Off Topic Thread 4.0

Mr Tickle

Mr Tickle wrote: »

of course that's how the western propeganda media would portray it :pac:

I listened to a podcast about the show which included the writers and show runners and they detailed how they gathered information and from whom. As much as you can question everything if you wish, it appears that much of the content is accurate and verifiable.

There are fictional elements also, but tapes from the start actually exist and the collapse of the soviet union swiftened the release of previously controlled information.

Mr Tickle

Deleted User wrote: »

I listened to a podcast about the show which included the writers and show runners and they detailed how they gathered information and from whom. As much as you can question everything if you wish, it appears that much of the content is accurate and verifiable.

There are fictional elements also, but tapes from the start actually exist and the collapse of the soviet union swiftened the release of previously controlled information.

all part of the conspiracy you see.

What's the podcast if you don't mind? I'll give you a discount on a tinfoil hat in exchange

Mr Tickle

Mr Tickle wrote: »

all part of the conspiracy you see.

What's the podcast if you don't mind? I'll give you a discount on a tinfoil hat in exchange

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUeHPCYtWYQ

Here is the first part - they touch on sources in all the episodes and highlight the fictional and non fictional elements.

swiwi_

LOL. UK potentially heading for a second Brexit vote. Unimaginable that this sort of thing would happen in Ireland

Neil3030

swiwi_ wrote: »

Not sure if anyone a fan of F1 in the good ol’ days but RIP Niki Lauda

Fascinating guy. I saw a documentary a while ago on him. If I recall the story correctly, he owned a commercial airline and one of their 767 planes crashed into a jungle somewhere in South East Asia. The initial cause of the crash was attributed to pilot error, as the flight data showed the plane was intentionally put into a nose-dive. But Lauda refused to accept that his pilot had screwed up, flew out to the crash site, and funded both a search through the jungle for various parts of missing wreckage, and also various additional tests on flight simulators.

Turns out, that 767s had a gizmo on the engine that reversed the thrust to slow it down on landings. The instruction to pilots, should this ever accidentally reverse mid-air, was exactly what the pilot had done - put it into a nose-dive to regather velocity. But Lauda's research showed that this instruction was only tested up to a certain altitude, and beyond this altitude, it would result in a crash. The planes were consequently redesigned.

Probably would have taken another crash before Boeing had copped onto this, so a conservative estimate is that he saved hundreds of lives.

prawnsambo

swiwi_ wrote: »

LOL. UK potentially heading for a second Brexit vote. Unimaginable that this sort of thing would happen in Ireland

I doubt it very much. It's so couched in ifs and buts and built on the quicksand of Theresa May's ever diminishing term as PM that you could safely bet against it ever happening.

awec

Discussion of politics is against the charter.

swiwi_

Neil3030 wrote: »

Fascinating guy. I saw a documentary a while ago on him. If I recall the story correctly, he owned a commercial airline and one of their 767 planes crashed into a jungle somewhere in South East Asia. The initial cause of the crash was attributed to pilot error, as the flight data showed the plane was intentionally put into a nose-dive. But Lauda refused to accept that his pilot had screwed up, flew out to the crash site, and funded both a search through the jungle for various parts of missing wreckage, and also various additional tests on flight simulators.

Turns out, that 767s had a gizmo on the engine that reversed the thrust to slow it down on landings. The instruction to pilots, should this ever accidentally reverse mid-air, was exactly what the pilot had done - put it into a nose-dive to regather velocity. But Lauda's research showed that this instruction was only tested up to a certain altitude, and beyond this altitude, it would result in a crash. The planes were consequently redesigned.

Probably would have taken another crash before Boeing had copped onto this, so a conservative estimate is that he saved hundreds of lives.

The film was decent too, the Hunt vs Lauda rivalry.

Obviously I'm happy that safety is paramount these days, but it does make the racing more sanitised and less interesting.

sydthebeat

awec wrote: »

Discussion of politics is against the charter.

At this stage is more an ongoing comedy....

Erik Shun

awec wrote: »

Discussion of politics is against the charter.

We've been discussing the politics of Westeros for the last 6 weeks nonstop!

mfceiling

Neil3030 wrote: »

Fascinating guy. I saw a documentary a while ago on him. If I recall the story correctly, he owned a commercial airline and one of their 767 planes crashed into a jungle somewhere in South East Asia. The initial cause of the crash was attributed to pilot error, as the flight data showed the plane was intentionally put into a nose-dive. But Lauda refused to accept that his pilot had screwed up, flew out to the crash site, and funded both a search through the jungle for various parts of missing wreckage, and also various additional tests on flight simulators.

Turns out, that 767s had a gizmo on the engine that reversed the thrust to slow it down on landings. The instruction to pilots, should this ever accidentally reverse mid-air, was exactly what the pilot had done - put it into a nose-dive to regather velocity. But Lauda's research showed that this instruction was only tested up to a certain altitude, and beyond this altitude, it would result in a crash. The planes were consequently redesigned.

Probably would have taken another crash before Boeing had copped onto this, so a conservative estimate is that he saved hundreds of lives.

Brilliant story. Cheers Neil!!

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

errlloyd wrote: »

Is episode 3 grimmer than episode 1?

Yes.

Well that's close to the grimmest thing I've ever seen.

Stheno

errlloyd wrote: »

Well that's close to the grimmest thing I've ever seen.

Yup

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

Well that's close to the grimmest thing I've ever seen.

Yeah. It's actually horrific. Nightmarish. The real life actualisation of maybe the worst possible way to die. Acute Radiation Syndrome really is the sum of all fears, literally being torn apart at a molecular level and spending your last days in total and utter agony and more or less immune to the benefits of pain medication.

errlloyd

I guess I knew it was coming. You know when you see various characters carrying out various tasks in episode one that they're probably going to go that way. But the show didn't really spare us much. Right up to that final scene which wasn't gory at all, but damn well heart breaking.

troyzer

Deleted User wrote: »

errlloyd wrote: »

Well that's close to the grimmest thing I've ever seen.

Yeah. It's actually horrific. Nightmarish. The real life actualisation of maybe the worst possible way to die. Acute Radiation Syndrome really is the sum of all fears, literally being torn apart at a molecular level and spending your last days in total and utter agony and more or less immune to the benefits of pain medication.

I'm heading to the world cup and one of the things I'm most looking forward to (if that's the right way of putting it) is the Hiroshima peace museum. There are meant to be really harrowing displays in there.

Stheno

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah. It's actually horrific. Nightmarish. The real life actualisation of maybe the worst possible way to die. Acute Radiation Syndrome really is the sum of all fears, literally being torn apart at a molecular level and spending your last days in total and utter agony and more or less immune to the benefits of pain medication.

It was like they were melting from the outside in

Stheno

troyzer wrote: »

I'm heading to the world cup and one of the things I'm most looking forward to (if that's the right way of putting it) is the Hiroshima peace museum. There are meant to be really harrowing displays in there.

I was in the Schlindler factory in Krakow and it left an impression.

Didn't get to Auschwitz on that trip.

Such places are important to remind us of our collective history harrowing as they may be.

Stheno

Stheno wrote: »

It was like they were melting from the outside in

Yup, and I was trying to eat these new ginger and wasabi crisps at the time.

swiwi_

The definition of reckless is climbing Mt Everest. I see 2 Irish victims in the last week.

errlloyd

swiwi_ wrote: »

The definition of reckless is climbing Mt Everest. I see 2 Irish victims in the last week.

I usually understand those who die on everest, or skydiving, or whatever. But I don't understand bring an everest tour guide when your a father to a four year old.

The guy who died today died on his fourth ascent. He was a pro climber. Climbing was his sport and it killed him, to me that's par for the course. Not much sympathy but no judgement

Squidgy Black

errlloyd wrote: »

I usually understand those who die on everest, or skydiving, or whatever. But I don't understand bring an everest tour guide when your a father to a four year old.

The guy who died today died on his fourth ascent. He was a pro climber. Climbing was his sport and it killed him, to me that's par for the course. Not much sympathy but no judgement

Wife was at home, 5 months pregnant also. All because he wanted to achieve a personal goal before he was 40.

It's a horrific accident and really sad for the family, but it's one of the most idiotic things I've heard of in a while.

swiwi_

errlloyd wrote: »

I usually understand those who die on everest, or skydiving, or whatever. But I don't understand bring an everest tour guide when your a father to a four year old.

The guy who died today died on his fourth ascent. He was a pro climber. Climbing was his sport and it killed him, to me that's par for the course. Not much sympathy but no judgement

Yeah I suppose. It’s got a lot safer over time, but there still seems to be 10 or so deaths every year. The human body is not made for those altitudes, once you get to that death zone above a certain height you are literally dicing with death. If you’re single then yeah maybe but with young kids I think it’s just irresponsible.

troyzer

Climbing Everest isn't the problem. It's not even close to the most dangerous mountain in the world technically.

The problem is how over commercialised it is. There are too many companies taking people who are too inexperienced. Most of these people are dying because they end up burning oxygen and energy for two hours waiting to get up the Hillary Step

Podge_irl

swiwi_ wrote: »

Yeah I suppose. It’s got a lot safer over time, but there still seems to be 10 or so deaths every year. The human body is not made for those altitudes, once you get to that death zone above a certain height you are literally dicing with death. If you’re single then yeah maybe but with young kids I think it’s just irresponsible.

8 have now died in the last week.

I'll be honest I don't really get the appeal but they're taking their lives in their own hands and ultimately can do what they want. All things in life come with risk but I think either their risk appetite or their risk judgement is a bit ****.

Zzippy

A retired colleague of mine is just back from Everest. He didn't make a summit attempt in the end, wasn't feeling great and made the right choice to pull out. He did climb Manaslu last year (8,163m) at the age of 65! He met the guys who died at base camp. My impression from chatting to him is that it becomes an obsession, and some people just don't know how to recognise their limits.

Buer

Part of the problem is that it's impossible to recognise your limits at that altitude. You're not only drunk on fatigue but the oxygen deprivation makes it impossible to have a clear mind.

It's akin to seeing rugby players attempting to play on after having their clock cleaned. They think they're grand but they cannot assess the situation rationally. Unfortunately the Everest situation has far more serious consequences.

errlloyd

Zzippy wrote: »

A retired colleague of mine is just back from Everest. He didn't make a summit attempt in the end, wasn't feeling great and made the right choice to pull out. He did climb Manaslu last year (8,163m) at the age of 65! He met the guys who died at base camp. My impression from chatting to him is that it becomes an obsession, and some people just don't know how to recognise their limits.

Manaslu is a good bit more dangerous than Everest I think? Nice Hipster mountain right there.

Zzippy

errlloyd wrote: »

Manaslu is a good bit more dangerous than Everest I think? Nice Hipster mountain right there.

Ha, he's as far from a hipster as it's possible to get! But yeah, it's supposed to be a more technical ascent/descent I believe.

troyzer

Zzippy wrote: »

errlloyd wrote: »

Manaslu is a good bit more dangerous than Everest I think? Nice Hipster mountain right there.

Ha, he's as far from a hipster as it's possible to get! But yeah, it's supposed to be a more technical ascent/descent I believe.

On a clear day with support, most very fit people could get up and down Everest if sufficiently motivated.

It's not a difficult mountain. There are lots of scary moments that take balls but very little that requires skill.

There's an Australian paraplegic who summited last year. There was also some Japanese guy in his 80s.

Zzippy

troyzer wrote: »

On a clear day with support, most very fit people could get up and down Everest if sufficiently motivated.

It's not a difficult mountain. There are lots of scary moments that take balls but very little that requires skill.

There's an Australian paraplegic who summited last year. There was also some Japanese guy in his 80s.

Yes, it's not the technical climbing that many enjoy, it's just the extreme altitude that kills so many. I follow Joe Simpson on twitter (Touching the Void). Spent a day fishing with him once, fascinating guy. He is pretty scathing about how commercial Everesting has become.

troyzer

Zzippy wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

On a clear day with support, most very fit people could get up and down Everest if sufficiently motivated.

It's not a difficult mountain. There are lots of scary moments that take balls but very little that requires skill.

There's an Australian paraplegic who summited last year. There was also some Japanese guy in his 80s.

Yes, it's not the technical climbing that many enjoy, it's just the extreme altitude that kills so many. I follow Joe Simpson on twitter (Touching the Void). Spent a day fishing with him once, fascinating guy. He is pretty scathing about how commercial Everesting has become.

It's the extreme altitude, the weather and over crowding.

Joe Simpson is some man. Don't think many would have walked away from that.

ClanofLams

Jon Walters on the late late. Very likeable guy, lost his mother to suicide at 11 and his brother committed suicide at 35, the day after while making funeral plans his wife lost a child.

Zzippy

Mental photo!

https://twitter.com/nimsdai/status/1131931349030457345?s=19

troyzer

Zzippy wrote: »

Mental photo!

https://twitter.com/nimsdai/status/1131931349030457345?s=19

Nepal aren't going to start limiting them soon. Licenses start at around $10k and while paid poorly by Western standards, the Sherpas support entire villages with the comparitively huge wages. Climbing is simply too important to the economy in these areas.

Neil3030

Just drove 17 hours in a single day, think that's my new record. Only 750 miles covered though, thanks to three crashes and Friday evening traffic in the Bay Area.

Edit - crashes involving other vehicles that slowed down traffic, to clarify. Even I'm not thick enough to keep driving after crashing twice.

stephen_n

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/td-bailey-ran-10km-race-three-weeks-after-swing-fall-38146778.html

If this doesn’t end up as a fraud conviction and with her resignation as a TD, I will lose all faith in this country.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/td-bailey-ran-10km-race-three-weeks-after-swing-fall-38146778.html

If this doesn’t end up as a fraud conviction and with her resignation as a TD, I will lose all faith in this country.

I have seen a great many claims that at face value looked completely spurious only to scratch beneath the surface and come to the conclusion that there was negligence and the complaint was fair enough. Often times when it looks and smells like BS, that's exactly what it turns out to be - just not always.

The optics of this look absolutely terrible and her political career is after taking a potentially fatal setback with the reporting. I've read nothing which suggests this is anything other than a completely frivolous claim but the one caveat I'd keep in mind is that optically frivolous claims sometimes have genuine merit.

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have seen a great many claims that at face value looked completely spurious only to scratch beneath the surface and come to the conclusion that there was negligence and the complaint was fair enough. Often times when it looks and smells like BS, that's exactly what it turns out to be - just not always.

The optics of this look absolutely terrible and her political career is after taking a potentially fatal setback with the reporting. I've read nothing which suggests this is anything other than a completely frivolous claim but the one caveat I'd keep in mind is that optically frivolous claims sometimes have genuine merit.

I'm sure there probably was some form of injury caused, but the whole grounds of the claim are ludicrous. The suit isn't that the swing broke, or was faulty. It's because she fell backwards because she had items in both her hands and she alleges the hotel was negligent because the swing was "unsupervised" and there were no signs to instruct patrons how to use it safely.

This is an adult in their 50s saying they need to be supervised and told how to use a swing.

Squidgy Black

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I'm sure there probably was some form of injury caused, but the whole grounds of the claim are ludicrous. The suit isn't that the swing broke, or was faulty. It's because she fell backwards because she had items in both her hands and she alleges the hotel was negligent because the swing was "unsupervised" and there were no signs to instruct patrons how to use it safely.

This is an adult in their 50s saying they need to be supervised and told how to use a swing.

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Is it reasonably foreseeable that if you place a swing in an area where people are consuming alcohol, there is a reasonable prospect that someone will fall backwards off it?

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

I would never have the shame to take a case like this, it probably does have some legal merit.

errlloyd

I fully agree with Venjur's Devils Advocate position and I'd go a step further and say much of the language about it being "unsupervised" etc probably came from her legal team, not her.

I think for the Hotel a simple sign that says "swings are decorative only" and then a policy of them ignoring anyone who ignored the sign would have worked.

I still can't believe she's taken this case though. She probably does have a legal position, but like also cop on. Every single girl on Instagram in Dublin has been on those swings without injuring themselves.

Bazzo

What about bar stools? Maybe we should have everyone in a pub sit into a bucket seat and strap in case somebody has too many and falls off.

Squidgy Black

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

Is it reasonably foreseeable that if you place a swing in an area where people are consuming alcohol, there is a reasonable prospect that someone will fall backwards off it?

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

I would never have the shame to take a case like this, it probably does have some legal merit.

But the above is exactly what's driving liability insurance up when people are able to put in claims like that, trying to absolve themselves of any personal liability and blaming it on others around them.

At what point do we draw the line of people taking responsibility for their own actions? Look at the case of the girl who jumped on the side of the Luas and put in a claim because there wasn't adequate grip for her to jump onto the side of a moving tram. It's absolutely mental.

Squidgy Black

Squidgy Black wrote: »

But the above is exactly what's driving liability insurance up when people are able to put in claims like that, trying to absolve themselves of any personal liability and blaming it on others around them.

At what point do we draw the line of people taking responsibility for their own actions? Look at the case of the girl who jumped on the side of the Luas and put in a claim because there wasn't adequate grip for her to jump onto the side of a moving tram. It's absolutely mental.

I never said she should be paid anything. I just pointed out it was foreseeable, likely even.

molloyjh

Our politicians should be setting the highest of standards for the population and should be looking to solve the issues society as a whole faces. This politician has done the absolute polar opposite. Insurance is one of the biggest issues facing this country. Excessive claims and awards are closing businesses and driving premiums up for everyone. And now we have a TD being a part of that because she couldn't sit on a swing.

Neil3030

There's no governing you people, is there?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

Are you a solicitor or in some other way experience with the law or is this just you musing?

irishbucsfan

Ah she’s clearly lied. If she has any sense she’ll withdraw the claim for the sake of her political career

troyzer

Sloane Nutritious Ham wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

If that is reasonably foreseeable then the premesis has some liability.

Are you a solicitor or in some other way experience with the law or is this just you musing?

Personally I think venjur is a former olympian working in some cushy job in the docks.

Not that I have any sympathy but I don't know how she can extricate herself from this now other than win the case. I think she's done huge harm to her chances of being re-elected no matter what. If she withdraws the claim now she looks like a cheat who has been caught out.