thebestaquaman @ thebestaquaman @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

583

Joined

2 yr. ago

Yeah, I guess that sounds like a better description, I've never really considered that there's a significant difference between the two. Happy to learn :)

Ok, sounds like this is my inexperience showing: I've only ever been on multi-pitches where we used half-ropes, so we we use what's called a "hylsebrems" in Norwegian (the standard friction break with two holes). Regarding hauling equipment, that's not very common here, we climb with a backpack if we need one. I've heard that hauling equipment is much more common in the US though.

It's absolutely true that human error can occur, and it does happen sometimes. Of course, nobody is doing big-wall climbing with a grigri (although in Sara Al Qunaibets case there was even a grigri that the coach was able to misuse...). I still feel safer taking a fall with a belayer I trust than I do driving behind some stranger that's driving erratically. The most dangerous part of any climb on pre-bolted route is likely the drive to the crag.

Don't be do quick to judge: He's secured by a rope that passes through a series of bolts that are drilled into solid granite. You could lift a car with the gear he's using to secure himself.

You're less in control of your fate when passing someone on the highway than he is here. The only way he dies in this situation is first slipping off (first layer of protection is your hands and feet), and then having several layers of ridiculously redundant protection fail.

Not very active, but !climbing@lemmy.ml sees some posts every now and then. Only way to make it more active is to join :)

At this point it seems like they're just throwing around asterisks for ragebait. The algorithm probably figured out that posts containing an asterisk get more engagement, so now they pretty much have to throw it in there to get attention. It's annoying...

I think this is the major issue to overcome for the humans. In training soldiers, we've known for several thousand years that everyone stands a higher chance of surviving if we commit as a group, even though that means each person is working against their individual survival instincts. We also know that it takes training to help people overcome that fear and actually throw themselves at the danger, in order to increase everyone's chances of survival.

If the humans are capable of committing to a massed pile-on, the gorilla doesn't stand a chance. On the other hand, if the humans falter, the gorilla will have time to tear them apart. The last option is that the humans taunt and avoid the gorilla as best they can, and pile on it whenever it gets someone, forcing it to run around exhausting itself before they can kill it.

We often forget how obscenely well conditioned fit humans are compared to other animals. We're built like a slow-ass terminator of the animal kingdom that just keeps going and refuses to die.

Other animals regularly die from stuff like shock or broken bones. Even without modern medicine, humans are built to survive and recover from absolutely horrific injuries.

Other animals often quickly tire out due to overheating and having trouble regulating their breath, while well conditioned humans can keep going at a medium-low pace for days on end if needed. Without sleep.

I imagine the gorilla would wipe out a sizeable portion of the men, but I would bet money that it would be exhausted to the point of being helpless while there were still more than enough guys left to kill it.

I hear a bunch of European countries are hiring!

I have enough saved up that I could probably go a couple months without pay before I ran out of money. Honestly, I'm not even that well off: Most months I spend my paycheque +-5%, if I go over I take it from a buffer account where I have about 60% of a paycheque and try to backfill it over the next couple months.

In my situation, I'm regularly low-key stressed that my buffer account is running low, and that I haven't been able to backfill it for several months in a row. I can't even begin to imagine how stressful it must be not even have something to fall back on if you suddenly get an extra expense that eats 10 % of your paycheque one month.

Well for a long sport route (say 30-40m/15 quickdraws) and also bringing some slings/carabiners for the top anchor, I could still squeeze in a chalk bag, but it would get more in the way of my gear than when I just have it on a strap around my waist. It's also nice when I'm not on the wall to just pull it around to my hip so I don't sit on it by accident.

To be clear: I have no problem with how you carry your chalk bag, you do whatever you like. I just meant to say that I've never seen an experienced climber attach it to their harness before, and where I'm from it's often seen as an indicator that someone has little experience carrying gear in their harness. If that differs from where you're from I'm only happy to learn :)

In general, I oppose the death penalty. My argument against it goes broadly along the lines that our social contract is based around the system protecting each individual (thus, it cannot kill them), and that rehabilitation should always be on the table (benefits everyone).

I definitely think that people in power that abuse their power in order to commit a crime should be far more severely punished that an ordinary person committing the same crime.

Whether the above extrapolates to the point where it is justified to execute police officers that have body cam footage of themselves executing unarmed, non-threatening civilians (there are plenty such cases) is actually a question I'm a bit torn about. There are a couple videos out there (that no one should see) which show police straight up purposefully executing civilians that are either incapacitated or otherwise neutralized (lying face-down, spread eagle, unarmed). Should these warrant execution of the officer involved? I haven't concluded for myself what I think yet.

Where do you put your quickdraws if not on your harness?

Lord almighty... I'm truly baffled. It's a funny story, but I'm a bit conflicted regarding whether it becomes more funny or just sad by being true...

I was maybe a bit rough when saying "beginner", I'm probably should have said "people with little outdoor-climbing experience", sorry about that.

But, if you care what others at the gym think (you shouldn't, just let your climbing speak for itself), it's definitely a thing that people with their chalk bag attached to their harness with a carabiner (even worse, a safety carabiner), are quickly assumed to be beginners. At least it looks like they've done little or no outdoor climbing. But again: Don't give a shit what people think, just have fun climbing :)

I agree, I just meant to point out that there is a fuzzy limit between when you need protection and when you don't. Consider the story (unsure if true) about when someone scolded Tony Hawk for carrying his child while skating down the street: For most people, that would be foolishly risky, but Tony Hawk is about as likely to fall while skating down the street as an ordinary person is while walking.

Likewise, Alex Honnold does a bunch of climbing with protection, but also does climbs that no one else would consider without it. However, climbing a 6c for him is probably comparable to someone ordinary climbing a 4 (or even less). Even I've climbed some short 4-routes without gear as parts of a hike (never more than maybe 5-10m), and wouldn't have done it if I didn't feel safe doing it.

Of course, I think he probably pushes the limit a bit beyond what's reasonable, my point is just that it's probably not as foolishly risky as a lot of people think.

I'm very far from doing something like this, but I do have quite a bit of experience hiking/climbing in exposed terrain, so I can do my best: People usually start off enjoying relatively light hikes in the mountains, because it feels good to be hiking in cool terrain with awesome views. As you get more experience, what seemed scary a couple years ago doesn't look scary anymore. You like hiking, so you go for the hike, without thinking much about the fact that you thought it looked scary and dangerous a couple years ago.

Keep repeating this cycle, and you might suddenly find yourself tied into a rope, with crampons, an ice pick, and skis on your back, on the top of some frozen mountain that looked insurmountable some years ago. It doesn't even feel scary, just really awesome.

Add some brain damage (slight joke, but Alex Honnold does have a smaller "fear center" than most people), and you end up in situations like the one in the photo.

My point is that it isn't really about adrenaline seeing like a lot of people think. It's about going for awesome hikes, and your limits for what you feel safe doing shifting over time as you gain experience.

I think there's some credit where credit is due for all the effort he puts in to minimising risk. There's plenty of people that do various hiking/climbing that is at least as dangerous as what he does.

When you consider the climbing level this guy is at, him soloing a 6a route is probably comparable to someone "ordinary" going for a 20 km hike in exposed terrain: It has risk (rockfall, possibility of slipping, etc.) that could kill you, but it's not generally considered an excessively foolish thing to do.

To the contrary: You can sometimes recognise beginners by observing that they have their chalk bag attached to their harness with a carabiner. Usually, you attach the chalk bag with a strap around your waist. The harness is reserved for protection gear (nuts, cams, etc.)

This guy is Alex Honnold, famous for free soloing (climbing without a rope). He has a movie called "Free Solo" where he solos El Capitan, it's a good movie if you're interested :)

Forgive me if I'm just unknowledgable here, but it appears from the downvotes that there might indeed exist adults as dumb as the one described. I'm honestly dumbfounded if that's actually the case.