Hacker News Reader

Looking for small things in a field requires, and promotes, a particular mindset - like you have to let your imagination run from the slightest impressions, and trust your innate powers of recognition. I sometimes go mushrooming (like John Cage, fact fans) and the funnest part of it is the battle with my own thought processes, as I attempt to turn myself into a slick mushroom-detecting machine via consciousness-dilation.

I like to think the key's not complete thoughtlessness, but rather an appreciation of the vastness the field without caring too much about any one part of it. Which is a bit wishy-washy, but forms a good basis.

I was going to bring up mushrooming!

Very interesting. I've heard Morels are TOUGH to spot. I want to go next season, since I live in NJ and it's supposed to be a good area to find them.

I'm in Michigan and it's definitely worthwhile! I suggest going with someone who knows the business until you find a few and know what you are looking for. The first time you see one, you'll start seeing them everywhere. Until you don't.

The expectation that you will or will not see them definitely messes with your head.

> I like to think the key's not complete thoughtlessness, but rather an appreciation of the vastness the field without caring too much about any one part of it. Which is a bit wishy-washy, but forms a good basis.

It's definitely a hard thing to describe, but I think you are doing a pretty good job of articulating it. It's kind of like meditation, in the sense that you need to approach it in a very structured way with an open/empty mind.

It's why Bayesian methods are so effective for searching. You first imagine all of the possibilities, and then you search for evidence that either supports or refutes them. If you are in an area and you have searched everywhere and you are convinced it is in that area, you need to consider the fact that it isn't in that area and to move on.

I can't tell you how many times I've been looking for a disc at a certain distance, thinking "it couldn't be any farther up, I can't throw that far" (or vice versa), only to walk 25 feet farther up and find my disc. Preconceived notions are the enemy of a successful search.

Sounds like you can benefit from one of those bluetooth lost-item finding device (e.g. Tile or TrackR).

i saw an excellent magenta/orange vest that was trying to address this.

>I've done Search and Rescue training as well. What I've taken from both is that you do not want to be lost, and if you are lost you do not want to be far from where people are expecting you to be. This is in part because you want to narrow the search area, but also because people have an incredible ability to overlook things that aren't expecting.

>One thing I didn't realize before I did all of this was how useless looking for a given shape is. Unless it is extremely flat, you are probably just looking for splashes of color. You would not believe the amount of color there is in the middle of a forest, or a field, etc, until you start looking for a particular color. Flowers, garbage, mottled sun, you can basically get any color you imagine out there.

Very true. This is the same sort of basic issue that a lot of optical illusions and magic tricks are based on. Human brains (and to some extent probably many animals in general) tend to out of necessity be a lot more sensitive to change vs static imagery and use a lot of processing shortcuts. There is so much data constantly coming in that processing all of it would be paralyzing, so a lot of the work really is throwing most of it out.

That's also why active signaling is so valuable in emergency situations. Even without touching on any sort of networked devices, tools like colored smoke flares, LED lamps/torches with a strobe feature, highly reflective metallized boPET (aka Mylar and other brands) flags or streamers light enough to have significant motion even in very minimal breeze, alarms, etc are all quite valuable because their dynamic and artificial nature makes them stand out more clearly from farther away. The problem comes with them needing at least some level of consciousness and ability to take action to deploy.

I do think there's more room still for innovation in safety equipment when it comes to automated emergency signal systems that can be linked to biomonitoring and thus respond automatically to signs of distress if the user doesn't cancel it after a given timeout. There are some products on the market right now, but the ones I'm aware of are purely electronic and depend on S&R having a receiver of the right type and/or on availability of network coverage. Satellite-based emergency signals don't seem to be practical or economic enough yet for ubiquitous usage. They both can still be incredibly valuable, but in addition it might be nice in some situations if automated deployment could be linked to non-electronic signals. For example, a compact self-contained system attachable to the top of a backpack with mylar balloon (possibly with a small strobing LED lamp), enough helium for auto-inflation, and a 100-200 ft tether that could be triggered automatically or manually. Standard mylar balloons can remain taut for a good 5 days and float for a couple weeks before losing too much lift, and the weight and cost of the basic components should be reasonable. While of limited use in certain environments like dense forest, in many areas it'd have no trouble reaching full extension. A floating bobbing reflective object (or at night lit by even a minimal LED) should be visible from a significant distance vs something on the ground but be safer and easier to deploy then trying to climb something to achieve vertical. Effective signal lifetime vs other consumables seems like it might be favorable as well. Or maybe there is something like this already?

Good points all.

Honestly I think the biggest barrier to the effective use of technology in these situations is that is another thing to carry. Carrying more than you have to sucks, and I know a lot of athletes/etc who carry the bare minimum possible with them. I know people who run without their IDs, because they find them overly encumbering.

A lot of it is complacency. How much trouble can you get as an experienced person in an area you are familiar with?

The answer is obviously a lot, but there are stories of people who are otherwise extremely experienced dying in situations that should have otherwise been routine. Technology allows us to get closer to the limit, and in turn encourages risky behavior. Once we feel comfortable on that edge, we tend to take fewer precautions. (I forget the term for this, I believe it is something like risk displacement.)

A simple personal example -- I once locked myself on the roof of a high-rise in Chicago by accident. We were a few floors from the top of the building, and I wanted a breath of fresh air. The cinder block I used to hold the door open rotated and let the door close, and I had left my cellphone charging at my desk. My adrenaline spiked. I walked around the roof. I could see people at street level and in the atrium 14 stories below, but we were right next to the L, and there was no way to yell loud enough to get anyone's attention. It was a bit chilly, and I wondered if I would die of hypothermia if I was stuck on the roof overnight.

Once my adrenaline subsided a bit, I took a look at the door and realized I could jimmy it open if I had a piece of metal. Luckily I managed to find a bit of wire buried in the gravel of the built-up roof, and I was able to shim the door open.

I went back to my office a bit rattled. None of my coworkers even noticed I had been gone, though one noticed that I looked a bit cold and shaky. I have no idea how long I could have been stuck up there if I hadn't managed to shim the door.

Since then I've always made sure to keep my cellphone (which I find to be an encumbrance) on my person, and let somebody know where I'm going if at all possible. It was amazing how helpless I felt despite being literally surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people.

> Satellite-based emergency signals don't seem to be practical or economic enough yet for ubiquitous usage.

It's not as much a tech or time problem as it is a physics problem. Getting a signal from many Earth transmitters to a satellite receiver takes a lot of power on the transmitter side. More power by a lot than for one satellite transmitter to a bunch of Earth receivers!

Physics isn't really an issue. Locator beacons are a thing. But they're standalone GPS size (i.e. not watches) and have subscription fees in the $100+ per year category so they're really more for people like solo hikers in remote areas etc. as opposed to the average consumer.

Speaking of watches, the Breitling Emergency has a built in locator beacon. Not exactly cheap though.

Interesting! It also does seem to be a little bit of an operation to activate. I suspect that for most situations where you might have a realistic need for such a device, carrying a small Garmin or SPOT isn't a big deal.

> Physics isn't really an issue. Locator beacons are a thing. But they're standalone GPS size (i.e. not watches) and have subscription fees in the $100+ per year category.

These caveats are caused by the physics. They're mostly batteries and antennas due to power constraints, and operating the receivers is expensive even with the tradeoffs they make.

>Satellite-based emergency signals don't seem to be practical or economic enough yet for ubiquitous usage.

They're getting a lot closer. Certainly not ubiquitous, but I'm seriously thinking at this point that something like a Garmin inReach would make sense the next time I do a solo backpacking trip of more than a couple days.

And this is coming from someone who has tended to be opposed to having to constantly be in touch.