tvashtarkatena

Some organisms require nothing short of a motivational asteroid.

Some climbers fall a lot, some almost never. Depends on how far you push it and other factors. Similarly, some drivers have a lot of accidents and some never do. Depends on how far you push it and other factors. Both can be modeled statistically in the aggregate - as can anything you can measure. An aggregate model's predictive capability erodes with granularity, however. You may not be able to assign a probability of falling during your next move - but you do continually estimate it on the fly. You're really doing a risk analysis, though - chance x consequences of falling. If consequences = decking, even a relatively easy move can sketch you out. You can probably predict how many times you'll fall in the next year based on last year's data if you climb - and fall - enough to create a large enough statistical sample, but that prediction will come with a statistical margin of error. The sparser or more clumpy your data, or changes in conditions (change of climbing habits, health, gear...) the larger that margin will be. They really are givin you a numbuh, and takin 'way yo name.

Did I mention the overhead heat lamp? Your heaving, shivering body is gently warmed from both sides. The raja slate, the black granite - it's almost a cleansing mini-retreat, really. My 2nd bout was courtesy of Taco Bell, I believe. That's our traditional family junk food station we're talking about - the ultimate betrayal. Meatless burrito, too. No kangaroos were harmed in the making of this disaster.

Yes, this is yet one of many excellent arguments for single payer. On the flip side, there really aren't any credible arguments against single payer at this point. Private health insurance companies has proven that the profit motive and providing health care are at odds. They need to go away.

I have a radiant heated bathroom floor, so there was that. There's one local teriyaki joint I'll be skipping from now on.

Write up your TR in your voice in a way that suites you, throw some heart into it, and all will be well. The objective or your skill level isn't anywhere near the whole story. There was a recent TR about some high altitude climbing - really spectacular stuff - but the photo/caption I remember the most from it was a pic of a guy dancing with a goat with the proscription "Don't judge" underneath. That could have been a TR about the Tooth and it still would have been just as funny. You never know what part of your story is going to hit home with readers, but if it hits home with you, that's the most important thing. I think you'll find that the process of crafting a TR is also a means to savor and gain insight into the experience you've just had.

If you could assign probability of a fatal fall while free soloing - say 1%, you could calculate your mean time to failure - in other words, your expected lifespan, as follows. Lets say you make a 1%, skull and bones crux move once a day, every day. Your expected lifespan would be when the probability of making the move successfully N times in a row (that's the part Rob failed to read correctly) would be: .50 = .99^N, where N is your expected lifespan in days. In this case, N = 69 days. This is an important principle to understand, particularly for free soloists who 'just go for it'. Yes, your chance of dying in this example is 1% every time (the part Rob did get) - and that produces a mean time to failure - your expected lifespan in this case, is still only 69 days. Those few hard core, regular free soloists who survive have such a low probability of falling - well below 1%, obviously - that they clearly don't 'just go for it' (climb at the edge of their ability) very often. The 'heads in a row' formula is a simplified instance of the same mean time between failure calculations used in design and manufacturing. The gambling pic also provides an illustration. The probability of winning a blackjack hand is constant at 42%. The probability of winning 5 hands in a row is .42^5 = 1%. That's how casinos make money. I'm harping on this because the Rob's misunderstanding is a dangerous one. Several years back I met a Canuckistani guide who did understand this equation. He told me: "I used to run it out. Now I sew it up. When you do it as much as I do, its a numbers game."

After 2 bouts of food poisoning a week apart, I'm inclined to go with the 'indifferent' over the 'merciful' model.

Dog in His Infinite Indifference.

having a big door (Lighthouse) is really nice for a bunch of reasons - the weight difference isn't much.

Watching other folks live a better life than yours can suck if you don't rise above the behaviors that put you in your present position in the first place. If you do rise up, another's happiness becomes a good thing rather than an object of envy. Rather than bringing you down, it lifts you up. Wishing ill to befall others invites it into your house as well. Maintaining a list of enemies for such a purpose wastes energy one could be using to improve their own situation. It makes one's spirit repulsive rather than inviting. The world has a keen sense for that. It responds accordingly.

When I was about that same age my first/best climbing partner was killed climbing. That drove some reality home in no uncertain terms.

Given a survey size of 1 particular poster here and today's probability of my being a dick is 100%. Today's sampling does not, however, affect my probability of being a dick tomorrow in any way. Kinda weird. I'd a thought a software geek would know that basic sheeit by heart. It's an EZ google. Then the full aggro, complete with anti-bullying PSA and the required 'butt-hurt' reference. OK. Sounds serious! Seduced by the allure of an innernut win, I reckon. Such passions destroy many a fine mind!

This wouldn't be the first time I've been called a dick for knowing my statistics. People do not like to see the numbers, that is fo sho. They're like hubcaps.

The sky is grey.

I've watched you do this with lots of folks when you've misread or don't understand something but won't admit it, Rob. It's a bit weird to go through the lengths you have to put it on display like this, but we've all got quirks. I'm sure my idea is clear to anyone else who cares, which is likely no one at this point, so I'm good. Change 5% to 1% or 10% and do the x^N independent events in a row equation and let me know when you come up with equal results.

"What's the probability of a high injury/death fall in any given situation? 5% might be low if you don't do it very often. If you take such risks a lot, however, 5% can catch up with you because the probability of making the move successfully over a multiple tries (N) = .95^N. So, the probability of making a 95% move 14 times in a row drops below 50%. Plus, are you really 95%, and not, say, 60% sure you can make the move? The odds very quickly fall out of your favor in that range." Word problems get a lot of people. No worries. Apology accepted.

The probability of flipping a 'heads' 10 times in a row is not the same as for flipping 'heads' 5 times in a row, even if the probability of flipping heads remains 50% every time. Do your own research on that, dood. I can't believe I'm besting you with a 35 year old stats class. If you're a free soloist and flipping a 'tails' means death - you need to flip a 'heads' every damn time - ei, thousands of times in a row over a climbing career It's exactly the same calculation as flipping 'heads' a bunch of times in a row, just with different number for the probability.

Hmmm, you get an F on that stats test, Rob The probability of something with an x% probability happening N times in a row is x^N. You need to not fall N times in a row in order to escape the consequences. Per instance versus lifetime probabilities of success are quite different. This is what six sigma is all about.

2 things: What's the probability of a high injury/death fall in any given situation? 5% might be low if you don't do it very often. If you take such risks a lot, however, 5% can catch up with you because the probability of making the move successfully over a multiple tries (N) = .95^N. So, the probability of making a 95% move 14 times in a row drops below 50%. Plus, are you really 95%, and not, say, 60% sure you can make the move? The odds very quickly fall out of your favor in that range. On the flip side, what is the risk of not climbing, given that sitting is one of the least healthy past times?

Well then get yo ass up here, cuz I ain't, either.

poison oak can be hard to avoid when you actually climb stuff

Quark if you're budget limited. Plenty used out there.

A chunk of bronze that size can last as long as 15 million years (that's actually true). Lenin will very likely become one of that last vestiges our time here on earth. The red paint on his left hand probably won't survive, however.

I'm going to act graver until that statue comes down. No, we don't know the gravity of a Russian invasion of another nation, GGK. What could possibly go wrong there?