4 ms·

You do you, but I found most of the advice highly useful, and actually enhancing convenience. Don't use hotel safe or under the mattress - yup, good advice, se

by toss1 4y ago

You do you, but I found most of the advice highly useful, and actually enhancing convenience. Don't use hotel safe or under the mattress - yup, good advice, seen that before, and definitely need to think about valuables & passport storage at all times anyway. Book in advance and hand them copies of addresses, docs, passport over the counter - yup, great advice, also means you have a 2nd copy on you, which can be a lifesaver if your phone or primary docs get lost/stolen. Checking maps and orienting yourself to the surroundings is something I do anyway just to know where I am, and actually allows me to enjoy the sights better since I'm no longer primarily occupied with wondering where TF I'm going. Having actually walked the exit routes would be incredibly useful in a wide variety of emergencies. Both being able to exit from memory if something happens, and also knowing that one exit is actually blocked. It'd really suck to die because you went out an exit and found it blocked, but could no longer access the other one... I also find that, although I haven't done it explicitly (I will in the future), it's often just handy to know other routes to get to/from the outside - they often wind up being more convenient, especially when carrying stuff. Asking for 2nd/3rd floor room sounds like excellent advice, especially in unknown foreign areas, off the (vulnerable) ground floor but multiple escape routes in fire or attack. Self-rescue by jumping or down-climbing a bedsheet rope is still very possible in ways that it isn't on floors 4 and up... Etc... I really don't understand not only rejecting such good advice from a clearly knowledgeable expert, but also taking the trouble to write a post advocating that other people also ignore it. Seems you're insecure in your willful ignorance, and want others to join you; please stop doing that.

t_mann 4y ago
The probabilities of bad things happening are vastly different for an undercover operator than for ordinary people, that's why it doesn't make sense to blindly apply the model of a 'knowledgeable expert' for everyone. I didn't say "don't read maps beforehand", I was saying "don't be afraid to check a map when you're on the street". This 'minimize risk at all cost' mindset is very similar to the helicopter parenting lifestyle where it's considered almost a crime to let your kids roam just outside the direct line of sight of their parents. PS: also interesting to note that both critical comments ended with ad hominem attacks.
- toss1 4y ago
  >>The probabilities of bad things happening are vastly different for an undercover operator than for ordinary people Perhaps, but the article is focused on potential disasters irrelevant to operatives and just that randomly occur to any traveler - fire/natural disaster, theft, ordinary random mugging, terrorist activity often focused on hotels used by foreigners, etc. I saw nothing that was not generally applicable. >>This 'minimize risk at all cost' mindset is very similar to the helicopter parenting lifestyle I'm as much against 'helicopter parenting' as anyone, yet this is just the opposite — it gives everyone a starting set of simple steps to take that increases their ability to operate independently, i.e., not being dependent on parents, etc. for your security, but taking care of oneself. >>I was saying "don't be afraid to check a map when you're on the street". Umm, depends on the situation, and on how befuddled you are going to look. Midtown Manhattan, London, etc., on a weekday noontime? Ya, just don't do it in the middle of the sidewalk and obstruct traffic. Any other city or tourist destination? I'd certainly step off the street first. Might as well put a sticker on my back in the local language saying "rob me". >> critical comments ended with ad hominem attacks. IDK about other comments, but I was not speaking ad hominem, simply trying to suss out why it is so important for someone to actively spend time to denigrate good security measures (which also help one enjoy the surroundings more, e.g., learning the terrain up front). Why is it important to you that other people don't do things like learn the terrain in advance? Why not just read the article and say "meh?" and move on?
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    I can't believe all the grief this story is getting on HN. I read the article and they seemed to be sensible, inexpensive, easy steps you can take to increase your safety while traveling. Why so much objection? Someone else mentioned cost/benefit. The only suggestion that had any cost was the doorstops. People are talking about probabilities. Even if the probability of something bad happening is close to zero, it still makes sense to take safety precautions that are zero cost/zero effort. I don't understand the mentality that insists on lashing out against trivial safety measures.
    - 4y ago

by toss1 4y ago

t_mann 4y ago

The probabilities of bad things happening are vastly different for an undercover operator than for ordinary people, that's why it doesn't make sense to blindly apply the model of a 'knowledgeable expert' for everyone. I didn't say "don't read maps beforehand", I was saying "don't be afraid to check a map when you're on the street". This 'minimize risk at all cost' mindset is very similar to the helicopter parenting lifestyle where it's considered almost a crime to let your kids roam just outside the direct line of sight of their parents. PS: also interesting to note that both critical comments ended with ad hominem attacks.

toss1 4y ago
>>The probabilities of bad things happening are vastly different for an undercover operator than for ordinary people Perhaps, but the article is focused on potential disasters irrelevant to operatives and just that randomly occur to any traveler - fire/natural disaster, theft, ordinary random mugging, terrorist activity often focused on hotels used by foreigners, etc. I saw nothing that was not generally applicable. >>This 'minimize risk at all cost' mindset is very similar to the helicopter parenting lifestyle I'm as much against 'helicopter parenting' as anyone, yet this is just the opposite — it gives everyone a starting set of simple steps to take that increases their ability to operate independently, i.e., not being dependent on parents, etc. for your security, but taking care of oneself. >>I was saying "don't be afraid to check a map when you're on the street". Umm, depends on the situation, and on how befuddled you are going to look. Midtown Manhattan, London, etc., on a weekday noontime? Ya, just don't do it in the middle of the sidewalk and obstruct traffic. Any other city or tourist destination? I'd certainly step off the street first. Might as well put a sticker on my back in the local language saying "rob me". >> critical comments ended with ad hominem attacks. IDK about other comments, but I was not speaking ad hominem, simply trying to suss out why it is so important for someone to actively spend time to denigrate good security measures (which also help one enjoy the surroundings more, e.g., learning the terrain up front). Why is it important to you that other people don't do things like learn the terrain in advance? Why not just read the article and say "meh?" and move on?
- ryandrake 4y ago
  I can't believe all the grief this story is getting on HN. I read the article and they seemed to be sensible, inexpensive, easy steps you can take to increase your safety while traveling. Why so much objection? Someone else mentioned cost/benefit. The only suggestion that had any cost was the doorstops. People are talking about probabilities. Even if the probability of something bad happening is close to zero, it still makes sense to take safety precautions that are zero cost/zero effort. I don't understand the mentality that insists on lashing out against trivial safety measures.
  - 4y ago