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.
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.
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...
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.
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) (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.</i>
> 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
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Looking at population-level statistics, even adjusted for age, is useless. Going to burning man requires a level of health, energy, free time (not dealing with health issues), and freedom from chronic illnesses that make traveling to a desert a bad idea.
Most people at high risk of random death are filtered out before they arrive.
There are so many better comparisons that could have been chosen. Comparing Burning Man to outdoor music festivals would be so much more accurate.
> Comparing Burning Man to outdoor music festivals would be so much more accurate.
It probably wouldn’t be very interesting though, since those are too similar. One or two deaths over a three-day festival with some tens of thousands of people attending is completely normal even in highly regulated environments like the German mega-festivals.
The similarity is precisely what would make it an interesting comparator.
I don't have time to research this fully, but the first few papers that popped up showed that a lot of the casualty events from music festivals are due to incidents like mass stampedes or even motor vehicles, which I suspect would be much lower at Burning Man. On the other hand, deaths from drug overdose or "structural collapse" are probably higher at Burning Man.
Comparing like-for-like, or as close as you can get, is what enables these interesting comparisons. Pointing out that you're less likely to die of cancer or car crashes while attending burning is not helpful when you compare against population level statistics.
Yeah this article is oblivious in such a painful way. The author should really consider their relationship with statistics, which they seem to think govern the world rather than are an abstract extraction from it.
Burning Man has a hugely skewed age demographic, one that has a significant share of deaths due to car+other accidents, suicide, overdose, homicide, and cancer. Like nearly 7/10 chance of dying from once of those.
Beside cancer those are all strongly linked to poverty, and cancer death in younger adulthood may be linked to poverty.
The place certainly has extremes but it’s also a destination where people go with groups and have basically a nanny state watching them.
Article mentions age demographics and "selection bias of healthier attendees and other confounding demographic factors" right at the top.
Oblivious in such a painful? I'm still open to hearing a sound argument to back that up. Your arguments are more dismissive and did not address anything specific in the article you disagreed with.
The post admits this, first in the summary: "However, Burning Man’s near zero death rate over its existence is abnormal, and likely due to selection bias of healthier attendees and other confounding demographic factors".
Then again in the final sentence: "The more likely explanation for the remaining gap is something no demographic slicing can capture. Burning Man selects for healthier people who are willing and able to spend a week in the desert heat, regardless of their age, race, or income bracket."
Not really.
Around 50% of attendees have graduate or doctorate degrees. It selects for people that are smart, curious, wealthy, and not risk-adverse. This is very obvious if you’ve ever been.
That is exactly the group i would expect to do stupid things. People with graduate degrees tend to be intellectually smart but not street smart. People who are wealthy tend to grow up being shielded from the consequences of their actions.
well, yes. That was the entire point of my original comment, that the data is not matching my biases, which surprised me.
I'd also point out that saying 50% of attendees are X doesn't really mean much. Hypothetically, If 0.1% of normal society take absurdly stupid risks, and 0.3% of burning man people take absurdly stupid risks, that would still be selecting for people who take absurd stupid risks.
That would be inconsistent with my comment, so no I would not expect that. (my bias would be that grad students on average lack street smarts, so those that engage in activities requiring street smarts would get into trouble. I would not expect the average grad student to be more likely to die in an accudent)
Marathons select for people with health, energy etc and put them through a 6+ month cardio training regime. But the 5 hours of a marathon have a greatly elevated rate of cardiac arrest - because the strain of running a marathon more than compensates.
Personally, I'm quite surprised to learn the week-long desert drug orgy with experimental buildings and art vehicles and 70,000 attendees regularly has no deaths.
I would guess marathons select for people trying to push themselves hard, in a short period of training time and for a relatively short period of time. I also wouldn't be surprised if marathon attendance skews upper 40s / low 50s, male, and recently got in shape. That's a bit different than sitting in the desert doing drugs. the risk there would be respiratory distress / fent od is my guess.
it's a lot easier to get someone out of an opioid od in the field than it is out of cardiac arrest, or at least the treatment protocol is.
Also, car accidents are probably in the top 5 causes of death for that demographic. And there's almost no driving at BM. But lots of driving to and from, so perhaps that smooths out the curve while keeping deaths off the event?
Brent Chapman, author of "Incident Management for DevOps and SRE", just got back from his annual "not exactly a vacation" trip to Burning Man, where he's worked as a "Dispatch Supervisor" since 2012.[1]
I as able to hear him at BayLISA giving his talk on incident command and what we can learn from the fire department[2][3], an excellent talk.
The biggest factor is selection bias. If you are in the hospital with some terrible medical condition you aren’t going to Burning Man.
It would be interesting to look at cause of death at Burning Man, I would expect it to differ significantly from the population overall (even accounting for age).
Given that firearms are prohibited and motor vehicle traffic is limited to 5mph, that alone would take out two unnatural causes of death. Also, drowning is a lot less likely to occur in the desert.
This year of the 3 deaths, 1 was just a heart attack in someone around 60 yrs old (a ranger who was working, so not drug related most likely). The other fell from an installation. Some of these are literally just scaffolding with a couch on top or something - I climbed one and was terrified and even said "wow, I will be surprised if someone doesn't fall off this intoxicated at night".
Some people see that as a feature though - they want the danger and lack of regulation and safety. It's part of why they attend I guess.
note: it was my first time - i'm not a "burner", just wanted to finally see what all the hype was about
I'd like to know more about that incident, if you have any information. So far as I'm aware, it's the first time someone has died after falling off a structure at Burning Man (though plenty of people have been injured, of course).
It is definitely not the first time. Years ago while doing a ranger shift my friend witnessed a young person fall to their death while climbing a structure. I remember another incident of someone jumping off a dome while psychotic that I suspect was fatal. You need to be sober and capable to climb sketchy stuff.
It's good to give any sort of thing you're going to climb at the burn a bit of a once over and think about failure modes and worst cases before going on.
In 2018 there was a tower of cars on a spike. [1][2]
One of the cars bent in half (turns out cars aren't design to be supported by a stake in the middle but instead on their two axles. Who would have guessed).
Climbing was closed for the rest of the week.
In 2016 there was a giant boar you could climb on that swiveled at the base and head. There were rumors going around of severed fingers. Surprisingly (or not) it was welded stationary mid-week. [3][4]
It's a reaction from people who feel overly cottled by the world of building permits and safety regulations - who want to be able to just make stuff and let people be responsible for their own choices.
Back to the Future creator Bob Gale also created Interstate 60. I remember it being one of the best movies you wouldn't have otherwise heard of; no idea if it holds up 20y later. One of the themes was that of the frontier - an escape valve for people who don't feel comfortable conforming to regular society. There's a big element of that at Burning Man.
Really? My takeaway is “there’s a reason we keep motor vehicles out of pedestrian zones”. A surprisingly high number of vehicle related incidents for a 5mph zone.
put any large group of people in a spot, and statistically you will have deaths.
I was at a 35k~ officially (though it was realistically 50k) people. And there was three deaths. 1 public suicide, 1 heart attack, and one that the details never got published.
Yes, exactly. If you just look at death statistics adjusted for age and sex and race and whatever and you notice how many people die in hospitals, you might think "wow, hospitals are super dangerous, avoid them at all costs".
One point that I haven't seen mentioned here is that deaths that happen outside of the event boundaries are not "counted." For example, if someone is medevac'ed and dies en route or in a Reno hospital, the event organizers don't include that fatality in their count. There may be a distinction as to who is legally allowed to declare someone dead, and whether that can occur on-playa. Road fatalities of participants on their way to and from the event are also not counted .
You are most correct here. A lot of people don't understand that a 'death' is a legal thing, not simply a medical or biological thing.
To declare someone dead you must have the facilities to do so. Burning Man, despite having a pretty advanced medical facility (known as Rampart), does not have the facilities to do so.
Burning Man Organization (BMOrg), Pershing, and Washoe absolutely know how many people die at the event. However, a death, like most deaths in the default world, are not particularly special. To be honest, until 2018 (due to the man running into the fire during man burn), deaths and information about them were fairly private: usually the partners and the deceased's campmates were informed, but news articles and significant publicity were uncommon. There's not a lot of benefit to running around screaming "Some dude died of a heart attack last night at this camp!" People die of heart attacks all the time.
It's the third-largest city in Nevada, although only for a week. There will be some deaths, there are also births. The birth in 2025 was absolutely not the first one, but it was notable because the woman didn't know she was pregnant, and her relative unpreparedness was newsworthy. Other births were planned, delivery was private, and the mother eventually goes to Reno or another hospital to report the birth and get a formal record.
because if someone feels physically well enough to go to Burning Man, then the probability of them dying in the next week is near zero in comparison to the national average (which includes individuals hospitalized, terminally ill, etc).
I'm not sure what the point of this article is, the author claims 3 deaths at Burning Man is not unexpected because the age-adjusted mean death rate in the US predicts that you'd expect 4.9 deaths. But at no point in the history of Burning Man has there ever been that many deaths, the article itself states that 3 deaths is the most at any Burning Man so far. So 4.9 deaths is not even close to actual average death rate expected for a "mean" Burning Man. And since the prediction of 4.9 deaths on average is wrong, any conclusion based upon that 4.9 deaths expectation is poorly founded. The author just seems to ignore that their model does not match the data at all. It's like if I used how many hot-dogs are in my fridge to model the Burning Man death rate, then at no point acknowledged that these two variables have no connection, either real or spurious, to each other. This is just mystifying to me.
it did go on to talk about the uncertainty, especially given the low numbers:
There is a 27% chance that we would observe 3 deaths or less, given an average rate of 4.9 deaths. This is also known as a p-value.5 6Why isn’t our p-value greater? Seems like 27% is quite low. By scientific standards, this isn’t abnormal at all. Observing 3 deaths is completely within reason.
However, the relative uncertainty of our point data is quite large at about 58% (1/sqrt(3)). This is the size of the error. If we were talking about death rates in the thousands, we might have an error of 3% or less. But the reality is that at such low counts, our data is considered quite “fuzzy”.
(I haven't been on over 10 years, but back in the early 2000s there were always rumours about deaths that the organisers managed to ensure ended up categorised as not happening at the event. People who died in ambulances on the way to hospital, or in hospital after injury at the event, or on the road in or out of the event...)
Great article. I think the author has lots of potential to do other interesting analysis.
Example: Why living near a world-class hospital decreases your expected lifespan. Areas around top specialized medical centers often show higher local mortality because terminally ill or high-risk patients relocate or are transferred there.
Isn’t there a simple explanation for the discrepancy in mortality rates: if someone is seriously ill, they typically don’t participate in the first place.
In fact, that festival is apparently named after a man burning on every occurrence. So the casualities are at least 1 every year, and there is a bias towards males.
In my opinion, you should put in your AGENTS.md to use ethnicities and not human races.
Because human races sucks, scientifically.
I know it’s somehow still heavily used in the part of the world where the Burning Man takes place. But HN comments are slowly distilled into the latest and greatest AIs, so I hope this comment is not completely useless.
What you really want with a categorization scheme is to reduce variance. You ask, "how much variance reduction do I see using this categorization scheme?" This could be expressed as a percentage of total variance, like "U.S. Census 5-races captures 27% of variance".
Race is real. U.S. race categories are not the same as used elsewhere in the world. U.S. Census categories map quite well to genetics. They capture a lot of variance. Ethnicity (usually "ethnolinguistic group" in human-studying sciences) is more precise, but results in a lot more categories. You can capture all the variance with infinite categories. This is the bias-variance tradeoff. This is how things are.
No racism is the (moral) judgement and using different assessments for different 'races'. You can call it ethnicities if you like, but it's not actually going to mean something different.
Depending on the trait you actually care about. If you care about bone geometry, you select some length of a bone, you want to measure. If you care about susceptibility for a certain sickness, you measure that.
It's not racist, because it doesn't say anything about the worth of the human or their rights. In fact, if you refuse to categorize and measure, because you consider this in itself to be evil, you can't actually cater to this specific person.
Do you just want to use "sets of haplogroups with similar phenotype" instead? I mean, you can argue all day that the existence of the orange color somehow means that there's no difference between yellow and red, but you're just going to look foolish.
Is that how people define who is black, asian, AIAN, hispanic, or white in the USA?
I believe that no, and that they are categorized by ticking choice in a form. This is instutionalized racism but people in the USA have it so internalized since childhood they can't seem to be able to understand it.
I didn't indicate, that I wouldn't consider this practice in the USA to be at least slightly racist.
But saying it never matters whether you are black or asian or whatever useful term is for the european-like mix in the USA, is actually going to disadvantage the very people this stance wants to protect, because it does ignore, that they are going to react differently to pathogens, food or medication.
> because it does ignore, that they are going to react differently to pathogens, food or medication.
But claiming the US 5-races system is more significant as a categorization of people than other dimensions for health issues is definitely racist, and is propagating that systemic racism.
Even less so in the US with its weird categories that confuse the rest of us: I have never figured out how people with lighter skin then me (mixed white and south Asian) can be "black" or whether Spanish people are "hispanic".
I know about the one drop theory, but what I cannot understand why a deeply racist definition continues to be used. Surely it is something that should have gone along with segregation? It is not even challenged!
So "hispanic" does not include people from Hispania!
I'm not from the USA so don't understand their rules, but Hispanic seems to mean "that person over there speaking Spanish" or a Latin American (non-Brazilian). It seems to exclude actual Spanish and Filipinos (even though many have Spanish sounding names), and probably people from Spanish speaking Africa.
I think so but does it exclude Brazilians? They seem to use tit to cover all Latin Americans. maybe an American can explain? Its not like we are short of them on HN!
Then again, I have heard of Americans using the term "Anglo-Saxon" for one white group, which no one in Britain applies to anyone from much less than a millennium ago.
I doubt the difference is much noticed in some quarters. I'm not a fan of the term Anglo-Saxon. I do have some Anglo-Saxon ancestry way back but some of my ancestors are from places they never reached.
In Australia they use Anglo-Celtic, which is slightly better.
Every calculated rate depends on what you put in the denominator, so it's a good idea to pay attention to denominators. Trying out different denominators can be helpful for putting a number into different perspectives.
Another selection bias in favor of 0 deaths: Getting there isn't totally trivial and not exactly cheap, so if you're feeling so sick you're literally gonna die within a few days, it's unlikely you will go there. With the low number of expected deaths it's enough if a few seriously sick persons stay at home to reduce 4.9 deaths to just two or three.
While it's hard to account for this in exact numbers, this selection is surely happening.
This also interacts with the cause of death: Fighting late stage cancer makes it hard to attend. And while on premises it's much less likely to get into a fatal car accident. Plus Burning Man doesn't seem to be the place you're going to be mugged on the way to your home/tent. The car accident factor alone would lead me to expect that most fatalities associated with Burning Man happen while getting there or on the return trip.
The cause of death might be scrubbed from the statistics to get a more realistic (read: smaller) number.
This video is incredibly misleading, and the officer should not be allowed anywhere near a survivor again until they have at minimum completed trauma-informed training and review how to work with CIT/SAT teams.
I work extensively with Emergency Services Department (ESD), Pershing and Washoe Law Enforcement (LE), Rangers, Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT), Survivor Advocacy Teams (SAT), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and all the other groups. I have personally worked multiple sexual assault (SA) calls out there.
First off, the vast majority of LE officers are fantastic to work with.
To the point of the video: The officer is grossly violating/bypassing protocol. Sexual Assault (SA) is an incredibly specific legal protocol that is developed by Law Enforcement and followed by Rangers, ESD, and CIT/SAT teams. The protocol is publicly available on the Burning Man website. A few things here that you wouldn't know unless you work these calls:
1. LE appears to have shown up unannounced, at least from the perspective of the staff handling the call. This is extremely unusual, as usually ESD/Rangers/CIT/SAT confirm that the SA is one that necessitates LE involvement, and then radio for LE. While ALL SA reports, regardless of severity, will activate the protocol, not all SA reports escalate to police involvement. You can make things far worse for the survivor by unnecessarily bringing LE in, or bringing them in before the survivor is mentally ready to talk to LE.
2. When the protocol does involve LE, normally they go and interface with ESD, Rangers, and CIT/SAT to get an understanding of the situation before engaging with the survivor. All 3 groups keep extremely meticulous notes. I couldn't find any point in the video where the officer actually does this, she just keeps insisting to talk to the survivors.
3. LE works with CIT/SAT teams in the real world, they aren't a Burning Man exclusive thing. CIT/SAT teams vastly improve the outcomes of these cases. The officer saying "CIT/SAT teams usually try to convince the victim to not talk to us" is disturbingly false and incredibly antagonistic. CIT/SAT teams do the exact opposite: they advocate for the survivor, inform them of their rights, explain what the survivor is legally required to do (which includes talking to LE), and support the survivor in their decisions.
3a. If CIT/SAT teams seriously wanted "to convince the victim to not talk to LE", they could tell the victim to run or bike away. Note how all the volunteer groups (ESD, Rangers, CIT/SAT, etc.) are standing by and making sure the victim stays put. They are following the protocol, and they are making sure the survivor talks to LE.
4. Unsurprisingly, most survivors do not want to talk to Law Enforcement. CIT/SAT teams explicitly do not persuade in one way or another. If the survivor says "I don't want to talk to law enforcement", the CIT/SAT team will reply "If you don't want that all you need to do is tell the officer 'I don't want to speak to LE' or 'I don't want to file a report' and they will leave."
5. The officer doesn't respect 4, and is actually harassing the survivor. The officer needs to be told 3 times by the survivor that she doesn't want to speak with them. This is awful. The survivor just had someone violate them, do you really think she wants to engage with an authority figure who won't take no for an answer?
6. The officer says "I had a friend go through CIT/SAT training and she came out and said they tell survivors not to talk to law enforcement". I've been through the CIT/SAT training and know a number of people who have gone through it. I've never seen a module or a part of the training that says "Convince the survivor to not talk to LE." Quite the opposite, the training is about how to get the survivor to feel safe enough speak up, with the intent of finding and removing predators.
To the point of "staff manipulates and shields people from getting in contact with law enforcement" they absolutely do not, and this is incredibly illegal to do anyway. Any video you watch suggesting otherwise is sensationalist and incorrect.
> the vast majority of LE officers are fantastic to work with
Sure, Jan.
You clearly know all the right stuff for this kind of situation, but the fact of the matter is that cops either do not know or do not care. The few cops who stick to all of the guidelines you have laid out are rarer than shiny Pokemon, and they usually burn out and retire early rather than continue to work with a department full of bastards.
> the vast majority of LE officers are fantastic to work with
Default world US cops? Absolutely suck. Don't talk to cops.
At Burning Man? Law enforcement is more often than not, decent. BM is the only place in the US where I've ever had actually decent interactions with them, and the only place where I refer to them as LE or LEO (Law Enforcement Officer/Official) than cops.
> the fact of the matter is that cops either do not know or do not care.
LE out at Burning Man are exposed to an insane amount of oversight and accountability. Burning Man volunteer orgs (Rangers, ESD, etc.) have a 'culture of feedback'. LE Officers are required to take part in this culture. The official website even has an official feedback form for Law Enforcement (https://survival.burningman.org/law-enforcement/law-enforcem...). The feedback is taken very seriously, and is discussed and reviewed daily by the different departments. BMOrg, their lawyers, and Lawyers for Burners can make that officer's life a living hell. BM Police are forced to care.
There's also a number of community-driven layers for handling issues before LE gets involved, and the vast majority get resolved without LE. Rangers receive more de-escalation and conflict mediation than police academy recruits: 8 hours for LE, compared to 18-22 hours for new rangers and 12-16 hours annually thereafter. If things get physical, you have a private group called High Rock Security that are another layer before Law Enforcement. As a result, Law Enforcement is only requested if it's absolutely legally required, usually if an arrest must be made.
LE are out there enjoying the event just like everyone else. They don't want to do their job. Don't give them a reason to do their job.
I don't think analysis is accurate. If you take wealthy people mostly in their 20s-40s who are not sick and voluntarily go to a festival where motor vehicles accidents and gun deaths aren't a threat for over a week, three deaths seems high to me. If you take this same slice of people from a city on a given week and have them camp out for that week, would you expect three deaths? Does Microsoft or Google have three employee deaths per week?
I also highly doubt this includes all deaths. I doubt all deaths are even reported, much less recorded. And what about drug overdoses or things that happen immediately after the event (or during) that aren't counted by the event officials?
> "and likely due to selection bias of healthier attendees and other confounding demographic factors"
Or perhaps it's due to that most unscientific of externalities: culture.
The burn has multiple departments that inspect and re-inspect structures and fire effects for safety. There's a DMV to ensure the art cars that rove around are safe and that people follow the speed limit. There's DPW who help build and ensure the safety of the physical site. There's a medical department that take cases ranging from dehydration to broken bones, and there's an ambulance on standby. There's also a small army of people called Rangers who rove around just checking in on everyone. How are you doing, do you need anything, etc. They find problems and help de-escalate or solve them.
Then there's the participants. Regular folk who, believe it or not, care about each other. If someone is lying on the floor unresponsible, or begging for help, or looks like they're freaking out, participants don't just step over them or ignore them. They kneel down and try to figure out how they can help. If they need water, food, a quiet space... people go and find it, and give it to this stranger in need. I've been the recipient of this help, and I've helped others. To be honest, I probably wouldn't help that much in a random city, but I do at a burn.
That's not to say there aren't dangers. I've been to regional burns that are 20x smaller that still had deaths. Someone ODs on bad drugs in the woods. Someone dives into a pond and hits their head on a rock and drowns. And old person sleeps in a soaking-wet tent on a freezing night and dies of hypothermia. Shit happens, and it sucks. But I bet you're safer at a burn than most other places, and it's not because of demographics.
It's not discussed in the article. The article discussed, race, sex, etc. and then makes an assertion that it "wouldn't move much from 4.9."
That's completely false when using geolocation. We can estimate from crime stats easily that a tour of the country avoiding the highest murder rate parts of the country would land you very close to a zero murder rate.
Among healthy adults, that's essentially a near zero chance of death.
That isn't surprising. Attending a festival in a desert with little oversight and lots of drugs is obviously more dangerous than buying groceries in white suburbia.
4.9 is simply not the relevant number unless your goal is to try to say that the event is on par with taking a walk in the wrong part of town.
But I'm certain that wasn't the point of the article. It's dishonest, is my point.
> The more likely explanation for the remaining gap is something no demographic slicing can capture. Burning Man selects for healthier people who are willing and able to spend a week in the desert heat, regardless of their age, race, or income bracket.
Which is the only thing I was thinking after reading the first three sentences.
Been twice to burning man. It’s hard to describe the corruption of the soul that exists at burning man.
There’s a focus on the environment yet everything is disposable and people travel from all over the world to go.
There’s talk of safety but then they will literally kick you out of camp as soon as someone says you’re making them feel unsafe because of some normal thing you did. YES, it did literally happen to someone I know. It felt like a public lynching.
It’s supposed to be camping together but then there’s pages of rules, documents, charity companies, and letters written by lawyers (yes, still the above).
It’s a celebration in mediocrity. Most things that happen are very mediocre at best. They just do it because you’re supposed to give something, so they give something mediocre.
The people are all hyper liberal, and the types that cannot help but judge individuals based on whether they’re in their group on not. People you called your friends for years will turn against you once the group turns on you.
Obviously most of it is all about seeing and being seen, engaging in the pleasures of sensual experiences on offer.
I would describe it as literally sodom on earth. It’s shaped like a butthole, and takes a massive shit once a year.
The best thing about it imo is the cycling around where you can mostly just get away from the degeneracy that exists. The temple is quite nice too.
From everything i've seen it seems to have the opposite tone and ethos as biblical sodom & gomorrah—it's oriented around welcoming strangers and not abusing them. Even being kicked out would be preferable.
It is a 60000 people festival where OP came with friends he knows for years (by own words).
It says something about OP and his friends, but it is unclear who was actually in the wrong. We have no idea whether the "other" people were in the wrong or someone actually crossed lines and "others" reacted reasonably. Because people who, for example, abuse or mistreat others see themselves as victims when it is not enabled.
But, what is sure is that if your friends turn on you during short crowded festival, the issue is in your group dynamic. And way OP uses language suggest the kind of personality that will blame strategically rather then fairly
You forgot the 100F day, 40F night, multi-day-long white-out dust storms and 75mph winds, dirt floor that turns to wet concrete if it rains and is so acidic it'll give your feet a chemical burn.
But yeah, the burn is hell on relationships. If you go with a significant other there's a big chance you'll break up by the end. On the other hand you might go home with someone new...
> I would describe it as literally sodom on earth.
This would be extremely disturbing given the extreme extent to which people rely on the hospitality of others, as I understand it. I hope you mean it in a sense of indulgent degeneracy rather than in the biblical sense.
> It’s supposed to be camping together but then there’s pages of rules, documents, charity companies, and letters written by lawyers (yes, still the above).
Based on the org and event's own stated goals, and the reality of what most of the participants get out of it, it's not just about "camping together", it's at least in part about building a temporary city focused around art, expression, and a set of shared principles.
anyway, to the rest of your comment, Burning Man absolutely is a mixed bag, as any dense place with ~65,000 will be, and it sure isn't a place for everyone, but decrying it as "corruption of the soul" and "sodom on earth", seems quite extreme imho
> you’re making them feel unsafe because of some normal thing you did
It might help the discussion to say what that "normal thing" is. Is it truly a normal innocuous thing that is fine to repeat here, or was it say, using slurs or acting in an anti-social, cruel way? the rest of your comment, as well as my lived experience, really makes me believe it was something more akin to the second, even if you don't actively view it that way. I'm happy to be wrong, but maybe reflect on how your vagueness and framing primes that sort of reading?
It’s quite difficult to comment on someone’s camp turning on them with no context. Badly run camps exist and badly behaved people exist too. You can’t expect the org (or a higher power) to police this.
I’ve worked gate for years, so I’ve seen plenty of RVs and camper trailers from the inside, and you do get an impression of the people that travel in them. Everyone’s there - be it tie die and patchouli hippies, be it hunting gear and MRE preppers, college party kids or mom and pop coming because it was on some travel destination list.
Camp with hippies, and you’ll be at a hippie festival. Camp with ravers, you’ll be at a rave. You can camp with a church group there, with philosophers (we had them as neighbors one year), with families with small kids, or with (disarmed) 2A gun nuts.
> The people are all hyper liberal, and the types that cannot help but judge individuals based on whether they’re in their group on not.
I agree that is a trait of the hyper liberal, but it belongs to hyper conservative people too. Also, given your feelings, why did you go a second time?
The most surprising thing is that you went back a second time after getting kicked out of camp and turned against by all of your friends.
I’ve known a couple of people who were turned against by their friends much to their surprise, and in their case was definitely the liberal mind virus and not their own behavior too.
I would never guessed someone would look at these kind of events and thought that they would be frequented by different people (like conservatives). When I went to Christian retreats, I knew that most people there would be hardcore conservatives
> I would describe it as literally sodom on earth.
1. You should go to Ozora festival in hungary. Then you will experience true hedonism.
2. Most of what you describe can be broken into normal human group behaviour, and american legal warfare at work.
Burn style festival are really cool and fun. But it really is about what you bring to it. Some people want a place where they can be the worst versions of themselves around strangers where it won't follow them home. Others truely want to create something cool.
It really sounds like you don't have the right attitude for these kind of festivals, and should stick to commercial "edm" festivals.
It sounds like there was a personality conflict or something in the specific camp you went with? Some of the issues you describe are totally foreign to my experience and don’t seem descriptions of the event as a whole.
The only lawyer language I can remember was the warning on the ticket that I might die. I don’t think I ever encountered any contracts or similar.
> There’s a focus on the environment yet everything is disposable and people travel from all over the world to go.
There's a focus on LNT, not vague environmentalism. It is not materially worse than flying to another country in terms of environmental impact.
> There’s talk of safety but then they will literally kick you out of camp as soon as someone says you’re making them feel unsafe because of some normal thing you did. YES, it did literally happen to someone I know. It felt like a public lynching.
Oh boy, I can only imagine what sort of personality you are to have gone through this. I've seen this archetype before.
That said: Burning Man is a platform/blank slate that people bring things to. There are many camps with different ethos. Personally, I think the best way to burn is to get a group of friends and do a thing together.
Just dropping into a camp of people you don't know is bound to have the potential for complicated interpersonal dynamics, particularly in one of the harsher environments on the planet. Everything there is more difficult, and that extends to relationships.
> It’s supposed to be camping together but then there’s pages of rules, documents, charity companies, and letters written by lawyers (yes, still the above).
This is a choice. If you're part of a 200+ person theme camp, yes, you're opting into some bureaucracy needed to make sure the requisite cats get herded and the mission of that camp happens. Grab three friends to do your own thing and you can live blissfully paperwork free, if you so choose. Camps are not a one-size-fits-all model.
This is like joining a FAANG and then complaining about layers of management. Don't like it? Startups are callin'. Or even something in-between.
> It’s a celebration in mediocrity. Most things that happen are very mediocre at best. They just do it because you’re supposed to give something, so they give something mediocre.
Doing literally anything in that environment is hard, so mediocrity is sort of par for the course. That said, the best hot dog I've ever had was in many ways the shittiest hot dog. But it appeared out in deep playa when I was tired and starving and far from camp, and felt like a small miracle. It teaches you to appreciate the simple things and the kindness of strangers, if you let it.
> Obviously most of it is all about seeing and being seen, engaging in the pleasures of sensual experiences on offer.
I'm not sure how you managed to make it out there twice and come away thinking that this is the point. I feel like if you spent fifteen minutes reading about the burn, you'd immediately dispel yourself of this.
> The best thing about it imo is the cycling around where you can mostly just get away from the degeneracy that exists.
Reading between the lines at your conservatism, I can't really help but wonder what you thought you were going to get out of a counter-culture event that emphasizes freedom of expression. You didn't think us queerdos were going to be up in that shit makin' you uncomfortable, or telling you not to creep on your campmates? And then you did it TWICE? Big oofs.
It's worth noting that LNT is also a requirement of the space (a BLM wilderness area) and their permit. I've been involved in organising rocket launches at the same site (well slightly north) and we are required to do the same thing - the BLM inspects our site (and Burning Man's) afterwards, it's a condition of our ongoing permit.
When I first started going out there (before Burning Man) there was a century's worth of junk out there, we spent a lot of time helping the BLM clean it up - well most of it, there are millenia old archeology sites there and 200 year old covered wagon debris which are protected, but the tires, car wrecks, all sorts of junk had to go - we appreciate people putting in the work to keep it clean
I find it to be a microcosm of life and human nature.
Turns out it is is entirely about people, including them at their best and worst.
You can focus your attention on the good or the bad, or ignore both and build something.
With humans at play, you are bound to get sensual experiences, because that is what many people enjoy. You also have people who do epic amounts of work and engineering, because that is also what many people enjoy.
Cant really speak to your experiences with social strife. My burning man camp became my family back in the real world. Some of the smartest and most exceptional people I have ever met. Conservative goat ranchers to bay area they/them environmentalists going out of their way to be kind and give 110%.
I just got a bunch of painstakingly hand made quilts to celebrate the birth of my 2 month old in the mail from a campmate I haven't seen in 3 years.
Burning man is an event for typical Silicon Valley folks to find community. The event is so lame because the people are - they spent their formative years following a preconceived plan laid out for them by their parents, instead of pursuing hobbies they're passionate about. Now they're playing catchup, and it comes off contrived and corny. (Not everyone is this way, of course, but by now the majority are, and so I'm painting with broad strokes).
Most of the advertised experiences here come naturally as parts of passion-formed communities.
The down side is that it really isn't really possible to break into such communities in a meaningful way without having already done them for years before you've turned ~18-20yo.
Whether it's team sports, rock climbing, surfing, music, etc. You can start [skateboarding] at age 25, but you'll never be a real [skater], or have the experiences that came along with spending the formative years of your life dedicated to it. Replace [skateboarding]/[skater] with your hobby of choice.
If you’re 25 you can get good at anything in 10 years. I play hockey with lots of guys that started in their 20s and they play just as well as the rest of us now(40s)
Eh, I've been mountain biking seriously for 15 years, and there's kids in their teens running circles around me because their free time, risk tolerance, and brain development just means they win.
At some point 10+ years of adult development will get you pretty good at something, but being competitive beyond say a high-school varsity level with a late start is very difficult.
I think he was talking about playing hockey with guys, having good time and not being drag on other guys who started as kids ... but now have hockey as a hobby.
And then you are part of that community just like any other guy.
Should people who missed out on formative life experiences all simply accept this? Decide they don’t deserve spiritual nourishment and trudge on with their mediocre lives? Self-actualize in a way you personally would find less cringe? We all get one spin, man.
Even if you’re right, Burning Man strikes me a symptom of a sick and hollow “normal” society.
> t really isn't really possible to break into such communities in a meaningful way without having already done them for years before you've turned ~18-20yo.
I dont think you know much about rock climbimg culture or music that is out there.
What you say is kinda true for classical music, where exactly you need to go through formal schools from early. But that is literally the parents driven start.
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.
This reminds me of Crypto bros reinventing the financial system, slowly, with lots and lots of innocent (and some not so innocent) victims on the way.
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.
> dangerous art that you can fuck up your shit on.
Can you give some examples?
Never been, but the titular burning man installation comes to mind.
In 2023 there was a giant cube made out of IBC water tanks. You can see a video here: 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...
https://pdf.journalagent.com/travma/pdfs/UTD_19_6_529_535.pd...
Everything is safe if you know what you are doing sufficiently.
I wonder if people say these things, they actually believe it?
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.
This is just a truism though.
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.
> it counts as "safe" for practical purposes
So not risk free.
Nothing is, so that's not really a useful observation.
> Everything is safe if you know what you are doing sufficiently.
Exactly. If nothing is risk free then the original statement we’re discussing is untrue.
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...
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. 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
With the important difference that the cryptocurrency financial systems are backed by something with limited supply
It depends. BTC is, ETH isn't.
Gold wasn't infinite either.
Yeah, they rug-pulled the dollar. Well also gold conversion was logistically hard.
More like the Crypto bros have reinvented the financial _fraud_ system from first principles. Ponzis, control-fraud, pump-dump, etc.
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.
I would read that book
It's 20 years old, so doesn't cover 2004-present but _This is Burning Man_ actually covers a good bit of it.
[0] - https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/585886.This_Is_Burnin...
Yeah that would be a really interesting read, either as an article or full length book
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) (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:
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.</i>
> 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...
Women’s revealed preferences, perhaps.
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
They joined those communes on their own volition, and could presumably leave anytime. Thus: revealed preferences.
> could presumably leave anytime
That's a big presumption.
That is not how revealed preferences work.
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.
Pretty please, I would love to know it as well! I am interested in urban design and that's, uh, organic urban design.
I'd love to read this.
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.
no its not? dumb people dying for no reason when everything they "realized" its obvious?
Kinda insane they needed a death to reinvent streets imho.
"Regulations are written in blood."
Were
Still are, as we can see.
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.
by bureaucrats
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.
It seems like you need a road as soon as cars and people mix, does it not?
Yet you can go many so many places where that is not the case. It also takes people to build and designate them
Show me one example where people and cars use a shared space that isn’t also a road. Or a street, or boulevard, or whatever.
Basically anywhere you have dispersal car camping, of which salt flats are one example, even without burning man.
Also drive on beaches would be a good example.
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.
Suburban driveways are the obvious example. Adults park on them, kids play on them.
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.
> It also takes people to build and designate them reply
If by them you mean roads, then yea, that's the point.
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
Do you need a road if you went out with 10 friends off-roading together and camped out over night? What about if you went with 3 other groups?
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.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curb_extension
Sorry for the lazy terminology, I actually meant chicanes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicane
The U.S. definitely has those in cities that demand them.
> I thought Burning Man was full of "smart" people?
You'd be surprised how *really* *fucking* *stupid* "smart people" are.
Even you. Even me.
Yes, you need it and you build it, even if it's unconsciously and informally, by not driving cars in the middle of the tents
Dunbar strikes again
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: 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.
When you're standing ankle-deep in crude oil sludge smoking a cigarette, the FAFO curve gets real steep real fast.
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.
IIRC they did have streets, but people were allowed to camp 'off the grid'.
Yes, but I can have civilization at home.
Looks like Burning Man started as docker service running on my machine, it's been growing since then ... I'm also curious about this!
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.
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.
No it’s not.
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.
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
You think humans are ants.
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.
I'm not sure where you draw the line, but when you have to visit the DMV for a vehicle permit, you are well past the line of government.
> the group we're talking about does not have the power to enforce rules
What are you talking about? You can most certainly get kicked off BM, you can get criminally charged, etc.
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.
> active work by the organizers.
Which has also been done elsewhere, so doesn't explain the difference?
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.
Looking at population-level statistics, even adjusted for age, is useless. Going to burning man requires a level of health, energy, free time (not dealing with health issues), and freedom from chronic illnesses that make traveling to a desert a bad idea.
Most people at high risk of random death are filtered out before they arrive.
There are so many better comparisons that could have been chosen. Comparing Burning Man to outdoor music festivals would be so much more accurate.
> Comparing Burning Man to outdoor music festivals would be so much more accurate.
It probably wouldn’t be very interesting though, since those are too similar. One or two deaths over a three-day festival with some tens of thousands of people attending is completely normal even in highly regulated environments like the German mega-festivals.
The similarity is precisely what would make it an interesting comparator.
I don't have time to research this fully, but the first few papers that popped up showed that a lot of the casualty events from music festivals are due to incidents like mass stampedes or even motor vehicles, which I suspect would be much lower at Burning Man. On the other hand, deaths from drug overdose or "structural collapse" are probably higher at Burning Man.
Comparing like-for-like, or as close as you can get, is what enables these interesting comparisons. Pointing out that you're less likely to die of cancer or car crashes while attending burning is not helpful when you compare against population level statistics.
The kinds of drugs people at burning man prefer to take are not very likely to lead to death from overdose.
Yeah this article is oblivious in such a painful way. The author should really consider their relationship with statistics, which they seem to think govern the world rather than are an abstract extraction from it.
Burning Man has a hugely skewed age demographic, one that has a significant share of deaths due to car+other accidents, suicide, overdose, homicide, and cancer. Like nearly 7/10 chance of dying from once of those.
Beside cancer those are all strongly linked to poverty, and cancer death in younger adulthood may be linked to poverty.
The place certainly has extremes but it’s also a destination where people go with groups and have basically a nanny state watching them.
Inane work, op.
Article mentions age demographics and "selection bias of healthier attendees and other confounding demographic factors" right at the top.
Oblivious in such a painful? I'm still open to hearing a sound argument to back that up. Your arguments are more dismissive and did not address anything specific in the article you disagreed with.
Did you bother to read the article? This is covered.
The post admits this, first in the summary: "However, Burning Man’s near zero death rate over its existence is abnormal, and likely due to selection bias of healthier attendees and other confounding demographic factors".
Then again in the final sentence: "The more likely explanation for the remaining gap is something no demographic slicing can capture. Burning Man selects for healthier people who are willing and able to spend a week in the desert heat, regardless of their age, race, or income bracket."
so the comparison is pointless by their own admission
It's not pointless to figure some things out just because you can't figure everything out.
No, it's an upper bound, which is quite useful. And the more adjustments and demographic covariates you make, the better your bound gets.
on the other hand, burning man seems to select for people who want to win a darwin award, so i'm kind of surprised at the low death rate.
Not really. Around 50% of attendees have graduate or doctorate degrees. It selects for people that are smart, curious, wealthy, and not risk-adverse. This is very obvious if you’ve ever been.
That is exactly the group i would expect to do stupid things. People with graduate degrees tend to be intellectually smart but not street smart. People who are wealthy tend to grow up being shielded from the consequences of their actions.
You make some wild generalisations there.
Can you back up your claims?
Have you actually been to Burning Man?
well, yes. That was the entire point of my original comment, that the data is not matching my biases, which surprised me.
I'd also point out that saying 50% of attendees are X doesn't really mean much. Hypothetically, If 0.1% of normal society take absurdly stupid risks, and 0.3% of burning man people take absurdly stupid risks, that would still be selecting for people who take absurd stupid risks.
would you expect that statistics would back you up on this? that people with graduate degrees are more likely to say, die in an accident?
That would be inconsistent with my comment, so no I would not expect that. (my bias would be that grad students on average lack street smarts, so those that engage in activities requiring street smarts would get into trouble. I would not expect the average grad student to be more likely to die in an accudent)
I don't necessarily agree.
Marathons select for people with health, energy etc and put them through a 6+ month cardio training regime. But the 5 hours of a marathon have a greatly elevated rate of cardiac arrest - because the strain of running a marathon more than compensates.
Personally, I'm quite surprised to learn the week-long desert drug orgy with experimental buildings and art vehicles and 70,000 attendees regularly has no deaths.
I would guess marathons select for people trying to push themselves hard, in a short period of training time and for a relatively short period of time. I also wouldn't be surprised if marathon attendance skews upper 40s / low 50s, male, and recently got in shape. That's a bit different than sitting in the desert doing drugs. the risk there would be respiratory distress / fent od is my guess.
it's a lot easier to get someone out of an opioid od in the field than it is out of cardiac arrest, or at least the treatment protocol is.
The comparison for marathons would be other athletic events or sports.
Also, car accidents are probably in the top 5 causes of death for that demographic. And there's almost no driving at BM. But lots of driving to and from, so perhaps that smooths out the curve while keeping deaths off the event?
Brent Chapman, author of "Incident Management for DevOps and SRE", just got back from his annual "not exactly a vacation" trip to Burning Man, where he's worked as a "Dispatch Supervisor" since 2012.[1]
I as able to hear him at BayLISA giving his talk on incident command and what we can learn from the fire department[2][3], an excellent talk.
[1] https://greatcircle.com/blog/2026/09/29/burning-man-incident...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn8-R6Pt9hY
[3] https://www.usenix.org/conference/srecon18americas/presentat...
(edit:formatting)
Fascinating! Thank you for the links.
The biggest factor is selection bias. If you are in the hospital with some terrible medical condition you aren’t going to Burning Man.
It would be interesting to look at cause of death at Burning Man, I would expect it to differ significantly from the population overall (even accounting for age).
Given that firearms are prohibited and motor vehicle traffic is limited to 5mph, that alone would take out two unnatural causes of death. Also, drowning is a lot less likely to occur in the desert.
Not sure about that after it rains. After the last few years the death rate to quicksand may have increased a few billion percent.
This year of the 3 deaths, 1 was just a heart attack in someone around 60 yrs old (a ranger who was working, so not drug related most likely). The other fell from an installation. Some of these are literally just scaffolding with a couch on top or something - I climbed one and was terrified and even said "wow, I will be surprised if someone doesn't fall off this intoxicated at night".
Some people see that as a feature though - they want the danger and lack of regulation and safety. It's part of why they attend I guess.
note: it was my first time - i'm not a "burner", just wanted to finally see what all the hype was about
> The other fell from an installation.
I'd like to know more about that incident, if you have any information. So far as I'm aware, it's the first time someone has died after falling off a structure at Burning Man (though plenty of people have been injured, of course).
It is definitely not the first time. Years ago while doing a ranger shift my friend witnessed a young person fall to their death while climbing a structure. I remember another incident of someone jumping off a dome while psychotic that I suspect was fatal. You need to be sober and capable to climb sketchy stuff.
It's good to give any sort of thing you're going to climb at the burn a bit of a once over and think about failure modes and worst cases before going on.
In 2018 there was a tower of cars on a spike. [1][2]
One of the cars bent in half (turns out cars aren't design to be supported by a stake in the middle but instead on their two axles. Who would have guessed).
Climbing was closed for the rest of the week.
In 2016 there was a giant boar you could climb on that swiveled at the base and head. There were rumors going around of severed fingers. Surprisingly (or not) it was welded stationary mid-week. [3][4]
[1] https://www.rgj.com/story/life/arts/burning-man/2018/08/29/b...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/9crpce/night_at...
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/51d1t5/comment/...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4l-eAJT1Cg
"Safety third" is a mantra out there.
It's a reaction from people who feel overly cottled by the world of building permits and safety regulations - who want to be able to just make stuff and let people be responsible for their own choices.
Back to the Future creator Bob Gale also created Interstate 60. I remember it being one of the best movies you wouldn't have otherwise heard of; no idea if it holds up 20y later. One of the themes was that of the frontier - an escape valve for people who don't feel comfortable conforming to regular society. There's a big element of that at Burning Man.
you could just do a lot of reckless things at home with just a ladder. Heck, come to my home, I'll put couches in the trees for your.
i'm only coming if i can wear a fur and spend $5k to get there
There might not be data to support it since it touches on legally sensitive subjects, but the deaths are almost entirely attributed to drug use.
Deaths due to overdose at music festivals in general are not uncommon and are kept quiet (somehow).
This was just one web search away: https://www.aol.com/articles/burning-man-deaths-look-every-1...
The ambiguity of some of these supports my read btw.
Really? My takeaway is “there’s a reason we keep motor vehicles out of pedestrian zones”. A surprisingly high number of vehicle related incidents for a 5mph zone.
Only If you attribute every accident to "because they were on drugs"
> The biggest factor is selection bias.
This is, in fact, stated rate at the top.
put any large group of people in a spot, and statistically you will have deaths.
I was at a 35k~ officially (though it was realistically 50k) people. And there was three deaths. 1 public suicide, 1 heart attack, and one that the details never got published.
Yes, exactly. If you just look at death statistics adjusted for age and sex and race and whatever and you notice how many people die in hospitals, you might think "wow, hospitals are super dangerous, avoid them at all costs".
I'm also curious if you 'died at Burning Man' if you're attending BM, fell ill, made it to a hospital and then died.
One point that I haven't seen mentioned here is that deaths that happen outside of the event boundaries are not "counted." For example, if someone is medevac'ed and dies en route or in a Reno hospital, the event organizers don't include that fatality in their count. There may be a distinction as to who is legally allowed to declare someone dead, and whether that can occur on-playa. Road fatalities of participants on their way to and from the event are also not counted .
Like Disney World
They included someone who died on the way to Reno hospital this year.
You are most correct here. A lot of people don't understand that a 'death' is a legal thing, not simply a medical or biological thing.
To declare someone dead you must have the facilities to do so. Burning Man, despite having a pretty advanced medical facility (known as Rampart), does not have the facilities to do so.
Burning Man Organization (BMOrg), Pershing, and Washoe absolutely know how many people die at the event. However, a death, like most deaths in the default world, are not particularly special. To be honest, until 2018 (due to the man running into the fire during man burn), deaths and information about them were fairly private: usually the partners and the deceased's campmates were informed, but news articles and significant publicity were uncommon. There's not a lot of benefit to running around screaming "Some dude died of a heart attack last night at this camp!" People die of heart attacks all the time.
It's the third-largest city in Nevada, although only for a week. There will be some deaths, there are also births. The birth in 2025 was absolutely not the first one, but it was notable because the woman didn't know she was pregnant, and her relative unpreparedness was newsworthy. Other births were planned, delivery was private, and the mother eventually goes to Reno or another hospital to report the birth and get a formal record.
- "How many people died at Burning man"
- "How many people died due to Burning man"
- "How many people died going to Burning man".
IMO, distinct questions with distinct answers.
Turkish state statistics apply the same thing to traffic accident fatalities. Pretty slick.
Isn’t there selection bias though …
because if someone feels physically well enough to go to Burning Man, then the probability of them dying in the next week is near zero in comparison to the national average (which includes individuals hospitalized, terminally ill, etc).
I'm not sure what the point of this article is, the author claims 3 deaths at Burning Man is not unexpected because the age-adjusted mean death rate in the US predicts that you'd expect 4.9 deaths. But at no point in the history of Burning Man has there ever been that many deaths, the article itself states that 3 deaths is the most at any Burning Man so far. So 4.9 deaths is not even close to actual average death rate expected for a "mean" Burning Man. And since the prediction of 4.9 deaths on average is wrong, any conclusion based upon that 4.9 deaths expectation is poorly founded. The author just seems to ignore that their model does not match the data at all. It's like if I used how many hot-dogs are in my fridge to model the Burning Man death rate, then at no point acknowledged that these two variables have no connection, either real or spurious, to each other. This is just mystifying to me.
it did go on to talk about the uncertainty, especially given the low numbers:
There is a 27% chance that we would observe 3 deaths or less, given an average rate of 4.9 deaths. This is also known as a p-value.5 6Why isn’t our p-value greater? Seems like 27% is quite low. By scientific standards, this isn’t abnormal at all. Observing 3 deaths is completely within reason.
However, the relative uncertainty of our point data is quite large at about 58% (1/sqrt(3)). This is the size of the error. If we were talking about death rates in the thousands, we might have an error of 3% or less. But the reality is that at such low counts, our data is considered quite “fuzzy”.
(I haven't been on over 10 years, but back in the early 2000s there were always rumours about deaths that the organisers managed to ensure ended up categorised as not happening at the event. People who died in ambulances on the way to hospital, or in hospital after injury at the event, or on the road in or out of the event...)
Great article. I think the author has lots of potential to do other interesting analysis.
Example: Why living near a world-class hospital decreases your expected lifespan. Areas around top specialized medical centers often show higher local mortality because terminally ill or high-risk patients relocate or are transferred there.
Isn’t there a simple explanation for the discrepancy in mortality rates: if someone is seriously ill, they typically don’t participate in the first place.
I wouldn't have thought burning man death rates would be higher, so does this make it a strawman argument :)
But yeah. No one is driving or on a bike or in a hospice at burning man.
This is wild, nowhere was mentioned the cause of deaths?
I believe this is why it's important to report metrics like Excess Mortality/Deaths rather than just Deaths when doing this sort of analysis [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excess_mortality
In general, a burning man's death rate is close to 100%. Humans are very sissy when the temperature rise above 50°C.
In fact, that festival is apparently named after a man burning on every occurrence. So the casualities are at least 1 every year, and there is a bias towards males.
In my opinion, you should put in your AGENTS.md to use ethnicities and not human races.
Because human races sucks, scientifically.
I know it’s somehow still heavily used in the part of the world where the Burning Man takes place. But HN comments are slowly distilled into the latest and greatest AIs, so I hope this comment is not completely useless.
What you really want with a categorization scheme is to reduce variance. You ask, "how much variance reduction do I see using this categorization scheme?" This could be expressed as a percentage of total variance, like "U.S. Census 5-races captures 27% of variance".
Race is real. U.S. race categories are not the same as used elsewhere in the world. U.S. Census categories map quite well to genetics. They capture a lot of variance. Ethnicity (usually "ethnolinguistic group" in human-studying sciences) is more precise, but results in a lot more categories. You can capture all the variance with infinite categories. This is the bias-variance tradeoff. This is how things are.
Races are just racist.
No racism is the (moral) judgement and using different assessments for different 'races'. You can call it ethnicities if you like, but it's not actually going to mean something different.
How do you define a race without being racist?
Depending on the trait you actually care about. If you care about bone geometry, you select some length of a bone, you want to measure. If you care about susceptibility for a certain sickness, you measure that.
It's not racist, because it doesn't say anything about the worth of the human or their rights. In fact, if you refuse to categorize and measure, because you consider this in itself to be evil, you can't actually cater to this specific person.
I guess that categorising humans based on the length of some bones isn’t racist yes.
But I’m afraid that in practice, races aren’t biologically defined.
You made a statement about the concept of races in general. Of course people can use races to be racist, yes. People can use sexes to be sexist too.
I think you may want to read a bit about it, Wikipedia’s article on human races is a good starting point.
I did skim it, when I made my first comment.
Then I don’t know what to say to you.
Do you just want to use "sets of haplogroups with similar phenotype" instead? I mean, you can argue all day that the existence of the orange color somehow means that there's no difference between yellow and red, but you're just going to look foolish.
I suggest not using racist junk but ethnicities instead.
Is that how people define who is black, asian, AIAN, hispanic, or white in the USA?
I believe that no, and that they are categorized by ticking choice in a form. This is instutionalized racism but people in the USA have it so internalized since childhood they can't seem to be able to understand it.
I didn't indicate, that I wouldn't consider this practice in the USA to be at least slightly racist.
But saying it never matters whether you are black or asian or whatever useful term is for the european-like mix in the USA, is actually going to disadvantage the very people this stance wants to protect, because it does ignore, that they are going to react differently to pathogens, food or medication.
If you care about that, use better scientific methods.
> because it does ignore, that they are going to react differently to pathogens, food or medication.
But claiming the US 5-races system is more significant as a categorization of people than other dimensions for health issues is definitely racist, and is propagating that systemic racism.
No racial categories map well on to genetics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Even less so in the US with its weird categories that confuse the rest of us: I have never figured out how people with lighter skin then me (mixed white and south Asian) can be "black" or whether Spanish people are "hispanic".
Hispanic is mainly a linguistic catch all for most Latin Americans.
The USA holds to the one drop theory with African ancestry, i.e. any recent African ancestors at all and you're black.
And the reverse with Native Americans, since you have to be practically full blooded to be considered one by some people.
I know about the one drop theory, but what I cannot understand why a deeply racist definition continues to be used. Surely it is something that should have gone along with segregation? It is not even challenged!
So "hispanic" does not include people from Hispania!
I'm not from the USA so don't understand their rules, but Hispanic seems to mean "that person over there speaking Spanish" or a Latin American (non-Brazilian). It seems to exclude actual Spanish and Filipinos (even though many have Spanish sounding names), and probably people from Spanish speaking Africa.
I think so but does it exclude Brazilians? They seem to use tit to cover all Latin Americans. maybe an American can explain? Its not like we are short of them on HN!
Then again, I have heard of Americans using the term "Anglo-Saxon" for one white group, which no one in Britain applies to anyone from much less than a millennium ago.
I doubt the difference is much noticed in some quarters. I'm not a fan of the term Anglo-Saxon. I do have some Anglo-Saxon ancestry way back but some of my ancestors are from places they never reached.
In Australia they use Anglo-Celtic, which is slightly better.
Every calculated rate depends on what you put in the denominator, so it's a good idea to pay attention to denominators. Trying out different denominators can be helpful for putting a number into different perspectives.
A FAANG founder nearly broke his neck at Burning Man when he started doing giants on a Russian swing with no idea how to get off of it.
Another selection bias in favor of 0 deaths: Getting there isn't totally trivial and not exactly cheap, so if you're feeling so sick you're literally gonna die within a few days, it's unlikely you will go there. With the low number of expected deaths it's enough if a few seriously sick persons stay at home to reduce 4.9 deaths to just two or three.
While it's hard to account for this in exact numbers, this selection is surely happening.
This also interacts with the cause of death: Fighting late stage cancer makes it hard to attend. And while on premises it's much less likely to get into a fatal car accident. Plus Burning Man doesn't seem to be the place you're going to be mugged on the way to your home/tent. The car accident factor alone would lead me to expect that most fatalities associated with Burning Man happen while getting there or on the return trip.
The cause of death might be scrubbed from the statistics to get a more realistic (read: smaller) number.
I wouldn't be surprised if they just suppressed other deaths by moving them off campus in the past.
There a several videos online that show how their staff manipulates and shields people from getting in contact with law enforcement.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s0_u1ZvHOu4
This video is incredibly misleading, and the officer should not be allowed anywhere near a survivor again until they have at minimum completed trauma-informed training and review how to work with CIT/SAT teams.
I work extensively with Emergency Services Department (ESD), Pershing and Washoe Law Enforcement (LE), Rangers, Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT), Survivor Advocacy Teams (SAT), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and all the other groups. I have personally worked multiple sexual assault (SA) calls out there.
First off, the vast majority of LE officers are fantastic to work with.
To the point of the video: The officer is grossly violating/bypassing protocol. Sexual Assault (SA) is an incredibly specific legal protocol that is developed by Law Enforcement and followed by Rangers, ESD, and CIT/SAT teams. The protocol is publicly available on the Burning Man website. A few things here that you wouldn't know unless you work these calls:
1. LE appears to have shown up unannounced, at least from the perspective of the staff handling the call. This is extremely unusual, as usually ESD/Rangers/CIT/SAT confirm that the SA is one that necessitates LE involvement, and then radio for LE. While ALL SA reports, regardless of severity, will activate the protocol, not all SA reports escalate to police involvement. You can make things far worse for the survivor by unnecessarily bringing LE in, or bringing them in before the survivor is mentally ready to talk to LE.
2. When the protocol does involve LE, normally they go and interface with ESD, Rangers, and CIT/SAT to get an understanding of the situation before engaging with the survivor. All 3 groups keep extremely meticulous notes. I couldn't find any point in the video where the officer actually does this, she just keeps insisting to talk to the survivors.
3. LE works with CIT/SAT teams in the real world, they aren't a Burning Man exclusive thing. CIT/SAT teams vastly improve the outcomes of these cases. The officer saying "CIT/SAT teams usually try to convince the victim to not talk to us" is disturbingly false and incredibly antagonistic. CIT/SAT teams do the exact opposite: they advocate for the survivor, inform them of their rights, explain what the survivor is legally required to do (which includes talking to LE), and support the survivor in their decisions.
3a. If CIT/SAT teams seriously wanted "to convince the victim to not talk to LE", they could tell the victim to run or bike away. Note how all the volunteer groups (ESD, Rangers, CIT/SAT, etc.) are standing by and making sure the victim stays put. They are following the protocol, and they are making sure the survivor talks to LE.
4. Unsurprisingly, most survivors do not want to talk to Law Enforcement. CIT/SAT teams explicitly do not persuade in one way or another. If the survivor says "I don't want to talk to law enforcement", the CIT/SAT team will reply "If you don't want that all you need to do is tell the officer 'I don't want to speak to LE' or 'I don't want to file a report' and they will leave."
5. The officer doesn't respect 4, and is actually harassing the survivor. The officer needs to be told 3 times by the survivor that she doesn't want to speak with them. This is awful. The survivor just had someone violate them, do you really think she wants to engage with an authority figure who won't take no for an answer?
6. The officer says "I had a friend go through CIT/SAT training and she came out and said they tell survivors not to talk to law enforcement". I've been through the CIT/SAT training and know a number of people who have gone through it. I've never seen a module or a part of the training that says "Convince the survivor to not talk to LE." Quite the opposite, the training is about how to get the survivor to feel safe enough speak up, with the intent of finding and removing predators.
To the point of "staff manipulates and shields people from getting in contact with law enforcement" they absolutely do not, and this is incredibly illegal to do anyway. Any video you watch suggesting otherwise is sensationalist and incorrect.
> the vast majority of LE officers are fantastic to work with
Sure, Jan.
You clearly know all the right stuff for this kind of situation, but the fact of the matter is that cops either do not know or do not care. The few cops who stick to all of the guidelines you have laid out are rarer than shiny Pokemon, and they usually burn out and retire early rather than continue to work with a department full of bastards.
> the vast majority of LE officers are fantastic to work with
Default world US cops? Absolutely suck. Don't talk to cops.
At Burning Man? Law enforcement is more often than not, decent. BM is the only place in the US where I've ever had actually decent interactions with them, and the only place where I refer to them as LE or LEO (Law Enforcement Officer/Official) than cops.
> the fact of the matter is that cops either do not know or do not care.
LE out at Burning Man are exposed to an insane amount of oversight and accountability. Burning Man volunteer orgs (Rangers, ESD, etc.) have a 'culture of feedback'. LE Officers are required to take part in this culture. The official website even has an official feedback form for Law Enforcement (https://survival.burningman.org/law-enforcement/law-enforcem...). The feedback is taken very seriously, and is discussed and reviewed daily by the different departments. BMOrg, their lawyers, and Lawyers for Burners can make that officer's life a living hell. BM Police are forced to care.
There's also a number of community-driven layers for handling issues before LE gets involved, and the vast majority get resolved without LE. Rangers receive more de-escalation and conflict mediation than police academy recruits: 8 hours for LE, compared to 18-22 hours for new rangers and 12-16 hours annually thereafter. If things get physical, you have a private group called High Rock Security that are another layer before Law Enforcement. As a result, Law Enforcement is only requested if it's absolutely legally required, usually if an arrest must be made.
LE are out there enjoying the event just like everyone else. They don't want to do their job. Don't give them a reason to do their job.
Another factor not mentioned in the post is the EMS service at Burning Man is highly coordinated and prepared: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/f52w3PrHMXU
I don't think analysis is accurate. If you take wealthy people mostly in their 20s-40s who are not sick and voluntarily go to a festival where motor vehicles accidents and gun deaths aren't a threat for over a week, three deaths seems high to me. If you take this same slice of people from a city on a given week and have them camp out for that week, would you expect three deaths? Does Microsoft or Google have three employee deaths per week?
I also highly doubt this includes all deaths. I doubt all deaths are even reported, much less recorded. And what about drug overdoses or things that happen immediately after the event (or during) that aren't counted by the event officials?
As an aside, I don't think I've ever seen any flagged or dead comments on a post on HN before that didn't discuss the Middle East.
It's genuinely impressive.
> "and likely due to selection bias of healthier attendees and other confounding demographic factors"
Or perhaps it's due to that most unscientific of externalities: culture.
The burn has multiple departments that inspect and re-inspect structures and fire effects for safety. There's a DMV to ensure the art cars that rove around are safe and that people follow the speed limit. There's DPW who help build and ensure the safety of the physical site. There's a medical department that take cases ranging from dehydration to broken bones, and there's an ambulance on standby. There's also a small army of people called Rangers who rove around just checking in on everyone. How are you doing, do you need anything, etc. They find problems and help de-escalate or solve them.
Then there's the participants. Regular folk who, believe it or not, care about each other. If someone is lying on the floor unresponsible, or begging for help, or looks like they're freaking out, participants don't just step over them or ignore them. They kneel down and try to figure out how they can help. If they need water, food, a quiet space... people go and find it, and give it to this stranger in need. I've been the recipient of this help, and I've helped others. To be honest, I probably wouldn't help that much in a random city, but I do at a burn.
That's not to say there aren't dangers. I've been to regional burns that are 20x smaller that still had deaths. Someone ODs on bad drugs in the woods. Someone dives into a pond and hits their head on a rock and drowns. And old person sleeps in a soaking-wet tent on a freezing night and dies of hypothermia. Shit happens, and it sucks. But I bet you're safer at a burn than most other places, and it's not because of demographics.
The 4.9 standardized includes deaths from extremely violent, poverty stricken parts of the country,
You need to exclude those areas to lower that number before comparing.
Imagine a tour of the US that includes the more dangerous parts of Oakland, Memphis, and the like.
Most people wouldn't book that tour, so the base line risk factor you're using isn't relevant for most people.
This is discussed in the article.
It's not discussed in the article. The article discussed, race, sex, etc. and then makes an assertion that it "wouldn't move much from 4.9."
That's completely false when using geolocation. We can estimate from crime stats easily that a tour of the country avoiding the highest murder rate parts of the country would land you very close to a zero murder rate.
Among healthy adults, that's essentially a near zero chance of death.
That isn't surprising. Attending a festival in a desert with little oversight and lots of drugs is obviously more dangerous than buying groceries in white suburbia.
4.9 is simply not the relevant number unless your goal is to try to say that the event is on par with taking a walk in the wrong part of town.
But I'm certain that wasn't the point of the article. It's dishonest, is my point.
Wasn't there a suspicious death there last year (or maybe '24) that could easily have been a "violent death"?
TLDR In the last 2 sentences:
> The more likely explanation for the remaining gap is something no demographic slicing can capture. Burning Man selects for healthier people who are willing and able to spend a week in the desert heat, regardless of their age, race, or income bracket.
Which is the only thing I was thinking after reading the first three sentences.
Been twice to burning man. It’s hard to describe the corruption of the soul that exists at burning man.
There’s a focus on the environment yet everything is disposable and people travel from all over the world to go.
There’s talk of safety but then they will literally kick you out of camp as soon as someone says you’re making them feel unsafe because of some normal thing you did. YES, it did literally happen to someone I know. It felt like a public lynching.
It’s supposed to be camping together but then there’s pages of rules, documents, charity companies, and letters written by lawyers (yes, still the above).
It’s a celebration in mediocrity. Most things that happen are very mediocre at best. They just do it because you’re supposed to give something, so they give something mediocre.
The people are all hyper liberal, and the types that cannot help but judge individuals based on whether they’re in their group on not. People you called your friends for years will turn against you once the group turns on you.
Obviously most of it is all about seeing and being seen, engaging in the pleasures of sensual experiences on offer.
I would describe it as literally sodom on earth. It’s shaped like a butthole, and takes a massive shit once a year.
The best thing about it imo is the cycling around where you can mostly just get away from the degeneracy that exists. The temple is quite nice too.
> People you called your friends for years will turn against you once the group turns on you.
That is somehow a fault of a week long festival?
I think it was intended to illustrate the kind of people who frequent the festival.
If the festival turns against you and you want to argue they're wrong, fine.
If the festival AND your friends turn against you, maybe you were being a dick and you're not telling us the whole story.
It could certainly illustrate the group mentalities fostered there
From everything i've seen it seems to have the opposite tone and ethos as biblical sodom & gomorrah—it's oriented around welcoming strangers and not abusing them. Even being kicked out would be preferable.
It is a 60000 people festival where OP came with friends he knows for years (by own words).
It says something about OP and his friends, but it is unclear who was actually in the wrong. We have no idea whether the "other" people were in the wrong or someone actually crossed lines and "others" reacted reasonably. Because people who, for example, abuse or mistreat others see themselves as victims when it is not enabled.
But, what is sure is that if your friends turn on you during short crowded festival, the issue is in your group dynamic. And way OP uses language suggest the kind of personality that will blame strategically rather then fairly
It’s what seven days of sleep deprivation, dehydration and probably substance abuse do to you.
You forgot the 100F day, 40F night, multi-day-long white-out dust storms and 75mph winds, dirt floor that turns to wet concrete if it rains and is so acidic it'll give your feet a chemical burn.
But yeah, the burn is hell on relationships. If you go with a significant other there's a big chance you'll break up by the end. On the other hand you might go home with someone new...
> I would describe it as literally sodom on earth.
This would be extremely disturbing given the extreme extent to which people rely on the hospitality of others, as I understand it. I hope you mean it in a sense of indulgent degeneracy rather than in the biblical sense.
> It’s supposed to be camping together but then there’s pages of rules, documents, charity companies, and letters written by lawyers (yes, still the above).
Based on the org and event's own stated goals, and the reality of what most of the participants get out of it, it's not just about "camping together", it's at least in part about building a temporary city focused around art, expression, and a set of shared principles.
anyway, to the rest of your comment, Burning Man absolutely is a mixed bag, as any dense place with ~65,000 will be, and it sure isn't a place for everyone, but decrying it as "corruption of the soul" and "sodom on earth", seems quite extreme imho
> you’re making them feel unsafe because of some normal thing you did
It might help the discussion to say what that "normal thing" is. Is it truly a normal innocuous thing that is fine to repeat here, or was it say, using slurs or acting in an anti-social, cruel way? the rest of your comment, as well as my lived experience, really makes me believe it was something more akin to the second, even if you don't actively view it that way. I'm happy to be wrong, but maybe reflect on how your vagueness and framing primes that sort of reading?
It’s quite difficult to comment on someone’s camp turning on them with no context. Badly run camps exist and badly behaved people exist too. You can’t expect the org (or a higher power) to police this.
a good hint is someone whining about the woke mind virus at an event that is 60/40 dem/repub with a median age of 45 by census
See my other comment
Lmao at hyper liberal. It’s libertarian at best. I met so many conservatives when I went, I was shocked.
Yeah that description made me laugh too. It is by no means a hippie love-fest, almost the opposite sometimes.
I’ve worked gate for years, so I’ve seen plenty of RVs and camper trailers from the inside, and you do get an impression of the people that travel in them. Everyone’s there - be it tie die and patchouli hippies, be it hunting gear and MRE preppers, college party kids or mom and pop coming because it was on some travel destination list.
Camp with hippies, and you’ll be at a hippie festival. Camp with ravers, you’ll be at a rave. You can camp with a church group there, with philosophers (we had them as neighbors one year), with families with small kids, or with (disarmed) 2A gun nuts.
“Sodom on earth”? Really?
And you went twice?
> The people are all hyper liberal, and the types that cannot help but judge individuals based on whether they’re in their group on not.
I agree that is a trait of the hyper liberal, but it belongs to hyper conservative people too. Also, given your feelings, why did you go a second time?
The most surprising thing is that you went back a second time after getting kicked out of camp and turned against by all of your friends.
I’ve known a couple of people who were turned against by their friends much to their surprise, and in their case was definitely the liberal mind virus and not their own behavior too.
The above is only true if you reinterpret what the poster said.
Hey, we're just tryin' to have a good time, narc. Why do you want to destroy us? Don't commit your hate crimes here! Hate crime!
Simpsons called it 30 years ago.
>The people are all hyper liberal
I would never guessed someone would look at these kind of events and thought that they would be frequented by different people (like conservatives). When I went to Christian retreats, I knew that most people there would be hardcore conservatives
> degeneracy… literally sodom on earth
> like a public lynching
> all hyper liberal... the types that cannot help but judge individuals based on whether they’re in their group on not
I'm starting to wonder what "some normal thing you did" entailed.
> I would describe it as literally sodom on earth.
1. You should go to Ozora festival in hungary. Then you will experience true hedonism. 2. Most of what you describe can be broken into normal human group behaviour, and american legal warfare at work.
Burn style festival are really cool and fun. But it really is about what you bring to it. Some people want a place where they can be the worst versions of themselves around strangers where it won't follow them home. Others truely want to create something cool.
It really sounds like you don't have the right attitude for these kind of festivals, and should stick to commercial "edm" festivals.
It sounds like there was a personality conflict or something in the specific camp you went with? Some of the issues you describe are totally foreign to my experience and don’t seem descriptions of the event as a whole.
The only lawyer language I can remember was the warning on the ticket that I might die. I don’t think I ever encountered any contracts or similar.
> There’s a focus on the environment yet everything is disposable and people travel from all over the world to go.
There's a focus on LNT, not vague environmentalism. It is not materially worse than flying to another country in terms of environmental impact.
> There’s talk of safety but then they will literally kick you out of camp as soon as someone says you’re making them feel unsafe because of some normal thing you did. YES, it did literally happen to someone I know. It felt like a public lynching.
Oh boy, I can only imagine what sort of personality you are to have gone through this. I've seen this archetype before.
That said: Burning Man is a platform/blank slate that people bring things to. There are many camps with different ethos. Personally, I think the best way to burn is to get a group of friends and do a thing together.
Just dropping into a camp of people you don't know is bound to have the potential for complicated interpersonal dynamics, particularly in one of the harsher environments on the planet. Everything there is more difficult, and that extends to relationships.
> It’s supposed to be camping together but then there’s pages of rules, documents, charity companies, and letters written by lawyers (yes, still the above).
This is a choice. If you're part of a 200+ person theme camp, yes, you're opting into some bureaucracy needed to make sure the requisite cats get herded and the mission of that camp happens. Grab three friends to do your own thing and you can live blissfully paperwork free, if you so choose. Camps are not a one-size-fits-all model.
This is like joining a FAANG and then complaining about layers of management. Don't like it? Startups are callin'. Or even something in-between.
> It’s a celebration in mediocrity. Most things that happen are very mediocre at best. They just do it because you’re supposed to give something, so they give something mediocre.
Doing literally anything in that environment is hard, so mediocrity is sort of par for the course. That said, the best hot dog I've ever had was in many ways the shittiest hot dog. But it appeared out in deep playa when I was tired and starving and far from camp, and felt like a small miracle. It teaches you to appreciate the simple things and the kindness of strangers, if you let it.
> Obviously most of it is all about seeing and being seen, engaging in the pleasures of sensual experiences on offer.
I'm not sure how you managed to make it out there twice and come away thinking that this is the point. I feel like if you spent fifteen minutes reading about the burn, you'd immediately dispel yourself of this.
> The best thing about it imo is the cycling around where you can mostly just get away from the degeneracy that exists.
Reading between the lines at your conservatism, I can't really help but wonder what you thought you were going to get out of a counter-culture event that emphasizes freedom of expression. You didn't think us queerdos were going to be up in that shit makin' you uncomfortable, or telling you not to creep on your campmates? And then you did it TWICE? Big oofs.
It's worth noting that LNT is also a requirement of the space (a BLM wilderness area) and their permit. I've been involved in organising rocket launches at the same site (well slightly north) and we are required to do the same thing - the BLM inspects our site (and Burning Man's) afterwards, it's a condition of our ongoing permit.
When I first started going out there (before Burning Man) there was a century's worth of junk out there, we spent a lot of time helping the BLM clean it up - well most of it, there are millenia old archeology sites there and 200 year old covered wagon debris which are protected, but the tires, car wrecks, all sorts of junk had to go - we appreciate people putting in the work to keep it clean
I find it to be a microcosm of life and human nature. Turns out it is is entirely about people, including them at their best and worst. You can focus your attention on the good or the bad, or ignore both and build something.
With humans at play, you are bound to get sensual experiences, because that is what many people enjoy. You also have people who do epic amounts of work and engineering, because that is also what many people enjoy.
Cant really speak to your experiences with social strife. My burning man camp became my family back in the real world. Some of the smartest and most exceptional people I have ever met. Conservative goat ranchers to bay area they/them environmentalists going out of their way to be kind and give 110%.
I just got a bunch of painstakingly hand made quilts to celebrate the birth of my 2 month old in the mail from a campmate I haven't seen in 3 years.
Burning man is an event for typical Silicon Valley folks to find community. The event is so lame because the people are - they spent their formative years following a preconceived plan laid out for them by their parents, instead of pursuing hobbies they're passionate about. Now they're playing catchup, and it comes off contrived and corny. (Not everyone is this way, of course, but by now the majority are, and so I'm painting with broad strokes).
Most of the advertised experiences here come naturally as parts of passion-formed communities.
The down side is that it really isn't really possible to break into such communities in a meaningful way without having already done them for years before you've turned ~18-20yo.
Whether it's team sports, rock climbing, surfing, music, etc. You can start [skateboarding] at age 25, but you'll never be a real [skater], or have the experiences that came along with spending the formative years of your life dedicated to it. Replace [skateboarding]/[skater] with your hobby of choice.
If you’re 25 you can get good at anything in 10 years. I play hockey with lots of guys that started in their 20s and they play just as well as the rest of us now(40s)
Eh, I've been mountain biking seriously for 15 years, and there's kids in their teens running circles around me because their free time, risk tolerance, and brain development just means they win.
At some point 10+ years of adult development will get you pretty good at something, but being competitive beyond say a high-school varsity level with a late start is very difficult.
I think he was talking about playing hockey with guys, having good time and not being drag on other guys who started as kids ... but now have hockey as a hobby.
And then you are part of that community just like any other guy.
He was not talking about joinikg NHL.
Should people who missed out on formative life experiences all simply accept this? Decide they don’t deserve spiritual nourishment and trudge on with their mediocre lives? Self-actualize in a way you personally would find less cringe? We all get one spin, man.
Even if you’re right, Burning Man strikes me a symptom of a sick and hollow “normal” society.
The top city of origin for Burning Man attendees is Reno.
> t really isn't really possible to break into such communities in a meaningful way without having already done them for years before you've turned ~18-20yo.
I dont think you know much about rock climbimg culture or music that is out there.
What you say is kinda true for classical music, where exactly you need to go through formal schools from early. But that is literally the parents driven start.