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

191–200 of 320 posts

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

#191

Post by Trufa »

sathackr wrote: post #170
j9461701 wrote: post #33

I might be speaking out of line, but taking on these kinds of risks with young children at home seems kind of selfish. The fact that he went back into the same cave that nearly killed him only a month later...almost as if to say: "I would rather my kids grow up without a Dad than live without my adrenaline fix" I am neither a father or a cave diver though, so I might be missing a piece of the puzzle. Would either gro…

I lost my father at 15 to his work. He had a relatively dangerous job, made a mistake, and it killed him. This was 4 years after I lost my mother doing something she was passionate about. I can tell you in no uncertain terms that losing both parents before you turn 16 is no walk in the park. But I managed, I survived, and now work in a field that often touches both of the things that killed my parents and I have a bi…

Sorry to hear about that though I'm glad you're doing ok, may I ask if it's not intruding what their professions were?

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

#192

Post by jdswain »

nine_k wrote: post #171
aasarava wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe what he's saying is, "I would rather my kids learn that they should explore and enjoy the world, rather than never take any big risks." There are a lot of parents in the world. Once you start judging them (for actions other than abuse and neglect), you very quickly realize how limiting that is. Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? People who travel for work for days o…

There's also the mundane question of money. Unless you're already rich, raising a child alone is hard in many counts already; having your income halved does not help.

That is why many people have life insurance. It's probably not common in large parts of the world, and requires a certain income level to pay for, but it can make a situation where a parent dies a lot easier to cope with, at least the financial worries go away, or at least are delayed.

In my country (New Zealand) we have a government run, compulsory, insurance scheme for accidents and death. If you die by accident then your family gets a payout based on a percentage of your (former) income.

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

We don't have the right to sue for accidents, relying on ACC for compensation.

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

#193

Post by Chris2048 »

siphor wrote: post #163
Chris2048 wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> Should we strive for an equal society? As such, shouldn't all children be born with equally (or minimally) committed parents? I wasn't sure what you meant by "equal society," everyones different, the only way to get "equal" where all children have "equally" committed parents, would be quite homogenous. The main point I think I'll reiterate, is that yes, you are assuming the amount of risk this person took. The amou…

I'm still not sure, but yes - a child shouldn't be exposed to unusual, or high levels of risk due to the "attitude of the parent".

This person knows more than I do about diving, but not necessarily about risk; A doctor who studies lung cancer might know more about the risks of smoking than a life-long smoker.

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

#194

Post by Chris2048 »

gpawl wrote: post #182
Chris2048 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you greatest joy life is this How about not having children, then? Or at least until/unless you have stopped diving? > doesn't mean you have to sacrifice everything for them There are a lot of small things you don't need to, but the big things you should. Your life, their father, is a big thing. If it means more to you to dive, do that instead .

Look, I love diving, and I love my kids. But I can't rent kids for just a few years [ok, excepting foster parenting]. Having a child introduces complexity, and "drop everything for 15 years" is only one possible answer.

I'm not really sure what you are saying. "drop everything" is hyperbole - just drop the things with a higher chance of killing you.

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

#195

Post by Chris2048 »

gpawl wrote: post #176
pdonis wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 restr…

the people who die in war aren't the people who decide to get into a war.

They are the people who decide to pledge themselves knowing war is very much a possibility.

Plus, soldiers will see action/danger even when the country is not explicitly at war.

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

#196

Post by sigzero »

j9461701 wrote: post #33

I might be speaking out of line, but taking on these kinds of risks with young children at home seems kind of selfish. The fact that he went back into the same cave that nearly killed him only a month later...almost as if to say: "I would rather my kids grow up without a Dad than live without my adrenaline fix" I am neither a father or a cave diver though, so I might be missing a piece of the puzzle. Would either gro…

That comment (without context) is 100% selfish and stupid (coming from a father).

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

#197

Post by kbenson »

nine_k wrote: post #171
aasarava wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe what he's saying is, "I would rather my kids learn that they should explore and enjoy the world, rather than never take any big risks." There are a lot of parents in the world. Once you start judging them (for actions other than abuse and neglect), you very quickly realize how limiting that is. Do we need to look down upon astronauts who have children? What about pilots? People who travel for work for days o…

There's also the mundane question of money. Unless you're already rich, raising a child alone is hard in many counts already; having your income halved does not help.

I think the better way to word this is likely "having your primary support halved does not help". It's likely to forestall the obvious insurance rebuttal by not specifically tying itself to financial concerns, as emotional and educational support are at least as important, if not more so, in my opinion.

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

#198

Post by pdonis »

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" ?

What's the difference?

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

#199

Post by mauvehaus »

gpawl wrote: post #175
eric_h wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a meaningful, proper analysis would be appropriate Maybe you should just base it on what a given repetitive activity does to your life insurance premiums.

http://www.insuranceclarity.com/life/life-insurance-extreme-... OP is between "extra premium" and "cannot get coverage"

This is a pet peeve as a climber. The article lists "free climbing" as something that an insurer might refuse to cover. This is most likely incorrect, as the immediately preceding section suggests it would cost you an extra $1500 a year if you engage in rock climbing.

The bit that's incorrect here is that "free climbing" encompasses many forms of rock climbing. "Free" in the context of "free climbing" means that vertical progress is made solely by climbing the rock itself.

This is as compared to "aid climbing", wherein vertical progress may be made by affixing some form of gear to the rock, and climbing said gear, or something attached to it.

The article most likely means that if you free solo, you're uninsurable. Solo in this case meaning, without a partner to catch your falls.

E.T.A. Note also the existence of "aid soloing", and "rope soloing", both of which are done without a partner, but with varying degrees of gear in place to catch you should you fall.

Also note that absent the qualification of "soloing", rock climbing is generally understood among climbers to mean the kind that is done with a partner and a rope. Among climbers, bouldering is understood to include climbing routes of low height ("problems") without the protection of a rope, but generally with the protection of a crash pad (big foam thing to land on).

Post reply on HN