|
calvus posted:I wonder why they were in there if it was in the process of being demolished Before you can blow up a building, someone has to go in there and you know, place the explosives, wire them together, etc. People also need to be close by to run wires and such. The explosives do not magically appear in the rickety old buildings, which are often unsafe which is why they're being demolished in the first place.
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
H110Hawk posted:I never know if table breaking is still bannable. Oh man I love it. Not surprising, it's a small cross-section piece of tempered high-quality steel (the edge of which is often sharpened) that tapers for strength, backed by a totally rigid 3000lb+ object. It's essentially a high-density high-speed battering ram (that can lift things, I guess).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Fasdar posted:Here's a thought experiment for this thread: Mining operations, without anyone monitoring the pit even a relatively safe aboveground mine will be a mess of landslides and mass wasting. Underground mines would fill with water, where they weren't huge drops into blackness.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2016 20:50
|
|
|
Grandma Panic! posted:Guy buys his own Titan missile silo, pops it open for the first time in decades and goes exploring: That is so unbelievably stupid to have gone in there without a gas meter. That guy was very very observant though, to have noticed his voice changing register and correctly interpreting that as some kind of gas pocket. That's some old-fashioned miner instincts right there. Of course relying on those when there are machines that will do it for you is so so stupid, but that was some extremely observant thinking and correct, quick action. Some googling reveals that a factory-calibrated explosion-proofed handheld meter that gives you any warnings it can about anything dangerous can be bought online for ~600 bucks. Seems like a good investment for someone exploring a contaminated underground unventilated uncontrolled enclosed space I read recently about people exploring this hyper-radioactive ex-military site that was purposefully contaminated, making it vastly more dangerous than a nuke test site. Apparently every few years some urbex people go in there and are like "yup, still hideously dangerous". But even those people have the loving presence of mind to carry some meters with them so they know when to turn back, jesus. Uncle Enzo fucked around with this message at 19:24 on Dec 14, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
ethanol posted:I want to know how you buy your own silo but not your own well equipped and knowledgeable team for inspecting said silo for horrible dangers I took a 500$ one-week class to get my 40-hour HAZWOPER training and it covered confined spaces in detail. People get mixed up and think of confined space rules as restrictive nanny-stating when in reality those places are so insanely and counter-intuitively dangerous that those regs are the bare minimum for any human being whatsoever, no matter their personal acceptance of risk, to get in and out with a reasonably good chance of not-dying. Like, "air-monitor on a pole" is step #1, before you even open the place up. Then you monitor as you go either continuously or at small set intervals. In the video's case they should have run air pumps to continuously replace all inside air, all the time, starting when they first opened the place. Humans have this assumption built in to our brains that as long as you're not underwater, you can breathe. That's normally true except for confined spaces where it turns out there is zero reason to assume the air is breathable enough to sustain life and/or not ignite in a fuel-air explosion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Confined Spaces: A quick and totally and utterly non-comprehensive guide The problem with any small space is that humans can only breathe air, specifically a gas that contains 78% Nitrogen, 20.9% Oxygen, about .05% CO2, and not much else. If any of those numbers start changing much, particularly the O2 levels, humans start getting messed up. O2 particularly can't vary outside of 19.5% to 23.5%. The legal/safety term for this kind of thing is IDLH, Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health. i.e. anything that will kill you, which it turns out is anything that's poisonous, reduced or enriched in oxygen, or really anything other than standard sea-level air. Oxygen deprivation is a huge problem, because humans have a sense for "I can't breathe". It primarily deals with CO2 though, not oxygen so much. Also you can't perceive a lot of gases at all. That means that it's 100% possible and actually every-single-day common for a person to get into a confined space, feel fine, then collapse with no warning. It'll do the same thing to anyone else who comes in, too, so if you want to go in after someone you better have a source of clean air. This happens every day. -Reduced O2 caused by: decaying material, rust, cotton (turns out cotton is oxygen-hungry and will soak it up given the chance, like in a shipping container), any chemical reaction that consumes O2, any gas being supplied in a small area will change the ambient gas makeup and will kill you. -Hydrogen sulfide ("rotten eggs" gas) has the lovely combo in that it smells awful, but then promptly blocks your sense of smell. So you only smell it for a moment. Also it can kill you in sub 30 minutes at 400 ppm. Given off by rotting material, sewers, and many industrial processes. Also explosive in addition to being straight poison. -Nitrogen. Really common in industry since it's inert, you use it to keep stuff from rusting. Couple percent too much and you'll just fall down unconscious. -Carbon monoxide. Those are the super-common everyday ones but rest assured that anything will kill you if it displaces the oxygen. Also too much oxygen will give you oxygen toxicity and impair your judgment and thus ability to self-rescue, too little oxygen will impair your judgment and ability to self-rescue, and everything changes like crazy if you're breathing compressed gases like when you're diving. Basically if there is a sign or warning saying "Confined Space - Do not enter" then stay the gently caress outta there. Unless you know exactly what you are doing and have air monitoring, a rescue winch set up, and someone watching you who also knows exactly what they are doing and also has a supplied-air respirator, the slightest thing going wrong will result in the person who went in and possibly many more people dead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
a kitten posted:Man, Uncle Enzo is gonna be pissed. It is forgotten.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
I'm enough to cover Connecticut 6 inche deep
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 01:17
|
|
|
Think I saw an article about it, the hub or studs were damaged, he couldn't just put on the spare.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2018 03:01
|
|
|
RabbitWizard posted:After this, my videos won't blow your socks off. But I worked at a (little bit different) place like this. If you want to get a sense of scale of those places, they might be interesting. I never bothered to upload them before, so OC, don't steal! Pro click. This is basically one of those dystopian hives that they grow people in in The Matrix, except for pallets. Is there anything special about this kind of storage? It seems like it would be a very costly storage option, the racks alone must cost a fortune. The place didn't look refrigerated or anything, though that would explain the premium for denser storage. Fancy cheeses aging maybe?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2018 04:30
|
|
|
This is loving terrifying. You can see the drill marks on the hole, it's not lined or shored, so that's a collapse hazard. Also he's totally relying on friction from his arms/legs/back for braking , so if he messes up, something gets caught, or the friction makes him overheat, he falls the entire rest of the way down. Or he could get a leg wedged so tight he is unable to move and he ends up unrecoverably trapped. There's not going to be any ventilation in that hole, his exhalations are going to build up around him and asphyxiate him in short order, provided there is breathable air down there in the first place. He's not wearing a harness, so even IF they got a rope or something down there to him, it's on him improvising a sling or tying a knot or something, while breathing highly questionable air. Even if there was a full crane just out of frame ready to swing its boom over and lower a hook to him, that dude is in bad shape. I think this video is one of the clearest manifestations of the disconnect between what your mammal brain might think: "Hey this hole is big enough no problem, and I can slow myself down like this!" and an educated reality of: "There are like 5 immediately fatal things that will start working against you the moment you enter that hole". Like it looks safe-ish and even kind of fun, but it's actually insanely dangerous even if you were planning to immediately pull them back out.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2019 16:11
|
|
|
Previa_fun posted:What was that old site where the guy made a webcomic about how much he hated recreational divers and that diving was super serious and only for business purposes? Sea patrol sticks out in my mind but its ungoogleable. Sea Patrol! http://www.aappleyard.com/seapatrol/_story.htm
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
Lobsterboy posted:I was refueling at a gas station the other night when a dude in a very fancy cadillac escalade rolled up, threw it in park, got out, fueled up like 20+ gallons, and left without ever turning it off. It felt like that should be kinda stupid and dangerous, but also the lady manning the kiosk was like "v I jumpstarted a coworkers car that had alternator trouble and also she was basically out of gas. I told her to drive to a gas station and fill her car with it running. She said "there's things that tell you not to do that" and I responded that she'd likely need a jump again if she turned her car off, at which point you're messing around with sparking cables and poo poo. I was also like "yeah they say not to, but if it was actually dangerous dangerous, there'd be interlocks on the gas cap by now." Like, if opening that little door and unscrewing the cap was legitimately likely to blow up the car, it wouldn't let you do that. Or at least the warnings would be way more severe. Obviously not something to do routinely. One time out of necessity is an acceptable risk I thought. She lived
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2019 05:21
|
|
v" so oh well
|
Phanatic posted:Vaccinations. Vaccines offer a potential benefit to the people testing them. What benefit would have gone to the pedestrian Uber killed? Where is her signed consent form?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 18:53
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:I thought it was pretty clear that I was responding to this: I mean, sure, it is possible for there to be considered societal risks in exchange for benefits. Things like vaccine trials are a good example of this. The point though is that this has nothing to do with Uber's negligence killing a woman. Even in the case of something like the oral Polio vaccine shedding virus to people around the vaccinated party, those non-consenting bystanders still largely received immunity themselves. The rate of complications from a given vaccine is known by the time it is in large-scale trials or deployment. The risks both to the individuals directly receiving the vaccine and those around them are both weighed against the real, ongoing disease the vaccine protects against. The judgement are made with a formal process that changes as our knowledge develops. The decisions are also public and changeable. This is nothing at all like Uber running live experiments down the road purely for training purposes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 19:39
|
|
|
Cichlidae posted:People are going to do what they want; you can't force them to get on a bus, at least not with the current political system. It seems like it's practical to allow self-driving vehicles once they demonstrably save lives relative to human drivers, so if we have the opportunity to replace something bad with something significantly less bad, why not? Waiting for perfection is just going to keep costing lives. So you oppose these self-driving cars being on the road then, since they currently have a demonstrated fatality rate significantly in excess of human drivers (including drunk drivers). Particularly since Uber has way less miles driven and is at a fatality.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 20:06
|
|
|
Like, people arguing in favor of imperfect self-driving cars always argue "but if they're safer than people, there's still a benefit". Self-driving cars are not safer than human drivers. In terms of total miles driven per fatality, they are enormously less safe. "If" they were better is a hypothetical. They aren't.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 20:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 02:45 |
|
|
Cichlidae posted:Yes, exactly. Like I said before, it's probably going to be 20 years before they reach that point. Ok. Let me also point out to the Tesla/Uber fanboys that I, also, have no inherent moral objection to self-driving cars. If the systems were actually safer and properly validated and tested I would support them. That said I do not think this current generation of technology, testing, and regulation will get us anywhere near acceptable and I have doubts as to the "solvability" of general-purpose self driving at all, ever.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2019 21:29
|
|