thebestaquaman @ thebestaquaman @lemmy.world

Posts

11

Comments

588

Joined

2 yr. ago

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.

Is this a true story? Sounds to me like the gut may have fallen asleep or had some kind of mental short-circuit or something. I honestly can't believe someone can survive to adulthood if they were actually just this dumb...

Thanks :) the seas will soon be safe again!

Made it off the floor and over to the sofa (with help). The doctor told me the issue was likely muscular (not directly caused by a prolapse in my back that I'm getting look ed at for). He gave me a bunch of painkillers and basically told me to munch those and move as much as possible, and it should hopefully loosen up In a couple of days.

This is actually a good question. For pretty's much any previous president, the chance that they will be shot heavily outweighs the chance that they will shoot someone while in office. With trump, I think it's more of an open bet.

I'm out of my element, on dry land. Once the doctor gets here I'll just have them waterboard me for a couple minutes and I should be ok

I am currently lying down, not because I prefer the floor, my because I lay down to stretch a bit, and my back has now completely locked up. I'm not joking: I physically cannot get up, and a doctor is on the way. I'm not even 30 yet...

There's a reasonable probability that I'll be heavily downvoted for this, but it's my two cents, so here I go. For clarity, I'll in the following use "male" and "female" to refer to biological groups identified by their reproductive organs (by far most people can clearly be identified as one or the other), and "man" and "women" to refer to groups of people that identify as such.

Sex (the action) is pretty fundamentally tied to your reproductive organs. As such, I think it makes most sense to define "straight" vs. "bi" vs. "gay" in terms of sex (the attribute). I would say that a male that is exclusively attracted to females is "straight", while a male that is exclusively attracted to women "bi with a strong preference for women", and that a male that is exclusively attracted to males is "gay".

My reasoning here is twofold: First, a male that is attracted to women can have a range for how "female presenting" the woman has to be before they are interested. Some will only consider women that have gone through surgery and full hormonal therapy attractive, while others will find women without any surgery or hormone therapy attractive. This brings up the second point: A lot of sexuality becomes a lot easier to talk about (and de-stigmatize) if we accept that sexuality is a continuous spectrum. If we accept that, it makes sense to me to use one word for each extreme, and a more fluid language for the bulk of the spectrum. I know plenty of bi people that have more or less strong preferences towards one side of the spectrum, and some that are completely agnostic. I think a lot of stigma can be removed if we're more open to people being "just slightly bi", while we can keep the language clear by reserving "straight" and "gay" for the two extremes.

Finally, if we use "straight" to refer to e.g. males that are exclusively attracted to women, we open an unnecessary can of worms regarding males that are attracted to people who identify as women, but don't present as female. In short: Sex (act) is fundamentally tied to sex (attribute), so it makes sense to me to define sexuality in terms of sex, rather than gender.

Loudly cheer them on and clap when they finish.

Who dictates what's stupid? Where does the sanity end and crazy name start?

Sanity ends when the name has an objectively high likelihood of causing the child harm, or otherwise severely hindering them in life. For example, naming your child "Hitler", or "

<insert slur of choice>

Who dictates this? In all countries I'm aware of that have laws around this: A government body of some kind.

Plenty of countries have this. Examples of forbidden names are "Hitler", "Asshole", "

<Insert demeaning word here>

The point is that "stupid" is defined as a name that is objectively likely to severely negatively impact the child. It's not based on "I think X sounds stupid" but on whether "X" carries significant cultural baggage like being the name of a famous Nazi, a slur of some kind, etc.

These two are not interchangeable or really even comparable though? Make is a program that generates non-source files from source files, cmake is a high-level tool to generate makefiles.

If you're writing anything more than a completely trivial makefile I would heavily recommend learning cmake. It makes your build system much, much more robust, far easier to maintain, much more likely to work on other systems than your own, and far easier to integrate with other dependent projects.

My primary experience with plain make was when I re-wrote a 2000+ line make-system in a project I maintain with about 200 lines of cmake, because we were setting up some CI that required us to clone and build some dependencies, which was an absolutely PITA to handle cross-platform with plain make, but was trivial with cmake.

PS. The cmake docs suck for anyone that hasn't used cmake for 10 years already.

To be fair, I don't think it's "ridiculous" to sort e.g. jeans into the broad categories of "typically wider or slipper hips/thighs compared to length" or t-shirts into "typically broader back vs. typically larger chest".

The mens/women's categories are probably the coarsest categories that makes sense, since the average man's and women's body are so different in so many ways.

I recently learned that there's a size rating for width. It goes from A to E, and says something about the length/width ratio of the shoe. Made my previous shoes a lot easier to buy (I also struggle to find wide enough shoes).

I never buy clothes online, exactly because I always try them on to check the fit before buying them. I haven't measured my feet since I was around 15. I know my foot size, so I know that shoes in the range 42-43 are a good fit, depending on the shoe model. I don't need to measure my feet when I buy shoes to confirm that they're still around size 42.5.

You're missing a key point here: Management is a secondary function, in the sense that management doesn't in itself produce anything of value. When done correctly, it enhances the productivity of those actually producing something.

In order to be effective at management, you need to have a good idea of what the people you are managing do. Otherwise, you won't be able to appropriately manage resources and help people be effective by moving support to the right places. "Management" as a degree aims to teach people how to manage resources they don't understand, and more often than not ends up producing managers that have no idea what the engineers and technicians they're managing actually do. These managers are usually more of a burden on the people they're managing than anything else. Every good or decent manager or leader I've come across has a background from the field of the people they're managing.