In the news

I read that last night and they said 3 days on the trot. People ride RAAM in 8 days with 40min sleep per day. Bankers need to HTFU.

And they don't get paid for it. Seriously though, I did one of those nuts internships last summer and it's not something that on its own should make you kill yourself.

And they don't get paid for it. Seriously though, I did one of those nuts internships last summer and it's not something that on its own should make you kill yourself.

he didn't kill himself:

Moritz Erhardt, 21, had won a place as a summer intern at the London city offices of the US bank and was nearing the end of his placement when he was found dead in the shower at his temporary accommodation in east London by ambulance services on 15 August.

Insinuation is that he died form overworking.

I think I will wait for the coroner to determine how he died before I blame a couple of long shifts in the office.

I was wondering how you can die from overwork myself.
It's never likely to happen to me, but I'd be interested to see what the exact cause of death is.
I'll stick my neck on the line and say amphetamine and cocaine intoxication

Pre-existing cardiac condition, complicated by known epilepsy, exacerbated by exhaustion, AICMFP.

At the end of their first year of real employment, a corporate finance analyst at BAML could expect to bring home up to £100,000, assuming there are a couple of decent deals that year.

That's why they suck it up and work crazy hours.

I imagine dieing from over work is actually dieing from a condition caused by exhaustion and stress which is caused by prolonged overwork. Or an underlying condition being exacerbated.

My guess is that healthy humans are well built to deal with acute stress and exhaustion like you may have on an internship.

ok, but death???

Yeah it's not as clear cut as what happened to those poor guys doing drills on the hottest day of the year. You can see easily how they died from exhaustion.

But yes I guess an underlying physical condition could have something to do with it. I still reckon he was on the gear though. Most bankers I know are
For most people, by the time they realise health and happiness are more important than money, it's usually too late, one way or another

They died from heatstroke - I'm not sure if exhaustion is ever a cause of death in itself.

I don't know any investment bankers on anything. Traders and brokers, yes.

ok, but death???

I try to keep to the left

I'm usually somewhere between boredom and confusion

They died from heatstroke - I'm not sure if exhaustion is ever a cause of death in itself.

Yes I meant heat exhaustion, but now I see heat exhaustion and heat stroke are 2 slightly different things.

I'm usually stuck on bored & childish

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2398724/Heart-breaking-moment-father-holds-hand-brain-damaged-son-hit-van-cycled-work--wasnt-wearing-helmet-case-messed-HAIR.html

well this is infuriating.

Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison over leaks.

Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in prison over leaks.

I (unfortunately) see those 35 years as light. What he did was wrong. He might have meant well but was not--- and is not-- in a position to judge the impact of the information in the hands of others. He was a soldier, stole information that did not belong to him and provided it to foreign agents. Having good intentions but doing wrong does not make a hero. He is a deluded dimwit that should consider himself lucky to have been spared the death sentence. His recklessness showed indifference to putting many people in harm's way. He was not a whistleblower but a traitor. He provided information that he had not even read. Much he did not even understand. I think like Benedict Arnold he wanted to bathe in lime-light...

He might have meant well but was not--- and is not-- in a position to judge the impact of the information in the hands of others.

Serious question - who is in this position and do you trust them?

and relating to the Daily Fail article, I'm sure I've read that statistics are at best equivocal as to if mandatory helmet laws in Aus have reduced head injuries there?

^Good question

Serious question - who is in this position and do you trust them?

and relating to the Daily Fail article, I'm sure I've read that statistics are at best equivocal as to if mandatory helmet laws in Aus have reduced head injuries there?

From what I remember they DID reduce head injuries- but by a lower percentage than they reduced actual cycling, my memory wants to say head injuries reduced by 15% but cycling reduced by 35%- so fewer cyclists, sustaining more injuries per cyclist, possibly due to cars no longer expecting to see cyclists on the roads etc etc.

"I (unfortunately) see those 35 years as light. What he did was wrong. He might have meant well but was not--- and is not-- in a position to judge the impact of the information in the hands of others. He was a soldier, stole information that did not belong to him and provided it to foreign agents. Having good intentions but doing wrong does not make a hero. He is a deluded dimwit that should consider himself lucky to have been spared the death sentence. His recklessness showed indifference to putting many people in harm's way. He was not a whistleblower but a traitor. He provided information that he had not even read. Much he did not even understand. I think like Benedict Arnold he wanted to bathe in lime-light..."

"Serious question - who is in this position and do you trust them? And relating to the Daily Fail article, I'm sure I've read that statistics are at best equivocal as to if mandatory helmet laws in Aus have reduced head injuries there?"

Moral responsibility vs. call of duty... In retrospect, speaking as a soldier myself, really those shouldn't be conflicting issues.

My gut feeling is that there is a hell of a lot more of 'CoD' at the moment being used to cover up a hell of a lot of, at best, morally dubious activities.
But then I don't actually know this, so I might be the definitive bleeding hear liberal

Serious question - who is in this position and do you trust them?

The legal procedure should (if he wished to be a whisleblower) have been to secure the information and submit an acusation to the Special Counsel: "The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency. Our basic authorities come from four federal statutes: the Civil Service Reform Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, the Hatch Act, and the Uniformed Services Employment & Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)."
If there is probably cause to suspect that the Special Counsel is not to be trusted there are other procedures that can be followed. Manning followed none but handled over a wide span of information without regard to their relevance to a "crime" to be published and distributed to foreign agents.

Moral responsibility vs. call of duty... In retrospect, speaking as a soldier myself, really those shouldn't be conflicting issues.

Call of duty includes a moral responsibility. That's why war criminals can be brought to trial against the "following orders defence".

From what I remember they DID reduce head injuries- but by a lower percentage than they reduced actual cycling, my memory wants to say head injuries reduced by 15% but cycling reduced by 35%- so fewer cyclists, sustaining more injuries per cyclist, possibly due to cars no longer expecting to see cyclists on the roads etc etc.

There are also studies that hint that drivers take more risks near cyclists wearing helmets than without.
Do helmets protect? I am also familiar with a number of studies that seen to hint that helmets only protect against some specific head impacts but may increase hurt and damage, for example, to neck.
Its a difficult subject since, like particles and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, the observation can't be decoupled from other relevant variables. Do cyclists with helmets ride differently? Do drivers react differently to cyclists wearing helmets? What are the correlatations between cyclist density and accident rates? ...
What is, however, clear is that the automotive lobby wants mandatory helmet laws if for no other reason to reduce cyclist density and to shift responsibility of injury to the cyclist. If there, for example, are no cyclists then there are also no cyclist-motorcar accidents.

What is, however, clear is that the automotive lobby wants mandatory helmet laws if for no other reason to reduce cyclist density and to shift responsibility of injury to the cyclist. If there, for example, are no cyclists then there are also no cyclist-motorcar accidents.

Where did you get this from?