NY Times had some interesting articles on the recent solo crossings of Antartica (Colin O’Brady Completes Crossing of Antarctica With Final 32-Hour Push..... https://nyti.ms/2GGsOwf and today's editorial.... The First Solo Antarctic Traverse...https://nyti.ms/2RxziBu). Dave Roberts makes some good points about what really constitutes a first, depending how narrowly you define things. In this case, it was the first "unaided solo crossing." But, who makes the rules for that sort of thing? The first article was somewhat dismissive of a Norwegian who made a solo crossing about 20 years ago, since he had some kind of aid from a kite. However, Dave points out that he also went twice the distance since he defined the crossing to include the ice shelves, which the early explorers also had to contend with. Furthermore, the recent record contenders had the benefit of modern communications technology and also followed a machine trodden track from the South Pole to the finish (note the tire treads in the photo). So, an incredibly difficult feat, yes. But, was this really unaided or a significant "first?" I guess you need that to get sponsorship and enough good press. Any other armchair adventurers out there care to weigh in?