I think this is more to visualize the size of the ascent on K2, rather than the true size of the mountain.

at 800m the Burj is still at 1/10 of the 2nd tallest mountain.. seems big no?

What's misleading about it?

What's misleading?
It literally tells you the foot of the mountain is already around 4000m above sea level.

Nobody goes on foot from sea level to the top of the mountain

Tim Macartney-Snape climbed Mount Everest that way. It took him 3 months.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Macartney-Snape#Everest:_Sea_to_Summit_Expedition

If you're not starting on foot from the bottom of the Mariana Trench, you're just a filthy casual.

The practical answer is: you drive as far as you legally can.

As a disclaimer, pictured here are the Himalayas, which are at a completely different scale to where I've been, but in my experience there are typically parking spaces/bus stops at the end of public roads. At this point you leave the built up infrastructure and enter nature, and these are often located in a place where the flatter valley ends and a steeper ascent begins. In many cases there are smaller private roads further up to service more remote cabins or farmsteads. Sometimes there are even taxi services that drive you further along using private roads, which can be seen as not fully scaling the mountain yourself. Generally, the closest public parking is considered the starting point and most people will therefore start at the same spot.

For Everest in particular, Base Camp 1 is at about 4000m IIRC, and that's where ascents typically start after some time to acclimate to the already high altitude.

Not a climber but I’m assuming the base of the mountain.

I mean you park the car in the parking lot and then you start at the trailhead. That's really as far as you're allowed to drive up, not like you can drive on the hiking trail

Context: the foot of Mt. Everest is in itself higher than most mountains. And then on top of all that there is an actual mountain peak you can see on the pictures.

Mass launchers on Earth would work for things that can sustain large amounts of acceleration. That rules out a lot of things we launch into space. A mass launcher that would be as gentle as a rocket launch would stretch hundreds if not thousands of kilometers and need either a gradual slope or a very wide curve to avoid the side forces. Mass drivers are too good at what they do at their full capacity, and need a lot of room to do it slower.

On the Moon, a mass driver is a no brainer and could launch people in a short run. It's Earth's gravity that's the problem. It sucks.

In a sci-fi setting I love, they use Kilimandjaro as the base of the space elevator. Would be interesting to see Africa become a space hub.