Dad investigated hundreds of accidents. He taught me how to drive and we covered this math in detail.)

Yes, as I believe I said.

1/10 of a mile is a long distance. If you need that long to stop, you need to slow down. Might also be time for a new car or at least a brake job.

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

#423

Post by kerkeslager »

lairv wrote: post #336

Reading the blog and the comment section as a european, I realise how Europe feels nowhere near as dangerous as natural parks in the US, less extreme weather conditions, mostly no dangerous wildlife and less environment diversity (mostly moutains, no desert) I've done some hiking and camping in the Alps, and while some surprise thunder had me stop for 30 minutes, there never was sudden storms or weather change which…

I don't think the difference is really as much about less extreme weather, wildlife, or environmental diversity as it is about size.

There are plenty of people who have died in the Alps due to unexpected storms. There maybe aren't as many large predators in Europe, but there are still poisonous snakes, and the most deadly animal in both the US and Europe is bees--allergic reactions to stings can occur even in people who have previously been stung without reaction. And there are deserts in Spain (which are quite beautiful!).

What Europe doesn't have, is 100km stretches without a single bit of civilization. I've been to parts of the US where there are signs telling you to fill your gas tank fully before leaving, because the next gas station is so far away. If you get stranded partway through the journey, there's no cell signal even though the land is flat with nothing to block signals, because you're so far away that the curvature of the earth blocks the signal. That's on roads through desert plains: if you go into the mountains on foot you can easily be even further (in travel time) from civilization.

If you get stung by a bee and have an allergic reaction in the Alps, you're probably within a 15 minute helicopter ride of a hospital, with cell service and other hikers nearby to assist. If you get stung by a bee and have an allergic reaction in the Rockies, you may not see another hiker for a few hours, and if you do, neither of you will have a way to contact a helicopter, which will then have a lot of space to cover to find you, and then will have to take you further.

On a related note, when I lived in NYC, a friend from the UK asked if I could pick him up from the airport... in Buffalo. Yes, NYC and Buffalo are in the same state, but they're opposite sides of that state. Here's a comparison of that state to the entire UK: [1] https://external-preview.redd.it/sihkYJaYp-ZALJToGKSGpJ6aRLj...

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

#424

Post by kerkeslager »

krsdcbl wrote: post #365

Very well written and impactful read. This story is about extreme examples, seemingly about people ignoring obvious dangers and thinking "it won't happen to me!". But the conclusion resonates heavily with me, it bears a very fundamental and important truth that has nothing to do with the extremes of raging torrents or scorching heat pictured: real, actual nature bears fatal risks for anyone, if you are unprepared, un…

> [R]eal, actual nature bears fatal risks for anyone, if you are unprepared, uninformed and not cautious.

I think if you read to the end, you'll see that's not really the conclusion. The author concludes with:

> Repeat these numbers on the trail at dawn when you hear the huffing of a bear on the cliffside below. Repeat them as you cross the river and feel it tug on your ankles. Repeat them when the lightning cracks the sky above you, strikes the rock beside you, lights the world up violet around you, reminding you for just a second that this is all just random and it is not the Oklahomans in jean shorts trekking into the Grand Canyon with cans of cola in hand who are fools, but it is you; you were a fool to believe that this is all some ordered system.

Your example is telling:

> But every year we have countless helicopter rescues of utterly unprepared tourists surprised by Alpine weather, and luckily not often but still regular casualties. So common, that "stupid {German,Italian,Youcallit} tourist getting himself nearly killed because he thought mountaineering was a Sunday afternoon hike" has become a huge meme in our country.

Sure, but in the last few years, we've lost some of the world's best alpinists. No one could accuse Ueli Steck of being unprepared. And it's not just about the risks of dong the cutting edge: while Marc Andre Leclerc is known for his daring free solo ascents, the way he died was in an avalanche on a regular rappel route, after the daring ascent was over. Tommy Caldwell has said that since he's become a father, he doesn't climb under snow pack any more: not because he's not prepared but because it is impossible to be prepared, at least not completely.

I think that's the point of this essay. I've got a WFR, lots of climbing and hiking experience, participated in a bunch of rescues, and in general I play it pretty safe and am very well-prepared. But ultimately, nature is just beyond preparation to some extent.

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

#425

Post by kragen »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #403
kragen wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is nonsense, and potentially deadly nonsense at that

I'm sorry what? You think it's nonsense that the lit lightbulb had more power going through it than the person touching the socket?

surely the light was dissipating more power, yes, but this was offered as a potential explanation for the fact that the person getting shocked only got a mild shock, a fact to which it has no causal connection whatsoever

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

#426

Post by Dylan16807 »

kragen wrote: post #425
Dylan16807 wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry what? You think it's nonsense that the lit lightbulb had more power going through it than the person touching the socket?

surely the light was dissipating more power, yes, but this was offered as a potential explanation for the fact that the person getting shocked only got a mild shock, a fact to which it has no causal connection whatsoever

It's not an explanation but it's directly connected to the explanation.

Calling the whole thing nonsense, without elaboration, is confusing at best.

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

#427

Post by kragen »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #426
kragen wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

surely the light was dissipating more power, yes, but this was offered as a potential explanation for the fact that the person getting shocked only got a mild shock, a fact to which it has no causal connection whatsoever

It's not an explanation but it's directly connected to the explanation. Calling the whole thing nonsense, without elaboration, is confusing at best.

no, it's utter nonsense from someone who is confusing power with current and has potentially fatal incorrect causal models about current

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

#428

Post by lairv »

scruple wrote: post #383
rm445 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I remember reading a long-form story about the 'Death Valley Germans' from this site, and it was so sad - a family with young kids, that just hadn't comprehended how far they could be from help when they got into trouble in the USA. That heading towards the local military base might not help when everything is so huge that all you'll see is miles of fence.

It's a good read. Can be found here [0]. [0]: https://www.otherhand.org/home-page/search-and-rescue/the-hu...

Fascinating read and investigation, although it gets a little obsessive in the end

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

#429

Post by atoav »

newaccount74 wrote: post #324
atoav wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anyone would like to explain why that didn't kill me I'm all ears. What kills people is current, not voltage. With AC having your heart beat 50 times a second can also cause you to die hours or even days after receiving a shock, but even that requires enough current to flow and cross your skin resistance. Go to ghe hospital even if you are alive and feel well after an electrical shock! Your heart may have suffer…

> With AC having your heart beat 50 times a second can also cause you to die hours or even days after receiving a shock Can you point to any source for this? I have not been able to find any report of someone suddenly dying from cardiac problems days after an electric shock. It sounds kinda plausible, but I wonder if it is an urban legend. People lose limbs or die from severe electric burns, and people can die from c…

Don't take it lierally, your heart is not beating that fast of course, it just gets a trigger to do so at 50Hz. This is what we learned when going through the German TREI training which includes learning about all product and safety norms.

Your heart is triggered by weak electrical impulses and what we learned is that these impulses are surprisingly resistant against outside interference, but there is a threshold at which this is not the case anymore. It certainly won't beat 50 times a second (or 60 times for the 60 Hz people), but it will get a signal to do so 50 times a second.

What we learned further was that electrical incidents have high variability, some people can die by just touching the wrong wire, some survive lightning strikes twice. A true gamble.

I cannot point you at more resources here, all my resources we had are A) German and B) fall under stupid copy right regulations which I think are a crime when we are talking about any kind of norm. "Hey these are the rules you have to adhere to! Just keep in mind to pay us a few grand a year to get the up to date version"

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

#430

Post by atoav »

bb88 wrote: post #411
atoav wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If anyone would like to explain why that didn't kill me I'm all ears. What kills people is current, not voltage. With AC having your heart beat 50 times a second can also cause you to die hours or even days after receiving a shock, but even that requires enough current to flow and cross your skin resistance. Go to ghe hospital even if you are alive and feel well after an electrical shock! Your heart may have suffer…

> What kills people is current, not voltage. From an engineer here, let's not continue this dangerous trope. High voltage breaks down resistance and allows current to flow. Current can only flow in the presence of voltage. Proof: A 1V 1000A power supply won't kill any one and won't give a shock. A 2000V .001A power supply might give quite a shock on the other hand, and depending upon any capacitance in the supply mig…

> A 2000V .001A power supply might give quite a shock on the other hand, and depending upon any capacitance in the supply might just as well prove fatal.

What does the capacitor supply, that the PSU can't? Could it be discharge current?

Before you accuse me of repeating dangerous tropes, please consider making sure to discuss it with the folks at VDE, because this is what it says in their (and the equivalent european) product norms and norms for electrical installations.

When touching the positive pole of a 1V 1000A PSU (I assume DC) you won't have 1000A flowing through your body. It is not the rating current of the PSU that kills you, but the actual current going through your body. And how well that current will flow through your body depends on many things, including voltage, frequency (if we are talking AC), contact resistances, skin resistance, the internal resistance of your body, how big you are, your ground connection resistance, the duration of the current flow, etc.

There is a reason we use high AC voltage for transportation of currents for long distances.

Post reply on HN