At the start of the jump he started spinning out of control, but he regained it later. I always thought he just got the hang of it, but if he was claustrophobic, maybe he panicked a bit before composing himself.
I guess people generally try to maximize reward per lifetime. Some people try to increase their lifetime, albeit with smaller reward per unit time (eating their spinach). A few rare people try to maximize reward per unit time, even at the cost of a longer life. Felix lived to 56, skydiving all the way. Although he died younger than the average Austrian, he probably experienced greater sum reward. I suppose the gamble is that with his lifestyle, he could have died in his teens - in which case the sum of his reward would be lower than an "eat your spinach" 80 year old.
I wonder if you could cross compare: perhaps the sum reward of Felix's 56 fun years is about the same as a Greenland shark's 400 boring years.
I always appreciate when a daredevil dies doing what he loves.
Seriously, these people don’t want to die in bed. They want to live, live, live and then blink out.
I’ve seen too many people withering away in hospital beds.
I don't think that's true. I see powered paragliders out at the beach all the time, and to my knowledge that was perfectly legal as long as you are licensed properly.
I suspect that the story here is that until things went wrong nobody expected that this was a risk-taking activity in the first place (any more so than paragliding in general is). Do we have reason to believe he was doing it unsafely before disaster struck and he lost control?
It's relevant because that's what most people in Austria remember him for.
First he got famous for the Sky Dive from space
Then he made headlines for his facebook posts, sharing questionable opinions with the media, and supporting right wing politician like Strache (who is currently on trial for embezzling party money to fund his lavish lifestyle).
It's a part of his public persona, not mentioning it would be weird. It's not like he shared his questionable views in private.
He was on record advocating for dictatorship. I'm not saying that in a typically hyperbolic, social media sense either, he used the terminology himself. So yes, when a state news agency is announcing the death of someone who's major contributions have been some very impressive sporting achievements... and having political views that are fairly alarming coming from anyone, never mind an Austrian, it might come up. It wasn't a one-off either, he later pointed out Victor Orban as a model for how to handle government, immigration, etc.
If you want a eulogy I'd suggest seeking out the eulogy his family probably published, not a death announcement from DW.
I don't get why people can't just keep their stupid opinions to themselves.
That guy achieved some pretty amazing stuff, and I loved watching him, but then he starts publicly talking political bullshit to the media and it gets a bit hard to ignore that he is an asshole.
A lot of accomplished people are probably assholes in private, but they don't talk about it in public.
I wish Baumgartner would have just stuck to talking about the stuff he really knew very well.
It sucks when you find out an artist you like or someone who accomplished something you find impressive, is actually a terrible person. I suppose it's useful to be able to separate the artist from the art, appreciating the thing while acknowledging the person is flawed. This happens all the time with historical figures, authors, musicians, and so on. They build up this library of great work and achievement, but they somehow can't keep their opinions to themselves and end up outing themselves as bigots or worse. We can admire their works while condemning their beliefs.
Celebrities voice their political opinions in public for the same reasons you are right now. They have a strongly-held belief and want to improve their city, nation, or world. And given that they are well-known, feel a duty to use this platform to advance their beliefs.
I disagree - it's not really a horrific opinion to feel that both democracies and dictatorships are absolute catastrophes at the moment. Clearly there's a correct choice among only those two options, but something in between might be even better. Of course I have no idea how you would make a dictatorship "moderate", but I'd love for it to be a real thing, and it doesn't feel reasonable to imply a person is a monster for agreeing with me on that particular thing.
For all their failings, there is nothing catastrophic about democracies at the moment. Not compared to the actual catastrophes that autocracies commit. Lumping the two together as equally failed is ridiculous.
There's some things I know a bit about... But if I was spouting off about skydiving when I know little about it, that makes me an asshole. Especially, to extend the metaphor, if I was spreading misinformation that led to people being hurt.
Anyways, like I always say, parachutes are optional really.
Having a general opinion about things outside your very specific area of expertise in the world does not make you an asshole. It makes you a human being, and just as the comment above is also spouting an opinion outside the poster's area of expertise (unless he's an immigration policy and political analysis expert), the same right applies to a skydiver. I have a profession, but I also have opinions on many subjects I've read about in some depth. I should keep my mouth shut about them due to a lack of professional certifications because some people find it convenient to harp on that out of their own ideological fixations? Absurd nonsense.
Also, an opinion that doesn't tick all the check boxes of pro-immigration and open borders isn't automatically "hurtful misinformation" You should really qualify that particular line of censorious bullshit. More recently, the biggest fans of narratives about hurtful misinformation that I've seen tend to be authoritarians on the right, curiously enough.
You shape your public image by deciding what you talk about.
Do you want to be known as a legendary skydiver? Then talk about the amazing achievements and plans for the future you made.
Do you want to be known as a former athlete with questionable political views? Then go talk to the media doubling down on stupid memes you posted on facebook.
I have no interest in learning more about the latter. I guess that's why most of us eventually forgot about him until he tragically passed away today.
I can't think of a more bland misuse of a public image than keeping it strictly neutral so that it doesn't offend the ideological fetishes of people who just want you to shut up if you deviate from whatever they indulgently decide is correct.
Like any human being, an athlete can have other opinions on other things and all the right in the world to express them without having to be a certified expert. You're doing the same now, as did the comment above. That's the only qualification necessary.
> In recent years, he made headlines of a different sort with controversial political statements, criticizing German and Austrian migration policies and opining that a "moderate dictatorship" would be preferable to a democracy, in which "you can't move anything."
That's putting it mildly. The full quote [1] is:
> Wie weit sind wir bereit unsere Identität und unsere Kultur aufzugeben und sie zu vermischen mit einer völlig anderen Religion und Ideologie?
or translated:
> How ready are we to give up our identity and culture and to mix it with a completely different religion and ideology?
That is 1:1 naked "great replacement" theory, the stuff that the vilest of the vile of the far-right believe in [2].
On top of that, he believed that domestic violence is acceptable in disciplining children [3].
I'm not familiar with the qualitative nature of the German/Austrian right wing right now (e.g. you can be an anti-immigration right winger without being Trumpian), but none of that sounds worthy of a dismissive attitude at face value.
Obviously I would not be surprised if he was a typical asshole about things like this. I just don't like the usage of those political opinions in particular as "this is a bad person" evidence.
That's because the stuff is wrapped in layers. Read the original quotes (I've translated in [1]), or run the German Wikipedia article through a translation engine [2].
Yeah, he's definitely an asshole. But mostly in tone - most of the concrete stuff in this summary section consists of theoretically defensible conservative positions. To be clear: I'm not defending him holistically. I don't know him. I just don't like the idea of anti-immigration opinion as a whole, and the idea that democracy is failing rapidly, being elevated into the echelon of indefensible positions.
Of course "dictatorship", moderate or otherwise, is a scary word to hear from a German/Austrian. But simply the idea that there could be something in-between democracy and dictatorship? That doesn't sound insane. Just daunting. Also, he doesn't even seem married to the idea. The summary mentions his admiration of direct democracy.
"On 13 July 2016, Facebook deleted his fan page of 1.5 million fans. Baumgartner subsequently claimed that he must have become "too uncomfortable" for "political elites".[48]"
Because of his pro-right viewpoints. For one thing, it's slightly amusing considering Zuckerberg's own politically convenient pirouettes on politics and management. Secondly, it reminds me why the argument was very much on the mark that social media in those days absolutely did work hard to shut don all kinds of opinions that didn't fit with dominant groupthink.
It's idiotic that a famous figure should be subject to such a deletion as soon as they deviate from a specific progressive discourse, even if one disagrees with its opposite in so many ways.
Do we have a timeline of the deletion? I don't think I'm a priori convinced that he was deleted "as soon as [he deviated] from a specific progressive discourse." If anything, prior to Jan 6, 2021 (when Zuckerberg became aware that there was such a thing as aiding and abetting treason if enough political figures decided Facebook had been complicit in organizing an attempted coup), the site was permissive in the extreme; their goal was to maximize userbase to maximize revenue, and they were very loathe to ban anyone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner
https://felixbaumgartner.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Stratos
https://www.redbull.com/int-en/projects/red-bull-stratos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYw4meRWGd4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raiFrxbHxV0
I only learned recently that Felix nearly had to pull out of the jump due to claustrophobia from the suit.
After CBT he was able to tolerate the suit and complete the jump.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/skydiver-felix-baumgartner-ove...
Wearing a spacesuit, you can't scratch your nose.
You maybe don't think it's a big thing but try sitting one minute without touching your face.
This video says that the helmet mic serves as a decent face scratcher: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VCuaZCRn1U
I've also read that many astronauts put strips of adhesive Velcro in their helmet for this purpose: https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/42012/nose-scratch...
I have no idea why you think this is a thing, but just in case I subconsciously tend to do this, I set a timer for 2 minutes without touching my face.
It was effortless.
Edit: wait, I've been in an MRI machine for over an hour where I can't move my arms from my side. How can you think one minute is anything?
At the start of the jump he started spinning out of control, but he regained it later. I always thought he just got the hang of it, but if he was claustrophobic, maybe he panicked a bit before composing himself.
Oh my God, that is horrible. He was so inspiring.
he died doing what he loved: descending from the sky to harass a guestworker.
I guess people generally try to maximize reward per lifetime. Some people try to increase their lifetime, albeit with smaller reward per unit time (eating their spinach). A few rare people try to maximize reward per unit time, even at the cost of a longer life. Felix lived to 56, skydiving all the way. Although he died younger than the average Austrian, he probably experienced greater sum reward. I suppose the gamble is that with his lifestyle, he could have died in his teens - in which case the sum of his reward would be lower than an "eat your spinach" 80 year old.
I wonder if you could cross compare: perhaps the sum reward of Felix's 56 fun years is about the same as a Greenland shark's 400 boring years.
I always appreciate when a daredevil dies doing what he loves. Seriously, these people don’t want to die in bed. They want to live, live, live and then blink out. I’ve seen too many people withering away in hospital beds.
> He lost control of the craft and crashed into a swimming pool at a coastal resort, striking a young woman who was injured on impact.
not cool
Some grace is needed, as a medical event was the root cause.
edit: unexpected unconsciousness is not a medical event?
all we know is that we became unconscious, right?
As generally people don't just nod off flying a paraglider, a medical event is extremely likely even if it has not been officially determined.
They might however "nod off" in consequence of losing control during risk-taking activities and being subjected to high Gs.
Whether "medical event" was prior to or resulted from risk-taking adventure,
and hence culpability, will await forensics I imagine. If those are possible.
That determination aside however,
risk-taking that puts others at risk (e.g., flying over other people) is morally and in many jurisdictions legally prohibited for obvious reasons.
Do you mean activities like driving a car?
I don't think that's true. I see powered paragliders out at the beach all the time, and to my knowledge that was perfectly legal as long as you are licensed properly.
I suspect that the story here is that until things went wrong nobody expected that this was a risk-taking activity in the first place (any more so than paragliding in general is). Do we have reason to believe he was doing it unsafely before disaster struck and he lost control?
[flagged]
Reflects on the image of a public person, whose politics they themselves apparently made a significant enough part of.
It's relevant because that's what most people in Austria remember him for.
First he got famous for the Sky Dive from space
Then he made headlines for his facebook posts, sharing questionable opinions with the media, and supporting right wing politician like Strache (who is currently on trial for embezzling party money to fund his lavish lifestyle).
It's a part of his public persona, not mentioning it would be weird. It's not like he shared his questionable views in private.
He was on record advocating for dictatorship. I'm not saying that in a typically hyperbolic, social media sense either, he used the terminology himself. So yes, when a state news agency is announcing the death of someone who's major contributions have been some very impressive sporting achievements... and having political views that are fairly alarming coming from anyone, never mind an Austrian, it might come up. It wasn't a one-off either, he later pointed out Victor Orban as a model for how to handle government, immigration, etc.
If you want a eulogy I'd suggest seeking out the eulogy his family probably published, not a death announcement from DW.
[flagged]
I don't get why people can't just keep their stupid opinions to themselves.
That guy achieved some pretty amazing stuff, and I loved watching him, but then he starts publicly talking political bullshit to the media and it gets a bit hard to ignore that he is an asshole.
A lot of accomplished people are probably assholes in private, but they don't talk about it in public.
I wish Baumgartner would have just stuck to talking about the stuff he really knew very well.
It sucks when you find out an artist you like or someone who accomplished something you find impressive, is actually a terrible person. I suppose it's useful to be able to separate the artist from the art, appreciating the thing while acknowledging the person is flawed. This happens all the time with historical figures, authors, musicians, and so on. They build up this library of great work and achievement, but they somehow can't keep their opinions to themselves and end up outing themselves as bigots or worse. We can admire their works while condemning their beliefs.
Celebrities voice their political opinions in public for the same reasons you are right now. They have a strongly-held belief and want to improve their city, nation, or world. And given that they are well-known, feel a duty to use this platform to advance their beliefs.
Or carefully calculated messages (possibly written by a 3rd party) that they know their fan-base will eat up.
You don’t need everyone to appreciate you, just enough people to love you and throw their money/interest back at you.
[flagged]
> Grow up. One isn't an automatic asshole just because they don't share your worldview.
This has self contained irony; I hope you realize that.
The more prominent you are in the public sphere, the more responsibility you have for the opinions you espouse publicly.
No, but they might be if they advocate for a "moderate dictatorship" to replace a democracy.
I disagree - it's not really a horrific opinion to feel that both democracies and dictatorships are absolute catastrophes at the moment. Clearly there's a correct choice among only those two options, but something in between might be even better. Of course I have no idea how you would make a dictatorship "moderate", but I'd love for it to be a real thing, and it doesn't feel reasonable to imply a person is a monster for agreeing with me on that particular thing.
For all their failings, there is nothing catastrophic about democracies at the moment. Not compared to the actual catastrophes that autocracies commit. Lumping the two together as equally failed is ridiculous.
It's just about going outside your expertise.
There's some things I know a bit about... But if I was spouting off about skydiving when I know little about it, that makes me an asshole. Especially, to extend the metaphor, if I was spreading misinformation that led to people being hurt.
Anyways, like I always say, parachutes are optional really.
Having a general opinion about things outside your very specific area of expertise in the world does not make you an asshole. It makes you a human being, and just as the comment above is also spouting an opinion outside the poster's area of expertise (unless he's an immigration policy and political analysis expert), the same right applies to a skydiver. I have a profession, but I also have opinions on many subjects I've read about in some depth. I should keep my mouth shut about them due to a lack of professional certifications because some people find it convenient to harp on that out of their own ideological fixations? Absurd nonsense.
Also, an opinion that doesn't tick all the check boxes of pro-immigration and open borders isn't automatically "hurtful misinformation" You should really qualify that particular line of censorious bullshit. More recently, the biggest fans of narratives about hurtful misinformation that I've seen tend to be authoritarians on the right, curiously enough.
You shape your public image by deciding what you talk about.
Do you want to be known as a legendary skydiver? Then talk about the amazing achievements and plans for the future you made.
Do you want to be known as a former athlete with questionable political views? Then go talk to the media doubling down on stupid memes you posted on facebook.
I have no interest in learning more about the latter. I guess that's why most of us eventually forgot about him until he tragically passed away today.
I can't think of a more bland misuse of a public image than keeping it strictly neutral so that it doesn't offend the ideological fetishes of people who just want you to shut up if you deviate from whatever they indulgently decide is correct.
Like any human being, an athlete can have other opinions on other things and all the right in the world to express them without having to be a certified expert. You're doing the same now, as did the comment above. That's the only qualification necessary.
Wrong. Not all opinions are equally valid.
> In recent years, he made headlines of a different sort with controversial political statements, criticizing German and Austrian migration policies and opining that a "moderate dictatorship" would be preferable to a democracy, in which "you can't move anything."
That's putting it mildly. The full quote [1] is:
> Wie weit sind wir bereit unsere Identität und unsere Kultur aufzugeben und sie zu vermischen mit einer völlig anderen Religion und Ideologie?
or translated:
> How ready are we to give up our identity and culture and to mix it with a completely different religion and ideology?
That is 1:1 naked "great replacement" theory, the stuff that the vilest of the vile of the far-right believe in [2].
On top of that, he believed that domestic violence is acceptable in disciplining children [3].
[1] https://www.sn.at/salzburg/chronik/felix-baumgartner-wird-po...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Replacement_conspiracy_t...
[3] https://www.diepresse.com/1433977/felix-baumgartner-ohrfeige...
[flagged]
A demographic shift isn’t a “great replacement”.
[flagged]
Nazism is bad for the world, that shouldn't be hard to accept.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that figure is accurate.
So what?
So another conspiracy theory became fact and Epstein didn't kill himself.
[flagged]
The "great replacement" theory is long-debunked hogwash.
Hacker News is not an appropriate forum to debate "great replacement theory."
[flagged]
Sounds like a you problem.
I'm not familiar with the qualitative nature of the German/Austrian right wing right now (e.g. you can be an anti-immigration right winger without being Trumpian), but none of that sounds worthy of a dismissive attitude at face value.
Obviously I would not be surprised if he was a typical asshole about things like this. I just don't like the usage of those political opinions in particular as "this is a bad person" evidence.
> he recommended Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban for the Nobel Peace Prize
That's because the stuff is wrapped in layers. Read the original quotes (I've translated in [1]), or run the German Wikipedia article through a translation engine [2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44597171
[2] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Baumgartner#Umstrittene_...
Yeah, he's definitely an asshole. But mostly in tone - most of the concrete stuff in this summary section consists of theoretically defensible conservative positions. To be clear: I'm not defending him holistically. I don't know him. I just don't like the idea of anti-immigration opinion as a whole, and the idea that democracy is failing rapidly, being elevated into the echelon of indefensible positions.
Of course "dictatorship", moderate or otherwise, is a scary word to hear from a German/Austrian. But simply the idea that there could be something in-between democracy and dictatorship? That doesn't sound insane. Just daunting. Also, he doesn't even seem married to the idea. The summary mentions his admiration of direct democracy.
From Wikipedia:
"On 13 July 2016, Facebook deleted his fan page of 1.5 million fans. Baumgartner subsequently claimed that he must have become "too uncomfortable" for "political elites".[48]"
Because of his pro-right viewpoints. For one thing, it's slightly amusing considering Zuckerberg's own politically convenient pirouettes on politics and management. Secondly, it reminds me why the argument was very much on the mark that social media in those days absolutely did work hard to shut don all kinds of opinions that didn't fit with dominant groupthink.
It's idiotic that a famous figure should be subject to such a deletion as soon as they deviate from a specific progressive discourse, even if one disagrees with its opposite in so many ways.
Do we have a timeline of the deletion? I don't think I'm a priori convinced that he was deleted "as soon as [he deviated] from a specific progressive discourse." If anything, prior to Jan 6, 2021 (when Zuckerberg became aware that there was such a thing as aiding and abetting treason if enough political figures decided Facebook had been complicit in organizing an attempted coup), the site was permissive in the extreme; their goal was to maximize userbase to maximize revenue, and they were very loathe to ban anyone.
According to the meme: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Felix_Baumgartn...