News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by supern0va on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @03:26PM (#49913185)
The funny thing is that in spite of reinventing so much of it, the event still feels dangerous and leaves you to make your own decisions.

Burning Man still enables and allows dangerous art that you can fuck up your shit on. The organization has an interesting take on this: they allow dangerous art, so long as it looks as dangerous as it is. They don't want participants to be surprised that something was dangerous, because they want you to be able to do your own reasonable risk assessment.

(Though, I think the really impressive installations are the ones that look/feel more dangerous than they actually are.)

For what it's worth, I think this is a great exercise that should be undertaken now and again: you may not realize the ways in which a system is good or bad until you endeavor to tear it down and rebuild it from scratch.

In the case of Burning Man, there's structure that let's people be mostly safe by default, while supporting some reasonable risk taking. In the case of crypto, I think we've seen use cases where there's value in having a means of storing and transferring wealth outside of government control, which we saw the benefits of early on as governments tried to financially wall off groups like Wikileaks.

Does that mean we want all of the safe guards gone? No. Does that necessarily mean society and its structures are perfect and should never change? I think obviously, also no.

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by ambicapter on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @03:58PM (#49913513)
> dangerous art that you can fuck up your shit on.

Can you give some examples?

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by supern0va on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @04:15PM (#49913734)
In 2023 there was a giant cube made out of IBC water tanks. You can see a video here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FTwpt0OuW_U

This is actually what I was thinking of when I made this comment. I witnessed someone in some position of authority (from either DPW/Artery/someone else clearly sent to check it out) on the first day talking to one of the artists. They were literally watching people climb it and were like "yep, that looks pretty dangerous" and then went on their way.

It felt safe-ish to climb at first, until about halfway up when you could feel it swaying back and forth in the wind. I am usually the "climb dumb shit at Burning Man" type, but had my stomach drop about 3/4 of the way up and had to abort. It was very easy to grip, nothing felt insecure, etc, so it was definitely "safe" if you knew what you were doing. But if you ate it off the top of that, you'd be fucked.

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by cr1895 on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @04:33PM (#49913986)
>so it was definitely "safe" if you knew what you were doing.

Those quotation marks doing a lot work...I guess those IBCs are 1m tall? so 8m at the top. A fall from 8m could result in severe injury if not fatality. Fucked indeed...

https://pdf.journalagent.com/travma/pdfs/UTD_19_6_529_535.pd...

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by chmod775 on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @07:38PM (#49915872)
You're one unfortunate motor control fuckup away from killing yourself pretty much always. Most animals are good at not killing themselves and humans are decent at climbing to boot.

Yeah, if you fall you might hurt yourself, but when you're paying attention to what you're doing you're likely less at risk than when you absent-minded walk down some stairs.

We spent probably hundreds of hours climbing all manner of tall playground structures as children, and I cannot recall anyone ever falling. I do remember some instances of people tripping and falling down a flight of stairs though...

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by kbelder on Friday October 02, 2026 @12:16PM (#49935240)
A while ago I was at a playground chatting with a neighborhood mom, and her 5 yr old son fell off the top of a spiral slide, and broke both his forearms. It's sobering how quickly and unpredictably a situation can turn from pleasant to horrible because somebody's grip on a railing was an inch off.

There are things you do 100,000 times in your lifetime, with a 99.999% success rate, where failure may kill you. You can't really avoid those.

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by bawolff on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @05:56PM (#49915018)
Everything is safe if you know what you are doing sufficiently.
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by willtemperley on Thursday October 01, 2026 @03:52AM (#49918953)
I wonder if people say these things, they actually believe it?
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by brazzy on Thursday October 01, 2026 @04:12AM (#49919067)
I think the implicit assumption you may be missing is that "know what you are doing sufficiently" includes knowing when not to do something because it involves unpredictable risks.

Like free solo rock climbing: it's actually fairly safe if you do it on a route you know inside out, that is well within your ability, and in good condition. But if it's not in good condition and holds might come loose, nobody in their right mind - and the knowledge to recognize the condition - would free solo it.

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by willtemperley on Thursday October 01, 2026 @04:32AM (#49919227)
This is just a truism though.

Of course if you don't do something you're never going to be at risk from whichever activity it was.

Some activities always have risk, for example ski-touring (backcountry if you're a Yank). If there's skiable snow, avalanche danger is never zero.

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by brazzy on Thursday October 01, 2026 @04:59AM (#49919396)
It's not just a truism. The point is that sufficient knowledge allows you to understand and avoid or mitigate risks much more specifically. With your example, if you have only freshly fallen snow, and a slope of less than 30 degrees with nothing above it, avalance danger is so ridiculously small that it counts as "safe" for practical purposes.
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by willtemperley on Thursday October 01, 2026 @05:32AM (#49919597)
> it counts as "safe" for practical purposes

So not risk free.

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by brazzy on Thursday October 01, 2026 @07:45AM (#49920427)
Nothing is, so that's not really a useful observation.
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by willtemperley on Thursday October 01, 2026 @08:20AM (#49920676)
> Everything is safe if you know what you are doing sufficiently.

Exactly. If nothing is risk free then the original statement we’re discussing is untrue.

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by cr1895 on Thursday October 01, 2026 @08:10AM (#49920611)
well, no, because the individual doing the thing isn't the only factor. You may very well know what you're doing but that doesn't mean all aspects are under your control.
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by 21asdffdsa12 on Thursday October 01, 2026 @05:39AM (#49919637)
humonkeys .. we loose something when we disallow going for the treetops.. yee who dwells in the safety of the savanna is condemned to inventiveness, fire, spears - tiger, lion and bears..
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by foobarian on Thursday October 01, 2026 @09:24AM (#49921362)
How the heck do you even climb this. I don't see any places to grab hold? There are gaps between the cubes I guess but those seem awfully smooth and slippery...
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by supern0va on Thursday October 01, 2026 @11:11AM (#49922740)
The metal cage that the plastic cubes sit in. On the corners where they bend, there's room to get fingers wrapped around. They're also rectangular and pretty chunky. It's not super comfortable, but it's secure.

Also, fun fact: they are literally held together with large metal zip ties.

Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by tra3 on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @04:12PM (#49913688)
Never been, but the titular burning man installation comes to mind.
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by mezzman on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @09:17PM (#49916519)
The Ladder to nowhere from 2002 is a good one. https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/te179d/the_ladd...
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by beau_g on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @05:54PM (#49914990)
Interesting, I came to the same conclusion, making my dangerous robot look dangerous on purpose to keep people away from it. Are there actually written rules on this policy somewhere?
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by mrob on Thursday October 01, 2026 @06:29AM (#49919969)
This is one reason I oppose rounded corners in GUIs. A computer is a power tool for information manipulation. Power tools are always dangerous. When you can cause massive data loss or worse with a single mistake, it shouldn't look "friendly", any more than a firearm or a table saw should look friendly.
Re:Burning Man Death Rates – A Short Lesson in Statistics by aorloff on Wednesday September 30, 2026 @06:59PM (#49915576)
I recall laughing with a friend as we realized the railing on the second story art car we were on was attached by staple and hot glue, but back when I went we assumed things unsafe