Banana Bread wrote:
I don't get how you could just die on the top if the weather was meant to be good. Maybe some of the people climbing it are weak and have underlying diseases which will kill them anyway and they want to do something amazing before it happens. I would never let myself just die while relaxing on a rope in a queue with a view
That's all good except you need more oxygen to survive than you'll find at the peak of Everest.
Banana Bread wrote:
I don't get how you could just die on the top if the weather was meant to be good. Maybe some of the people climbing it are weak and have underlying diseases which will kill them anyway and they want to do something amazing before it happens. I would never let myself just die while relaxing on a rope in a queue with a view
Even when the weather is good, it's awful cold up there and there ain't much oxygen.
Banana Bread - every minute above 8000 meters is a minute in which most people start wasting away and dying. Need to get up and down as fast as you can - and in daylight. The thing I don't like about it is that even for an in-shape middle age person - well prepared - there's too much that one can't control.
Says a lot about society.
But nobody's forcing you to join in -- so don't. Dump that sh*t and live life.
(It's what I did, and I'm not regretting it.)
It's easy to die above 8000m, especially if you run into issues with your oxygen tank.
This explains why the Boston Marathon cutoff is 1 minute faster every year. It's not because Americans are getting faster or because the race is intrinsically better
imagine that wrote:
a bunch of millennials using the internet to get attention by whatever means possible.....who wudda ever thunk it, jamin, who wudda ever thunk.
Did you think before opening with that at all? Or were you simply looking to use a sound byte?
Ciro wrote:
imagine that wrote:
a bunch of millennials using the internet to get attention by whatever means possible.....who wudda ever thunk it, jamin, who wudda ever thunk.
Did you think before opening with that at all? Or were you simply looking to use a sound byte?
Sarcastically challenged much?
Maybe it will all becoming to an end soon. Instagram is allegedly testing out hiding likes and follower accounts from users in other countries. People won’t know how many friends or likes you get anymore. Unfortunately, I doubt it will stick because these people feed off it and will just jump to the next social media platform to feel like their special. Smh
Not necessarily true. There are rich people that doc their Starbucks on the 'gram and do well.
Depression is on the rise due to social media itself being toxic and people comparing themselves to others because of it. Without social media, that issue wouldn't have been as bad.
jamin wrote:
People are so caught up in the competition or the new way of keeping up with the Joneses that there is not enough room on Mt. Everest even with the $40k price tag.
A couple decades ago it would be considered a unique thing to run a marathon or sky dive. Now the average person has probably done both of those things. That's why people are taking it to the next level by doing an ultra-marathon or a full Ironman.
Can't execute a marriage proposal or even just ask a girl out to prom, without trying to top the next most spectacular way of doing so. If it wasn't captured on Instagram then in effect it didn't happen.
Travelling to a foreign country used to be a unique thing. Now it's standard on dating profiles to mention how many countries or continents you've visited.
The price of "experiences" keeps getting bid up. Over $500 for the worst seats to see the geriatric Rolling Stones.
To summarize.....having life goals or trying to accomplish anything is a zero sum game.
cmon now wrote:
Banana Bread - every minute above 8000 meters is a minute in which most people start wasting away and dying. Need to get up and down as fast as you can - and in daylight. The thing I don't like about it is that even for an in-shape middle age person - well prepared - there's too much that one can't control.
You got trolled by Banana Bread - ouch.
What's wrong with Everest? It's the world's tallest trash heap..
gotta breathe brah wrote:
Banana Bread wrote:
I don't get how you could just die on the top if the weather was meant to be good. Maybe some of the people climbing it are weak and have underlying diseases which will kill them anyway and they want to do something amazing before it happens. I would never let myself just die while relaxing on a rope in a queue with a view
That's all good except you need more oxygen to survive than you'll find at the peak of Everest.
Depends on who "you" is. People like Ed Viesturs and many Sherpas have ascended Everest and other high peeks without any supplemental oxygen. Most people cannot. So I think a softer version of Banana Bread's point is true: many people who ascend Everest are weak, at least relative to the task at hand. An accident / bad weather can kill anyone up there. But Viesturs is highly unlikely to die during a good weather traffic jam, and his odds of surviving an adverse event are much greater than the average recreational climber.
dsdfefg wrote:
Depends on who "you" is. People like Ed Viesturs and many Sherpas have ascended Everest and other high peeks without any supplemental oxygen. Most people cannot. So I think a softer version of Banana Bread's point is true: many people who ascend Everest are weak, at least relative to the task at hand. An accident / bad weather can kill anyone up there. But Viesturs is highly unlikely to die during a good weather traffic jam, and his odds of surviving an adverse event are much greater than the average recreational climber.
You have no clue what you are talking about.
First, there is a major difference between doing the entire climb without oxygen and suddenly running out of oxygen up high. Physiologically, those are very different things.
Second, people who climb without oxygen have a much thinner margin of safety than those who do use oxygen. This is indisputable.
Look at all of the flak Anatoli Boukreev got for guiding the 1996 expedition without oxygen. He was widely criticized and viewed as reckless because he chose to go without oxygen while guiding clients. Oxygen increases your safety margin and gives you more flexibility to do things like wait out storms.
The way the world works wrote:
In a way it is a good thing, social media drives the average person to push themselves out of their comfort zone a lot more. Technology has caused the strong to push hard and adapt to the higher pressure and it is bettering us as a species. Social media pushes us to conpare, work harder and strive for more. The weak minded people are the ones who leech off their parents and have no motivation to make their own sucess so they get caught up in the glam and document their every Starbucks and show their boobs off on instargram to compensate meanwhile they are getting more and more envious of other people who have worked for their cars, money and success and this is why depression and mental illness is on the rise, social media is filtering out the poorly adapted people. This is great because now the pharmaceutical conpanies now have an entire population to test monkey their antidepressant and antipsychotic medication on.
I honestly hate people like you. I'm sorry, and I know that's harsh. I normally refrain from personal insults on the internet, but you're a moron.
Spending one's time and energy so that you can obtain things or do things that people on the internet are impressed by is a really shi*tty way to spend your life, and it doesn't lead to happiness. Study after study has shown a strong correlation between time on social media and personal anxiety and life dissatisfaction.
Social media isn't bettering us a species. There is a mountain of data that is showing the opposite: it is making us more depressed, less happy with life and less connected with actual human beings.
You're a moron.
The guy from Colorado that just died was 61, not exactly a hot age for Instagram. Now if you were referring to the bikini hiker or some of these other idiots that try to take pictures of themselves doing stupid stuff on the edge of cliffs, I could see the argument.
The whole ego driven hiker community is pretty obnoxious (similar to the ultra community in my opinion). There are thousands of mountains to climb in this world that are amazing that don't carry near the risk, investment, etc. that places like Everest require. To each their own, but it has happened too often for this to be a surprise to anyone. Over spring break I was in a national park and there was a popular route up to an overlook. It looked like a line at the airport during a busy holiday. I knew it would take an hour to go the 1/4 mile to the point, so I took a left turn and hiked a couple more miles to a place with as good a view with hardly anyone around and still took less time than if I would have stayed in line behind a thousand tourists. I learned a long time ago climbing mountains in Colorado that you can hike with hundreds of people up fourteeners, have to wake up exceedingly early to get a parking spot and come across a bunch of people trying in a race to bag peaks. Or you can pick a close by 12,000 or 13,000 foot peak, wake up at a reasonable hour, come across a handful of people on the trail or in the lot and generally have the peak to yourself. Or you can spend $100k to wait in line with about a 10% chance at death if your reach the summit, and even if you are fortunate enough to survive, there is a high likelihood you will have an irreversible brain lesion or two for your experience. Oh and lets not forget the beautiful scenery, like the dead bodies you get to hike past on your way.
Wrong about one thing wrote:
Concert prices are a separate issue. Bands used to tour as a loss-leader to drive record sales. Now no-one buys records so they release music as a loss-leader to try and get people to their concerts. The proportionate split of most musicians' earnings between tickets and merch on the one hand and concert tickets on the other has flipped on its head. $500 tickets are the price you pay for having 50,000 songs in your pocket (and the ability to stream any others), none of which you paid for.
Agree that it is a separate issue but you are living under a rock if you think record sales ever surpassed what musicians make for touring. There may be exceptions like ancient/super huge bands getting royalties on multi-platinum records for decades, but those are by far the exceptions, and they have always and can still make more by touring. Also your fourth sentence makes absolutely no sense.
