Some of this is selection bias, but lots of this is active work by the organizers.
Burning Man has slowly re-created the regulatory state in response to the standard pressures of civilization. To their credit, this has often been in response to near-misses, but sometimes in response to fatalities. It started with sanitation (potties), and banning guns/explosives. You can have 100 people shooting guns at a party in the desert without sanitation and muddle through. At 10k, you are building a cholera-mad-max experiment. A car running over a sleeping person prompted a designated road network. And then they adopted zoning, with hush-ville and the large sound installation ends. All supported by the ranger team preventing injury every day. Civilization is work.
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.
In 2023 there was a giant cube made out of IBC water tanks. You can see a video here: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/FTwpt0OuW_U" rel="nofollow">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.
>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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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..
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...
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.
The Ladder to nowhere from 2002 is a good one.
<a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/te179d/the_ladder_to_nowhere_2005_do_you_think_something/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/te179d/the_ladd...
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?
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.
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
I wish someone would expand this comment into a full-length study on the evolution of regulations and infrastructure within Burning Man. It's a really interesting topic.
You wouldn't need to look much further than the evolution of the BRC DMV
My friends who went in the late 90s recounted shooting at propane tanks from moving vehicles and having to camp inside of a ring of parked cars to protect your camp (from vehicular traffic)
After 2000 you had to show some decent design (not just a golf cart with dingleberries) and that was about it, they passed our moon car and shark van without much question, and the shark van was a giant sharp thing without lights.
Others will have to fill in the regs now, I understand things have gotten progressively more rigorous.
My understanding is that anything built on the playa, including the art (eg. temple of gravity) has an engineer's stamp just like would in Reno. Or just a bit more dusty.
After being made aware of Pauline Borsook and her pioneering critique of cyberlibertarianism in Cyberselfish (published 2000) (<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49866903">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49866903), I followed some hyperlinks and searched some stuff referenced in the article and found this rather relevant analysis:
Between 1966 and 1973, we had the largest wave of commune building in American history. These people were involved in turning away from politics, away from bureaucracy, and toward a world in which they could change their consciousness. They believed small-scale technologies would help them do that. They wanted to change the world by creating new tools for consciousness transformation.
This is the tradition that drives claims by companies like Google and Facebook that they are making the world a better place by connecting people. It’s a kind of connectionist politics. Like the New Communalists, they are imagining a world that’s completely leveled, in which hierarchy has been dissolved. They’re imagining a world that’s fundamentally without politics.
It’s worth pointing out that this tradition, at least in the communes, has a terrible legacy. The communes were, ironically, extraordinarily conservative.
When you take away bureaucracy and hierarchy and politics, you take away the ability to negotiate the distribution of resources on explicit terms. And you replace it with charisma, with cool, with shared but unspoken perceptions of power. You replace it with the cultural forces that guide our behavior in the absence of rules.
So suddenly you get these charismatic men running communes—and women in the back having babies and putting bleach in the water to keep people from getting sick. Many of the communes of the 1960s were among the most racially segregated, heteronormative, and authoritarian spaces I’ve ever looked at.
> Apple is, in some ways, very cynical. It markets utopian ideas all the time. It
markets its products as tools of utopian transformation in a countercultural vein. It has co-opted a series of the emblems of the counterculture, starting as soon as the company was founded.
> At other companies, I think it’s very sincere. I’ve spent a lot of time at Facebook lately, and I think they sincerely want to build what Mark Zuckerberg calls a more connected world
See also: The Tyranny of Structurelessness
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...
Why would that be revealed preference? If they have option to explicitly negotiate, they negotiate themselves different situation. This is what happens when you take that option away
I'm sorry, I forgot. Women can never be held accountable for their actions. They are just helpless innocent babes in the woods, perpetual victims of the universe. The only crime they can truly commit is being attractive in a sports ad.
1.) You cant take a single factor out of multi factoral decision and claim it is "revealed preference". It might be "cost they have to pay for something else".
2.) You cant assume they had ability to predict the future when they joined the community.
3.) You cant assume they have a place to go to now.
4.) You cant ignore women who in fact left those communities.
5.) You cant ignore majority of the women who in face did not joined the community.
And the same thing applies to men btw. You cant just claim that a suboptimal situation in which a man stayed is somehow revealed preference of males.
It’s not the same event but I know there is a pretty good docu on YouTube by wendover explaining Glastonbury festival logistics that may be of interest if this is your thing
Funnily enough a friend of mine recently completed their PhD on a similar topic to this regarding the sociology of burning man, and associated burn events across the world. I will message them for their thesis and can DM it to you.
They really did recapitulate the foundations of civilization. As a speed-run.
I'd love to read a history of it, but it won't be me. I haven't been in years, and it has changed profoundly since my first visit in 2000.
To begin with, camp fires were a normal -- even essential -- part of BM. Walking around, the city was illuminated by the flickering glow of crackling fires and conversation. And many of the temporary structures would be disposed of by having a big bonfire, often burn-night, or Sunday after, as a part of exodus.
But this caused several problems that demanded solutions. Camp fires can kick off sparks, and sparks in a large dense tent city is bad juju. So they forbid open fires, and required contained burn barrels or stoves. Big fires built directly on the playa get hot enough to bake the clay and leave burn scars. This violated their permits from the BLM. So they required metal insulation below. After a few of revs in the rules, fire in camps became practically forbidden.
It was sad. Campfires were replaced by lighting, and sound systems. Small group bonfire rituals were forbidden. So the warm, inviting glow of a crackling campfire and the murmur of conversation were replaced by the repellent cold light of leds, and edm, like an empty club. Serendipity and connection suffered.
No, this one is written in foolishness because anyone with common sense would have known better. The entire ethos of that place was to reject that kind of thinking and build their own world. Real smart stuff.
It's not insane, and it was just explained how it happens. You don't need streets when you have 10 people. Or 100 people. But there comes a threshold where you do need them. The question remains, how do you recognize or determine this threshold? A lot of the times, a death is the wake up call.
Depends on the definition of "whatever" but car parks come to mind.
In Finland there are specific signposted pedestrian zones, where cars may enter but must not exceed 20kmh and must give priority to pedestrians (as must cyclists). They are typically the areas surrounding apartment building entranceways.
The internals of Barcelona super-blocks are mixed spaces, with cars expected to stay under 5km/h (i.e. ride the brakes and feather the clutch) at all times. Many old-city areas are primarily pedestrian with cars allowed as 2nd-class visitors. Agree that this is rare in the USA.
Sure. So you can commit to going nowhere without roads, or be willing to drive and camp places without them.
You can do a lot without designated and built roads, as buring man up to that point obviously demonstrated. If it wasn't constantly growing, they probably could have gone several years without another death
Burning Man was 10 or 30 people when someone ran over someone else sleeping?
Offroading, unless it's on sand dunes, generally has paths (i.e., roads), either official or well-trodden ones, that people drive on. Are people sleeping on these paths or in the middle of the sand dunes?
I thought Burning Man was full of "smart" people?
In the early days, people showed up and just camped wherever. Also, people just drove whenever. For the most part, it worked, until it didn't. When things are unsafe, people are more careful. Norway and Sweden deliberately made their roads less safe to take advantage of this.
There are no stop signs at intersections at Burning Man and thousands of cyclists and yet there are very few collisions. Why? Everyone has to pay attention.
Eventually though, drugs, drinking, driving and tents randomly placed around the open lake bed lead to disaster and they had to add roads. This helped in other ways too. It meant that emergency services could find people who needed help. I also meant that it was easier to describe where your tent was to your friends, or find your way back to camp.
> Norway and Sweden deliberately made their roads less safe to take advantage of this.
All over Europe you see "horizontal speed bumps": deliberate road constrictions that funnel you into oncoming traffic. To an American it looks crazy but it works.
Regular speed bumps won't funnel you into oncoming traffic, are you talking about something different? Searching for "horizontal" specifically didn't yield anything distinct.
I think they’re referring to a curb extension or “neckdown.” It takes a street with 2-way traffic and adds a mid-block choke point so only one car can go through at a time.
Here in the UK, people (often in a particular age demographic) often mock "Health and Safety". "Hahaha got a high vis jacket on if you're opening that can of coke? Hahahahaha"
Fuck off with that. It's actually important, and the HSE website has a lot of case studies explaining why.
For example you are absolutely not under any circumstances allowed to bring matches or cigarette lighters onto oil or gas related sites. You'd think that would be pretty reasonable, right? There's even a a smoking shelter with special lighters attached to the wall so people can smoke, well away from the explodey stuff. But no, "OMG 'elf an' safety gone mad innit?"
Does anyone want to know *why* matches and lighters are banned? Anyone care to take a guess as to whether or not there was a specific incident leading up to the ban?
Okay then, here it is: <a href="https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/casebpdalment87.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/casebpdalment87.htm
Read the fourth paragraph a couple of times until it sinks in properly.
A colleague of mine sometimes has described some people as "A case study waiting to happen".
There was a comment somewhere - here? - that the default mode of human experience isn't "Successfully predict the future to avoid problems," it's "FAFO."
Also, everyone makes mistakes. But some people are, quite literally, a danger to themselves and others, and everyone needs to be protected from them. Including themselves.
Do you need a death to enforce car/people separation for every new festival ?
There have been festivals for a long time, and we get 150 years of experience with cars. It has been obvious for decade that you don't mix both, especially when drugs and alcohol are involved.
I have been to campings for decades and all of them have road/streets for cars despite having less people and less money than burning man.
I actually like this process, though. New birth/youth is freedom. Throw away everything, Chesterton's Fences be damned. Reckless. Then the system develops its rules. Some of those rules were in the previous system, some of them were Chesterton's Fences with merit.
I don't like the people standing on the sidelines saying "Those were obviously useful fences." Ya but most fences suck. If you don't have healthy mechanisms for shedding/fresh slates your system will rot.
Bouquet or brickbat? I have no idea what outcomes unite these countries, nor whether you think this is good, bad, or even both at once. Could you expand on this?
proof you don't really need a government or state in order to have rules and order. this seems like a win for anarchism and a point against statism.
the group we're talking about does not have the power to enforce rules
but regardless, if you want to call the state in anarchism where people collectively form together to create rules and order "government", be my guest
The first time I heard about Burning Man was at Defcon back in the early 00's. Some folks were telling me how they're going after the con and I asked, what's Burning Man? They told me how it was a sick festival in the desert where people race cars, shoot guns and set stuff on fire. By the time I made it in '09, it was tens of thousands of people, crawling with feds, and a strict 5mph limit was imposed on all vehicles. I had a great time though.
I find the rangers evolution into a proto police force fascinating.
It starts with being ready to help people who are having health crises. Then when a serious crime happens the community wants it to be investigated, and they call the only organised group that can help.
michael1999 · · focus · HN ↗
Burning Man has slowly re-created the regulatory state in response to the standard pressures of civilization. To their credit, this has often been in response to near-misses, but sometimes in response to fatalities. It started with sanitation (potties), and banning guns/explosives. You can have 100 people shooting guns at a party in the desert without sanitation and muddle through. At 10k, you are building a cholera-mad-max experiment. A car running over a sleeping person prompted a designated road network. And then they adopted zoning, with hush-ville and the large sound installation ends. All supported by the ranger team preventing injury every day. Civilization is work.
ManuelKiessling · · focus · HN ↗
supern0va · · focus · HN ↗
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.
ambicapter · · focus · HN ↗
Can you give some examples?
tra3 · · focus · HN ↗
supern0va · · focus · HN ↗
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.
cr1895 · · focus · HN ↗
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...
<a href="https://pdf.journalagent.com/travma/pdfs/UTD_19_6_529_535.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://pdf.journalagent.com/travma/pdfs/UTD_19_6_529_535.pd...
bawolff · · focus · HN ↗
willtemperley · · focus · HN ↗
brazzy · · focus · HN ↗
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.
willtemperley · · focus · HN ↗
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.
brazzy · · focus · HN ↗
willtemperley · · focus · HN ↗
So not risk free.
brazzy · · focus · HN ↗
willtemperley · · focus · HN ↗
Exactly. If nothing is risk free then the original statement we’re discussing is untrue.
cr1895 · · focus · HN ↗
chmod775 · · focus · HN ↗
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...
kbelder · · focus · HN ↗
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.
21asdffdsa12 · · focus · HN ↗
foobarian · · focus · HN ↗
supern0va · · focus · HN ↗
Also, fun fact: they are literally held together with large metal zip ties.
mezzman · · focus · HN ↗
beau_g · · focus · HN ↗
mrob · · focus · HN ↗
aorloff · · focus · HN ↗
mahboi · · focus · HN ↗
woadwarrior01 · · focus · HN ↗
makeitdouble · · focus · HN ↗
mahboi · · focus · HN ↗
michael1999 · · focus · HN ↗
ttcbj · · focus · HN ↗
AndrewKemendo · · focus · HN ↗
jonahhorowitz · · focus · HN ↗
[0] - <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/585886.This_Is_Burning_Man" rel="nofollow">https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/585886.This_Is_Burnin...
wmwragg · · focus · HN ↗
aorloff · · focus · HN ↗
My friends who went in the late 90s recounted shooting at propane tanks from moving vehicles and having to camp inside of a ring of parked cars to protect your camp (from vehicular traffic)
After 2000 you had to show some decent design (not just a golf cart with dingleberries) and that was about it, they passed our moon car and shark van without much question, and the shark van was a giant sharp thing without lights.
Others will have to fill in the regs now, I understand things have gotten progressively more rigorous.
My understanding is that anything built on the playa, including the art (eg. temple of gravity) has an engineer's stamp just like would in Reno. Or just a bit more dusty.
Arodex · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://logicmag.io/justice/fred-turner-dont-be-evil/" rel="nofollow">https://logicmag.io/justice/fred-turner-dont-be-evil/
Between 1966 and 1973, we had the largest wave of commune building in American history. These people were involved in turning away from politics, away from bureaucracy, and toward a world in which they could change their consciousness. They believed small-scale technologies would help them do that. They wanted to change the world by creating new tools for consciousness transformation.
This is the tradition that drives claims by companies like Google and Facebook that they are making the world a better place by connecting people. It’s a kind of connectionist politics. Like the New Communalists, they are imagining a world that’s completely leveled, in which hierarchy has been dissolved. They’re imagining a world that’s fundamentally without politics.
It’s worth pointing out that this tradition, at least in the communes, has a terrible legacy. The communes were, ironically, extraordinarily conservative.
When you take away bureaucracy and hierarchy and politics, you take away the ability to negotiate the distribution of resources on explicit terms. And you replace it with charisma, with cool, with shared but unspoken perceptions of power. You replace it with the cultural forces that guide our behavior in the absence of rules.
So suddenly you get these charismatic men running communes—and women in the back having babies and putting bleach in the water to keep people from getting sick. Many of the communes of the 1960s were among the most racially segregated, heteronormative, and authoritarian spaces I’ve ever looked at.
musicale · · focus · HN ↗
> At other companies, I think it’s very sincere. I’ve spent a lot of time at Facebook lately, and I think they sincerely want to build what Mark Zuckerberg calls a more connected world
swerner · · focus · HN ↗
dTal · · focus · HN ↗
MrBuddyCasino · · focus · HN ↗
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
MrBuddyCasino · · focus · HN ↗
BigTTYGothGF · · focus · HN ↗
That's a big presumption.
MrBuddyCasino · · focus · HN ↗
watwut · · focus · HN ↗
1.) You cant take a single factor out of multi factoral decision and claim it is "revealed preference". It might be "cost they have to pay for something else".
2.) You cant assume they had ability to predict the future when they joined the community.
3.) You cant assume they have a place to go to now.
4.) You cant ignore women who in fact left those communities.
5.) You cant ignore majority of the women who in face did not joined the community.
And the same thing applies to men btw. You cant just claim that a suboptimal situation in which a man stayed is somehow revealed preference of males.
Havoc · · focus · HN ↗
mad_tortoise · · focus · HN ↗
Igrom · · focus · HN ↗
chris_bell · · focus · HN ↗
michael1999 · · focus · HN ↗
I'd love to read a history of it, but it won't be me. I haven't been in years, and it has changed profoundly since my first visit in 2000.
DuperPower · · focus · HN ↗
michael1999 · · focus · HN ↗
To begin with, camp fires were a normal -- even essential -- part of BM. Walking around, the city was illuminated by the flickering glow of crackling fires and conversation. And many of the temporary structures would be disposed of by having a big bonfire, often burn-night, or Sunday after, as a part of exodus.
But this caused several problems that demanded solutions. Camp fires can kick off sparks, and sparks in a large dense tent city is bad juju. So they forbid open fires, and required contained burn barrels or stoves. Big fires built directly on the playa get hot enough to bake the clay and leave burn scars. This violated their permits from the BLM. So they required metal insulation below. After a few of revs in the rules, fire in camps became practically forbidden.
It was sad. Campfires were replaced by lighting, and sound systems. Small group bonfire rituals were forbidden. So the warm, inviting glow of a crackling campfire and the murmur of conversation were replaced by the repellent cold light of leds, and edm, like an empty club. Serendipity and connection suffered.
michael1999 · · focus · HN ↗
bossyTeacher · · focus · HN ↗
Some of this seems subjective.
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
dsr_ · · focus · HN ↗
freejazz · · focus · HN ↗
TeMPOraL · · focus · HN ↗
freejazz · · focus · HN ↗
fragmede · · focus · HN ↗
xboxnolifes · · focus · HN ↗
bmitc · · focus · HN ↗
s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
rightnutwingjob · · focus · HN ↗
s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
Also drive on beaches would be a good example.
cromulent · · focus · HN ↗
In Finland there are specific signposted pedestrian zones, where cars may enter but must not exceed 20kmh and must give priority to pedestrians (as must cyclists). They are typically the areas surrounding apartment building entranceways.
tetromino_ · · focus · HN ↗
michael1999 · · focus · HN ↗
bmitc · · focus · HN ↗
If by them you mean roads, then yea, that's the point.
s1artibartfast · · focus · HN ↗
You can do a lot without designated and built roads, as buring man up to that point obviously demonstrated. If it wasn't constantly growing, they probably could have gone several years without another death
xboxnolifes · · focus · HN ↗
bmitc · · focus · HN ↗
Offroading, unless it's on sand dunes, generally has paths (i.e., roads), either official or well-trodden ones, that people drive on. Are people sleeping on these paths or in the middle of the sand dunes?
I thought Burning Man was full of "smart" people?
jonahhorowitz · · focus · HN ↗
There are no stop signs at intersections at Burning Man and thousands of cyclists and yet there are very few collisions. Why? Everyone has to pay attention.
Eventually though, drugs, drinking, driving and tents randomly placed around the open lake bed lead to disaster and they had to add roads. This helped in other ways too. It meant that emergency services could find people who needed help. I also meant that it was easier to describe where your tent was to your friends, or find your way back to camp.
dguest · · focus · HN ↗
All over Europe you see "horizontal speed bumps": deliberate road constrictions that funnel you into oncoming traffic. To an American it looks crazy but it works.
cleartext412 · · focus · HN ↗
jonahhorowitz · · focus · HN ↗
- <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_extension" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_extension
dguest · · focus · HN ↗
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane
bmitc · · focus · HN ↗
ErroneousBosh · · focus · HN ↗
You'd be surprised how *really* *fucking* *stupid* "smart people" are.
Even you. Even me.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
bandrami · · focus · HN ↗
ErroneousBosh · · focus · HN ↗
Fuck off with that. It's actually important, and the HSE website has a lot of case studies explaining why.
For example you are absolutely not under any circumstances allowed to bring matches or cigarette lighters onto oil or gas related sites. You'd think that would be pretty reasonable, right? There's even a a smoking shelter with special lighters attached to the wall so people can smoke, well away from the explodey stuff. But no, "OMG 'elf an' safety gone mad innit?"
Does anyone want to know *why* matches and lighters are banned? Anyone care to take a guess as to whether or not there was a specific incident leading up to the ban?
Okay then, here it is: <a href="https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/casebpdalment87.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.hse.gov.uk/comah/sragtech/casebpdalment87.htm
Read the fourth paragraph a couple of times until it sinks in properly.
A colleague of mine sometimes has described some people as "A case study waiting to happen".
TheOtherHobbes · · focus · HN ↗
Also, everyone makes mistakes. But some people are, quite literally, a danger to themselves and others, and everyone needs to be protected from them. Including themselves.
ErroneousBosh · · focus · HN ↗
poulpy123 · · focus · HN ↗
I have been to campings for decades and all of them have road/streets for cars despite having less people and less money than burning man.
flomo · · focus · HN ↗
doctorpangloss · · focus · HN ↗
malkia · · focus · HN ↗
ls-a · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
ralusek · · focus · HN ↗
I don't like the people standing on the sidelines saying "Those were obviously useful fences." Ya but most fences suck. If you don't have healthy mechanisms for shedding/fresh slates your system will rot.
rightnutwingjob · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
thombat · · focus · HN ↗
rightnutwingjob · · focus · HN ↗
All of them didn’t used to be like that.
slopinthebag · · focus · HN ↗
rightnutwingjob · · focus · HN ↗
It’s proof of the opposite of your conjecture.
Anarchy always rapidly evolves in to government.
Whoever, or whichever group, performs the making, administering, and enforcement of rules, is the government.
slopinthebag · · focus · HN ↗
but regardless, if you want to call the state in anarchism where people collectively form together to create rules and order "government", be my guest
rightnutwingjob · · focus · HN ↗
You’re wrong.
When you go out in to the world you’re learn that for yourself.
Amy group of humans who think they can run things ”collectively” is always immediately over run by those who know they can’t.
michael1999 · · focus · HN ↗
Daishiman · · focus · HN ↗
What are you talking about? You can most certainly get kicked off BM, you can get criminally charged, etc.
prettyblocks · · focus · HN ↗
eviks · · focus · HN ↗
Which has also been done elsewhere, so doesn't explain the difference?
aaron695 · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
sjducb · · focus · HN ↗
It starts with being ready to help people who are having health crises. Then when a serious crime happens the community wants it to be investigated, and they call the only organised group that can help.