Ok so tell me: What was I supposed to "learn" from that?
If a shitload of people skied something, it's less likely to go? The point is that the "point" you've brought up is one of absolute zero relevance. Of course if 30 people just skied it it isn't going to go. If it was, it would have went. Your point simply uses circular logic to prove itself, when it's really just overcomplicating a simple issue for the sake of your internet argumentative side's appeasement. It's such a "DUH" point I honestly find it laughable you'd seek to "educate" us as to the relevance of this "phenomenon" or "breakthrough finding". ...
You are completely misstating the dialogue that occurred, in a way that is both very nasty, and also shows you have no idea what you're talking about.
It is entirely possible to have 30 people ski something, and then have it go on the 31st. Part of the exchange between Gramboh and I, and for that matter the quote from Bruce Tremper of the UAC, centered on whether skier compaction happened at a time that it can break up weak layers. I suggest you go back, reread, and reflect on what is being talked about, including what can happen if, as I already noted, you have a hard slab over a nondisrupted, persistent deep weak layer, but with lots of fresh tracks over that slab. I.e., you can be looking at a mellow slope with "spooky" moderate conditions, that looks real stable because it DOES have a lot of tracks, but is just waiting for the right trigger.
You are correct, though, that nothing that I or Gramboh talked about was advanced or in any way a breakthrough finding (that is not a knock on Gramboh, at all, he made excellent points). It's pretty basic, and if you don't understand it, you'd do well to leave the nastiness and arrogance that you show in your post, DoWork, out. FWIW you're not alone in jumping in in a mis-informed way, so I don't mean to single you out -- some of the other people making personal attacks have been even less informed.