Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Looks like there's a few on the icefall. Follow the line of garbage, then up and across the fall. The only hard part is dealing with the inverted mouse movement on the interface. Why would they do that???

For those looking:

1. Of the 3 mountains, look at the peak of the center one (Lhotse).

2. Below that, the right half is big chunky snow, and the left half is smooth, icey looking snow.

3. Look at the line where the smooth left half meets the chunky right half. - Halfway up that you can find CAMP 3. [You'll see little ant people marching up that centerline - follow them to their tents.]

Also once you see CAMP 3, you actually see tracks in the snow. There's a manmade line going diagonally up/left across the center mountain, up the rock face, and then continues up/left to the little snow valley where Everest hits Lhotse along the horizon line. I suppose somewhere around there is CAMP 4.

For anyone who is still looking: http://f.cl.ly/items/3w2j2h0a1a3h0M1K0i3l/ppl.jpg

(you can only see the people at max zoom-level, they are really tiny)

I've found this lonely guy http://cl.ly/image/221I0N1x1c1Y

I don't know but I think that might be two people. That, or he's hugging a small bear. https://www.evernote.com/shard/s3/sh/1d7328b2-960d-4728-b9af...

I saw it as him looking back at another guy by the pole. Dressed in a very camouflaging outfit.



I found a really lonely guy.. http://i.imgur.com/7ohkL.png

Good catch.

It is probably Kala Pathar (the most accessible point to view Mt. Everest from base camp to peak, according to Wikipedia [0]) since the photo was taken from Pumori.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kala_Patthar

Good find!

You can also see a small tent city at the base of the on the grey part net to the ice flow at the bottom left of the. And some buildings on the right side of the image. But oddly no real roads, so I guess it's all air lifted in, or mule trains.

Nearest road to Kathmandu was (for me, in 2001) a 14-day walk. The airport at Lukla is about 7 days. Everything comes in by porter or by yak train. It's nearly 18,000 feet altitude. The mountain goes straight up another 2 miles vertical. This panorama is fantastic, but realize it's on extreme wide angle, almost fish-eye. The mountain seems to take up the whole sky.

Thanks for this explanation, I wouldn't have seen that part otherwise. At first I wasn't sure which peak you meant exactly, but once I picked the right one I found it.

None of those little ant people are really climbing though.

Also, the resolution should have been much more than a gigapixel to make that part more interesting :)

I immediately saw the HUGE tent camp in the front though.

You're probably right about those little ant people.

Climbing Mount Everest is more dangerous than attempting suicide!

Not quite but closer than I would have suspected:

   Suicide attempt fatality rate: 9%
   Everest attempt fatality rate: 2%

    Climber fatality from attempts through 2006:

    Suicide estimate from NIH:         

Actually, Everest is considered as on the easier side for an eight-thousander [1]. Annapurna got %38 (2007 figures) [2] and K2 got %25 [3].

For some interesting discussion on Everest fatalities, try this one [4]. "No shortcuts to the top" by Ed Viesturs and the well known "Into thin air" by Jon Krakauer are two good books on the subject, if you want to read more.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-thousander [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annapurna [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K2 {4] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1978295

Yup, I've read that. The account by the reporter from Outdoors (?) was extremely graphic in detail (but disputed by others in the party). Sad all around, but through those deaths came better regulation which has led to a 1:7 ration of attempts/deaths vs. 1:4 in previous years.

Some more stats I put together awhile ago:


This is very good visualization. It brings out the fact that number of summits have exponentially increased by number of death only linearly and with very slight slop. This means w have gotten exponentially better at summiting over time.

I am sure that I read an article a while ago that claimed that climbing Everest was more dangerous.

I guess I'm wrong. Thanks for the correction.

And I suspect that suicide fatality rate isn't 100% correct either. It's hard to really tell, if someone really failed trying to commit suicide, or if they just 'attempted' to get more attention.

I couldn't find it because I couldn't comprehend the sheer size. I came to the the realization that HUMANS ARE TINY, no really, we're insignificant.

Thanks for the pointers, never would have found them.

The best way for you, as a mere mortal, and not some semi-suicidal mountaineer to experience big mountains is to take the bus from Santiago,Chile to Mendoza, Argentina. The trip through the Andes is really awesome. Sometimes you'll see a mountain and have no idea how big it is and then at the very bottom you can just barely make out some ant size cows grazing. Looking down at the bottom of some of the switchbacks on that route is like looking out an airplane window.

You seemed to know that I'm from south america, creepy ;) (I'm from Uruguay). I'm going to be living in Austria for the next 6 months so I will have no shortage of mountains there!

I'm a brazilian and have never been in Chile or Argentina. Its time.

(We do travel 4 hours by car to Uruguay to buy wine/champagne liquor for a fraction of the prices here though.)

Got it. The mountain in the background is the one you are talking about

There's also a big camp right at the bottom of the picture on the soil next to the glacier. There are at least two dozen tents there.

Closer to 50 dozen, there are tents all around the bottom of the picture where the glacier thins out. I never realized how many people are actually climbing that mountain in any given season.

How did anyone ever figure out how to climb that thing before there were satellites or planes? I don't even see how they are getting from the base camp up past the broken up glacier area.

There are really an absurd number of people "climbing" it - literally, my sexagenarian neighbour told me that "some of the girls from my tennis club are doing it". It really nullifies the whole mystique of Everest of any meaning whatsoever, and is having a terrible effect on the natural beauty of the terrain.

(I'm not some mountaineering snob - I tire climbing hills for a decent toboggan run)

Let's not get too carried away. At the end of the 2010 climbing season, only 3142 people had ever reached the summit.

A lot of people go to Base Camp as tourists, but the numbers drop dramatically at each higher camp. There's probably a case to be made that Base Camp should be toned down.

There aren't that many people truly climbing the mountain.

What is the point of 'natural beauty' if there's no-one to appreciate it? There's all sorts of reasons to preserve wilderness, but 'keeping it looking pretty' as a reason to prevent travellers is not one of them.

Not sure if you fully realize the scope with which it's turning into a sort of Disneyland - people are climbing it in an endless convoy. I find it quite shocking. If you do, then I guess we just fundamentally disagree.

(from 2010)

3,142 people have climbed Everest, with 219 dying trying.

It isnt disneyland, and I am not shocked at how much Everest has turned into disneyland, we definitely fundamentally disagree.

This is a dead thread, more or less, but I'm a bit embarrassed about this. For posterity:

The footage I've seen was indeed from (and up to) the basecamp. I was quite shocked at what I saw, but I obviously misremembered exactly what it was - the trail to the basecamp. I certainly did not think all those people were reaching the summit, but I did think they were going higher.

I feel like a bit of an idiot, and needed to get that off my chest.

Edmund Hillary wrote "High Adventure" about a year after his climb, and a it's a great description of just how things were done in those days! It's a very easy read too, in a boys-own-adventure style.

Speaking of aerial photos though, Over The Himalaya (http://www.amazon.com/Over-Himalaya-Koichiro-Ohmori/dp/09385...) has some staggering photos from the region if you like that sort of thing. Out of print, but worth tracking down.


They walk up that thing, its called Khumbu icefall. Basically the valley glacier spilling out in slow motion. Its incredibly dangerous (as you probably surmise), even though its at the bottom. Since the ice is all cracked up, many people fall into the cracks. Believe the local sherpas do most of the work each year to find a safe route through that mess.

I can see the guys up there with a few tents, and a lot of tents below the rough patch of ice. But I can't see anyone in between or above the few tents between the peaks.

Does anyone know why? Is this photo taken early in the day so there there's no-one going for the summit yet? Or does the route to the summit go somewhere where the camera can't see?

WOW! Definitely stared right at camp 3 for a while unable to find them. They're TINY!


Wow! Roughly 50 odd people like ants visible up to halfway there and many below near the foot of the central peak.

There's a little icon at the bottom to "Change Control Mode." Click it and the inversion reverses.

I came to post that- about the mouse movement.

It's absolutely driving me nuts. Makes no sense.

It might help if you think of it as directing the camera instead of moving the image. When you click and drag left, you're telling the camera to look to the left.

That mouse panning convention has existed for at least 15 years in most web browsers. Click the middle mouse button to activate it in any web browser.

Not true at all -- then the view follows the cursor as I move it. On this site, the view moves towards the cursor when I click. Very different.

I don't understand the difference between "following" and "moving towards".

Not on firefox-17.0.1-1.fc17.x86_64.

I think it's just an artifact of pre-tablet era interaction design (not that this software was actually written all that long ago).

Nowadays it seems perfectly reasonable to imagine clicking and dragging the image around in order to pan -- I'm not confident that particular interaction would have even occurred to a lot of people a few years ago, though.

Drag to pan has been around for decades now. The inverted acceleration-style interface was designed to accomodate a joystick.

I would say: Pre Google Maps era. I find it perfectly intuitive to click and drag most online maps around, but it might have been weird the first time I encountered it.

For example, I still like to scroll down to go down in a web page, and get confused (and frustrated?) when I use the new mac mice which use the touch-screen/map type scrolling. However I'm quite sure that if I was a mac person, I'd get used to it fairly quickly.

Does inverted mean 'move in the direction you want to go'? I thought it was the other way around.

I don't know why it's not noted on the controls, but for me Shift -> zoom in, Cmd -> zoom out and arrow keys to move around.

Thanks! CTRL -> zoom out here on Linux (and presumably Windows)

Actually the controls are "non-inverted", pull down to look down. Inverted is when you pull down to look up. Non-inverted is now very popular. Most first person shooter games that ship today have non-inverted as the default. I generally find people about my age and older (30 somethings) prefer inverted, but younger people vastly prefer non-inverted.

My issue is that I am click dragging to move the view. I feel I should be dragging the image around, not aiming the camera.

I believe I mainly have things like flight simulators with inverted controls. But it kinda makes sense there too, since in a plane you pull back (= down) on the stick to go up.

Could the garbage you are referring to actually be the camps at the base of the mountain?

Yup, I couldn't see anybody higher than the Lhotse Face. Couldn't spot any tents on the South Col. Must be the wrong angle.

You can reverse the mouse controls with the "Change Controlmode" button. I found the defaults tricky to handle as well.

People-finder for the lazy: http://i.imgur.com/IIcJL.jpg

There are actually severa more lower down, perhaps people descending.

There is a option on the controls at the bottom (2nd button from right - 4 arrows, called change control mode) to 'fix' the mouse navigation direction.

Use Shift (zoom in), Ctrl (zoom out) and the arrow keys.

The interface is similar to RTS games, click and hold to move in that direction, not like maps.

anyone counted the portable toilet cabins in the base camp(s) - stopped with 58

how do they get those up and down?

that's not garbage... it's tents.

Those are tents, not a line of garbage.

Since not everyone going up the mountain comes back down the mountain and there aren't clean up crews, tents can become garbage.

There actually was a clean-up expedition in 2000. Lots of oxygen bottles.

Yeah, probably a few more giga-pixels and zoom will reveal the bottle caps and cigarette butts in the snow.

Yeah, first thing I do after climbing a mountain is light up a ciggie.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact