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

Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

kathmandupost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 144 posts

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#61

Post by expedition32 »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #19
tomaskafka wrote: post #2

“Wasn’t the system supposed to be fixed?“ Why would it be fixed? Insurance companies aren’t willing to invest in oversight, and everyone else profit, there is no incentive for changing the system.

Nepal is a low income and high corruption country, where the government and formal business structures are unstable enough that 'tipping' becomes common even for government investigators... It's basically a way for everyone to get more tourists dollars, which is one of Nepals primary exports.

Scamming bored rich people is one of the more victimless crimes.

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#62

Post by bombcar »

throwway120385 wrote: post #36
paxys wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm assuming less than the average ambulance ride in the USA

From personal experience it's about twice the cost of an ambulance ride from my house to the hospital. Air ambulances here are about 10 times as much.

Having something scheduled is cheaper than on-demand, too. You may even end up using the same equipment, but at a lower priority (it costs $200 or so to have an ambulance sit at your event, for example).

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#63

Post by guzfip »

expedition32 wrote: post #61
datadrivenangel wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nepal is a low income and high corruption country, where the government and formal business structures are unstable enough that 'tipping' becomes common even for government investigators... It's basically a way for everyone to get more tourists dollars, which is one of Nepals primary exports.

Scamming bored rich people is one of the more victimless crimes.

Idk they gave SBF 25 years for it.

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#64

Post by linsomniac »

prasadjoglekar wrote: post #55
kjkjadksj wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went from sea level to 11k feet in the same day many times before. I would say the altitude effect is there but not as much as you might expect. A little quicker to be out of breath a little longer to recover it. Not sure what it is like at higher elevations or greater daily altitude delta.

Very much dependent on age, rest and general conditioning. I went from sea level to 14K at Pikes peak in 1 day and it was quite uncomfortable. I managed, but folks who lived in Denver with lower physical fitness levels than me, did better.

Agreed, we live at ~5K and went up to Pikes Peak; my wife and I had no problems (beyond minor headache), but my son's lips were turning blue and he was feeling pretty bad.

Other amusing things from that trip: we went up there the 3rd of July, and it snowed. We charged the car in Colorado Springs before we left, got up to the peak with 36% battery remaining. My wife worried we wouldn't be able to make it back. Got back to CS with ~70% battery left.

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#65

Post by coldtea »

tristor wrote: post #53
shadow28 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 12-15K feet just isn’t that high in the scheme of things. Many peaks in the western US are in that range or more. The highest peak in the contiguous United States is Mt. Whitney at ~14.5k feet

I think you mean continental United States, as Alaska and Hawaii are excluded, where-as Alaska is contiguous with the United States, but requires crossing through parts of Canada to reach by land. That said, yes Whitney is the highest in the continental US, and McKinley in Alaska is the highest in the US (and contiguous US) and is also the tallest in the world from base to peak and the third most prominent peak in th…

>where-as Alaska is contiguous with the United States, but requires crossing through parts of Canada to reach by land.

Contiguous means the 48 connected (contiguous) states. It never includes Alaska.

And even though definitionally/officially continental could include it (it's in the same continent), in common use "continental US" is not meant to include Alaska either.

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#66

Post by coldtea »

shadow28 wrote: post #56
tristor wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you mean continental United States, as Alaska and Hawaii are excluded, where-as Alaska is contiguous with the United States, but requires crossing through parts of Canada to reach by land. That said, yes Whitney is the highest in the continental US, and McKinley in Alaska is the highest in the US (and contiguous US) and is also the tallest in the world from base to peak and the third most prominent peak in th…

It's exactly the other way around actually, continental US would include Alaska since it's still on the North American continent whereas contiguous US excludes both Hawaii and Alaska. Contiguous US refers to the lower 48 states.

Continental "could" include Alaska (it's even in the official U.S. Board on Geographic Names definition), but in practice when "continental US" are casually mentioned, it's rarely implied as included. Most use it as interchangeable with contiguous.

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#67

Post by kortilla »

shadow28 wrote: post #51
ghaff wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Namche (damn autocorrect) Bazaar which everyone in the Everest region passes through is a bit over 11K feet. 12-15K feet just isn’t that high in the scheme of things. Many peaks in the western US are in that range or more. Yes, minor headaches are pretty normal when acclimatizing. But anything more, you need to go down.

> 12-15K feet just isn’t that high in the scheme of things. Many peaks in the western US are in that range or more. The highest peak in the contiguous United States is Mt. Whitney at ~14.5k feet

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

Many peaks in the western US are in that range. Lots more with several exceeding if you include Alaska in “the western US”.

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#68

Post by embedding-shape »

sonink wrote: post #39

> The second method is more troubling. At altitudes above 3,000 metres, mild symptoms of altitude sickness are common. Blood oxygen saturation can drop, hands and feet tingle, headaches develop. In most cases, rest, hydration or a gradual descent is all that is needed. ...investigators found that Diamox (Acetazolamide) tablets, used to prevent altitude sickness, were administered alongside excessive water intake to i…

The very next sentence from that quote sounds a lot worse and harder to explain away though:

> In at least one case cited in the investigation, baking powder was mixed into food to make tourists physically unwell.

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#69

Post by MikeNotThePope »

ddlatham wrote: post #32
MikeNotThePope wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can tell you exactly what it cost for me. I took the helicopter from Gorakshep, the highest/last town on the EBC trek, to Lukla, the crazy airport people call the most dangerous one in the world. For me, a 255 lbs / 115kg guy, 2 Nepalis that are each half my size, a pilot, and our not-that-heavy hiking gear was 2000 USD in October of 2024. Pics/video: https://www.instagram.com/p/DBTpLGtydZW/

probably mean 255 lb / 115kg

Yes, thanks for noticing. I fixed.

Re: Inside Nepal's Fake Rescue Racket

#70

Post by mikkupikku »

datadrivenangel wrote: post #19
tomaskafka wrote: post #2

“Wasn’t the system supposed to be fixed?“ Why would it be fixed? Insurance companies aren’t willing to invest in oversight, and everyone else profit, there is no incentive for changing the system.

Nepal is a low income and high corruption country, where the government and formal business structures are unstable enough that 'tipping' becomes common even for government investigators... It's basically a way for everyone to get more tourists dollars, which is one of Nepals primary exports.

Why don't they just charge [more] for a mountain license? A few thousand per hiker would probably be tolerated by people who view the hike as a lifetime achievement kind of thing.
Post reply on HN