8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

Hopefully, you don't choose to seek adventure where they are. Some things in life we just can't predict.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

[Anonymous]

I still can't believe their families let them be so reckless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

Hopefully, you don't choose to seek adventure where they are. Some things in life we just can't predict.

Right? I don't get why Americans choose to live in danger zones like Israel (or Dubai now) when it isn't their job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

People will judge you for the unnecessary risks you take. I know people who knew that living in the hillsides and canyons of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu carried a much higher fire risk than being in other areas, had the money to afford a beautiful house elsewhere, and still decided to buy a house there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

People will judge you for the unnecessary risks you take. I know people who knew that living in the hillsides and canyons of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu carried a much higher fire risk than being in other areas, had the money to afford a beautiful house elsewhere, and still decided to buy a house there.

Everyone has to move out of the New Madrid Seismic Zone or live with the consequences then. Nothing is built remotely to earthquake code and USGS estimates a 7–10% (up to magnitude 6.6) chance of a New Madrid earthquake of magnitude comparable to one of the 1811–12 quakes within the next 50 years, and a 25–40% chance of a magnitude 6 earthquake in the same time frame. We are talking $300b in damages, millions displaced and many thousands of fatalities. Memphis, St. Louis, Little Rock and tons of places from Illinois to Mississippi have to clear out. Just irresponsible not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

People will judge you for the unnecessary risks you take. I know people who knew that living in the hillsides and canyons of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu carried a much higher fire risk than being in other areas, had the money to afford a beautiful house elsewhere, and still decided to buy a house there.

Everyone has to move out of the New Madrid Seismic Zone or live with the consequences then. Nothing is built remotely to earthquake code and USGS estimates a 7–10% (up to magnitude 6.6) chance of a New Madrid earthquake of magnitude comparable to one of the 1811–12 quakes within the next 50 years, and a 25–40% chance of a magnitude 6 earthquake in the same time frame. We are talking $300b in damages, millions displaced and many thousands of fatalities. Memphis, St. Louis, Little Rock and tons of places from Illinois to Mississippi have to clear out. Just irresponsible not to.

If they were smart they would. I'm sure you donate plenty to people who have to rebuild in hurricane prone areas because it was just their bad luck, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

People will judge you for the unnecessary risks you take. I know people who knew that living in the hillsides and canyons of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu carried a much higher fire risk than being in other areas, had the money to afford a beautiful house elsewhere, and still decided to buy a house there.

Everyone has to move out of the New Madrid Seismic Zone or live with the consequences then. Nothing is built remotely to earthquake code and USGS estimates a 7–10% (up to magnitude 6.6) chance of a New Madrid earthquake of magnitude comparable to one of the 1811–12 quakes within the next 50 years, and a 25–40% chance of a magnitude 6 earthquake in the same time frame. We are talking $300b in damages, millions displaced and many thousands of fatalities. Memphis, St. Louis, Little Rock and tons of places from Illinois to Mississippi have to clear out. Just irresponsible not to.

I just don’t understand why people with families would take another chance and rebuild in these areas again. There was a fire four years earlier but the winds weren’t the ferocious ones that hit the area in 2025 and could be put out. People just want their lifestyle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

People will judge you for the unnecessary risks you take. I know people who knew that living in the hillsides and canyons of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu carried a much higher fire risk than being in other areas, had the money to afford a beautiful house elsewhere, and still decided to buy a house there.

Everyone has to move out of the New Madrid Seismic Zone or live with the consequences then. Nothing is built remotely to earthquake code and USGS estimates a 7–10% (up to magnitude 6.6) chance of a New Madrid earthquake of magnitude comparable to one of the 1811–12 quakes within the next 50 years, and a 25–40% chance of a magnitude 6 earthquake in the same time frame. We are talking $300b in damages, millions displaced and many thousands of fatalities. Memphis, St. Louis, Little Rock and tons of places from Illinois to Mississippi have to clear out. Just irresponsible not to.

I just don’t understand why people with families would take another chance and rebuild in these areas again. There was a fire four years earlier but the winds weren’t the ferocious ones that hit the area in 2025 and could be put out. People just want their lifestyle.

Whoosh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

People will judge you for the unnecessary risks you take. I know people who knew that living in the hillsides and canyons of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu carried a much higher fire risk than being in other areas, had the money to afford a beautiful house elsewhere, and still decided to buy a house there.

Everyone has to move out of the New Madrid Seismic Zone or live with the consequences then. Nothing is built remotely to earthquake code and USGS estimates a 7–10% (up to magnitude 6.6) chance of a New Madrid earthquake of magnitude comparable to one of the 1811–12 quakes within the next 50 years, and a 25–40% chance of a magnitude 6 earthquake in the same time frame. We are talking $300b in damages, millions displaced and many thousands of fatalities. Memphis, St. Louis, Little Rock and tons of places from Illinois to Mississippi have to clear out. Just irresponsible not to.

That's scary. Never heard of this.

[Anonymous]

More information on the avalanche has dropped: https://www.sierrasun.com/news/avalanche-victims-buried-5-8-feet-in-small-area-near-runout-edge/

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't choose to be a backcountry guide or own a business that employs guides. Let skiers do or die in the backcountry on their own abilities, experience, and risk-taking level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Although probably some of you pedantic posters would argue that the woman who died during a tornado because a tree fell in her house wasn’t a victim since “she cHoSe to live in a place with tornados” or “she chose to have trees within the vicinity of her house”

It makes them feel safe to figure out why everyone who has a tragedy was somehow responsible.

This exactly.

It us called the Just World Hypothesis (a psychological defense mechanism).

See also, Fundamental Attribution Error.

Or maybe it makes the thrill seekers feel better that nothing is in their control. No free will. It’s all pre determined.

Nope, it’s the other way around, especially on this thread.

You mean the people crying "can you even leave your house!" when people say think a little first? Because clearly there is no gray space between being sane and throwing all caution to the wind.

There's always the risk of being struck by a meteor. It's just not worth it.

Or a drone, bomb, chemical, biological or automatic weapon.

If you can’t see the difference between these things and the increased risk of an avalanche after heavy snow in a mountainous area, we can’t help you.

People will judge you for the unnecessary risks you take. I know people who knew that living in the hillsides and canyons of the Pacific Palisades and Malibu carried a much higher fire risk than being in other areas, had the money to afford a beautiful house elsewhere, and still decided to buy a house there.

Everyone has to move out of the New Madrid Seismic Zone or live with the consequences then. Nothing is built remotely to earthquake code and USGS estimates a 7–10% (up to magnitude 6.6) chance of a New Madrid earthquake of magnitude comparable to one of the 1811–12 quakes within the next 50 years, and a 25–40% chance of a magnitude 6 earthquake in the same time frame. We are talking $300b in damages, millions displaced and many thousands of fatalities. Memphis, St. Louis, Little Rock and tons of places from Illinois to Mississippi have to clear out. Just irresponsible not to.

I just don’t understand why people with families would take another chance and rebuild in these areas again. There was a fire four years earlier but the winds weren’t the ferocious ones that hit the area in 2025 and could be put out. People just want their lifestyle.

Whoosh

The sound of backcountry skiers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't choose to be a backcountry guide or own a business that employs guides. Let skiers do or die in the backcountry on their own abilities, experience, and risk-taking level.

They love the sport and have to make a living somehow so why not become an expert so you can do both.