OceanGate Titan submersible vehicle and crew presumed lost near Titanic wreckage

[LilianaUwU]

No billionaire can make their money ethically.

[Scott5114]

So why not get into the weeds? 

I'd be happy to if you're willing to pay me $25/hour for my research time.

[Max Rockatansky]

All you folks who are into research can't be bothered to find a couple of snippets of unethical activity when your stance is challenged?  I never said that I doubted you could find what you're claiming.  If we're going to gloat over the deaths of three wealthy people, why not make build a case for it?

[Henry]

What a sad and tragic end; and the unfortunate coincidence is, these two events occurred almost 110 years apart.

[LilianaUwU]

What a sad and tragic end; and the unfortunate coincidence is, these two events occurred almost 110 years apart.

Sad and tragic for the CEO who said "safety is just pure waste"? Really? Maybe for the others, but Stockton Rush had karma coming his way from a thousand miles away.

[Max Rockatansky]

What a sad and tragic end; and the unfortunate coincidence is, these two events occurred almost 110 years apart.

Sad and tragic for the CEO who said "safety is just pure waste"? Really? Maybe for the others, but Stockton Rush had karma coming his way from a thousand miles away.

Which is an assessment I agree with (lots of other reasons in the prior replies).  Rush certainly is coming out of this looking like a POS.

[ozarkman417]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_their_own_invention#Maritime

I'm curious as to how they decided on controlling the vessel with an XBox controller of all things was the best idea.

[LilianaUwU]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_inventors_killed_by_their_own_invention#Maritime

I'm curious as to how they decided on controlling the vessel with an XBox controller of all things was the best idea.

Not just an Xbox controller, but a knockoff one. It's not like Xbox controllers on submarines are a foreign concept, though the US Navy does get the first party controllers at least.

[Rothman]

No billionaire can make their money ethically.

Depends on the definition of ethics.

Do have to say the whole implication that the billionaires deserved to die doesn't seem very ethical in of itself, if we're going to get on our moral high horses...

[CtrlAltDel]

No billionaire can make their money ethically.

Depends on the definition of ethics.

Do have to say the whole implication that the billionaires deserved to die doesn't seem very ethical in of itself, if we're going to get on our moral high horses...

Depends on the definition of ethics.

[LilianaUwU]

No billionaire can make their money ethically.

Depends on the definition of ethics.

Do have to say the whole implication that the billionaires deserved to die doesn't seem very ethical in of itself, if we're going to get on our moral high horses...

The billionaire who caused the death of himself and four others said "safety is just pure waste".

[Rothman]

No billionaire can make their money ethically.

Depends on the definition of ethics.

Do have to say the whole implication that the billionaires deserved to die doesn't seem very ethical in of itself, if we're going to get on our moral high horses...

The billionaire who caused the death of himself and four others said "safety is just pure waste".

Therefore...

[LilianaUwU]

No billionaire can make their money ethically.

Depends on the definition of ethics.

Do have to say the whole implication that the billionaires deserved to die doesn't seem very ethical in of itself, if we're going to get on our moral high horses...

The billionaire who caused the death of himself and four others said "safety is just pure waste".

Therefore...

Therefore fuck him. I don't know about the other passengers, but Stockton Rush had it coming.

[J N Winkler]

Pushing out technological frontiers entails a certain measure of risk-taking.  There was evidently some disclosure of the hazards since the passengers signed waivers.  In my view, the thing that may very well destroy the company is the decision to build the submersible with a viewing window not rated for depths of 4000 m.  That alone would seem to cross the line from unconservative design to willful (and homicidal) foolishness.

[Scott5114]

All you folks who are into research can't be bothered to find a couple of snippets of unethical activity when your stance is challenged?  I never said that I doubted you could find what you're claiming.  If we're going to gloat over the deaths of three wealthy people, why not make build a case for it?

It's not that I can't be bothered, it's that when one works for oneself, the opportunity cost of stopping to indulge in a deep dive is too great. Any hour I spend researching something to win an Internet argument I don't actually care about winning is an hour not spent putting money in my pocket.

[jakeroot]

Pushing out technological frontiers entails a certain measure of risk-taking.  There was evidently some disclosure of the hazards since the passengers signed waivers.  In my view, the thing that may very well destroy the company is the decision to build the submersible with a viewing window not rated for depths of 4000 m.  That alone would seem to cross the line from unconservative design to willful (and homicidal) foolishness.

As they say, "pioneers get the arrows..."

Of course, by all accounts, most pioneers aren't willfully ignorant, they just take chances when they don't otherwise know better; it seems OceanGate may have known better.

You can't go 2 miles below the Atlantic Ocean's surface and expect to come back up alive and well when passing 5,000 feet below the surface.

Nothing is guaranteed, but are you likely to encounter issues when diving in a submarine at these depths? No. This was an anomaly, though admittedly accelerated by some foolish decisions by designers.

[kalvado]

Pushing out technological frontiers entails a certain measure of risk-taking.  There was evidently some disclosure of the hazards since the passengers signed waivers.  In my view, the thing that may very well destroy the company is the decision to build the submersible with a viewing window not rated for depths of 4000 m.  That alone would seem to cross the line from unconservative design to willful (and homicidal) foolishness.

As they say, "pioneers get the arrows..."

Of course, by all accounts, most pioneers aren't willfully ignorant, they just take chances when they don't otherwise know better; it seems OceanGate may have known better.

You can't go 2 miles below the Atlantic Ocean's surface and expect to come back up alive and well when passing 5,000 feet below the surface.

Nothing is guaranteed, but are you likely to encounter issues when diving in a submarine at these depths? No. This was an anomaly, though admittedly accelerated by some foolish decisions by designers.

These are not pioneers. William Beebe and Jacques Piccard indeed were, and they both died at pretty respectable age  in bed.
Adventure seekers is a better word.

[WillWeaverRVA]

Therefore fuck him. I don't know about the other passengers, but Stockton Rush had it coming.

I pretty much have the same opinion. Stockton Rush was reckless, and his recklessness cost him his life and those of four other people, one being one of the foremost undersea explorers in the world, and another who didn't want to be there in the first place but felt like he had no choice because it was important to his dad (and being in a family where you don't say no to your dad).

[WillWeaverRVA]

It sucks that he didn't learn at a younger age that doing what your dad says isn't always a great idea. (But then if I had fully internalized this lesson at age 19, it would have saved me a lot of grief, so who am I to talk?)

It's not that simple. In a lot of cultures, especially Asian ones, you just do not say no to your parents when they want you to do something.

[Max Rockatansky]

All you folks who are into research can't be bothered to find a couple of snippets of unethical activity when your stance is challenged?  I never said that I doubted you could find what you're claiming.  If we're going to gloat over the deaths of three wealthy people, why not make build a case for it?

It's not that I can't be bothered, it's that when one works for oneself, the opportunity cost of stopping to indulge in a deep dive is too great. Any hour I spend researching something to win an Internet argument I don't actually care about winning is an hour not spent putting money in my pocket.

There in lies my point.  I'm all for calling out pieces of crap like Stockton Rush as the clear and easy villain in stories like this.  The other two billionaires are easy punching bags because of how much money they have.  If I'm going to shit on those two openly I would prefer to at least have some sort of confirmation that they aren't the great dudes I suspect them to be.  Accumulated wealth alone for me isn't enough circumstantial proof. 

I guess it kind of surprises me that you of all people on this forum it's you would so casually make this leap in logic.  Perhaps you aren't wrong, but it still surprises me. 

[abefroman329]

Accumulated wealth alone for me isn't enough circumstantial proof.

I'm with Scott and others - it is virtually impossible to amass one billion American dollars and not be a good person.

One million dollars is a sum of money that would last any of us for 15-20 years, assuming conservative investments.

One billion dollars is 1,000 times that amount.

In conclusion,

[Max Rockatansky]

Accumulated wealth alone for me isn't enough circumstantial proof.

I'm with Scott and others - it is virtually impossible to amass one billion American dollars and not be a good person.

One million dollars is a sum of money that would last any of us for 15-20 years, assuming conservative investments.

One billion dollars is 1,000 times that amount.

In conclusion,

Yeah, here's the thing...what if you're wrong?  I don't suspect that you are wrong, but the possibility does exist.  Is it not at least somewhat callous to make that presumption about two people you don't really know anything about? 

There has been a lot of talk about "morals"  and "ethics"  in this thread.  I guess maybe I see failing to back up opinions that someone with money is bad as morally questionable?  A lot people who are making the presumption in this thread have demanded more from others when it came to non-billionaires.

[abefroman329]

I guess maybe I see failing to back up opinions that someone with money is bad as morally questionable?

You're looking for proof that hoarding wealth, to the point where you can spend $250,000 as easily as most of us would spend $25, is morally questionable?  I'd start with the source texts for several major world religions.

A lot people who are making the presumption in this thread have demanded more from others when it came to non-billionaires.

Not me - in fact, the reason I have little sympathy for the billionaires is the fact that, unlike non-billionaires, they can afford to pay people to explain to them why something like this was a bloody stupid idea.

[zzcarp]

All you folks who are into research can't be bothered to find a couple of snippets of unethical activity when your stance is challenged?  I never said that I doubted you could find what you're claiming.  If we're going to gloat over the deaths of three wealthy people, why not make build a case for it?

It's not that I can't be bothered, it's that when one works for oneself, the opportunity cost of stopping to indulge in a deep dive is too great. Any hour I spend researching something to win an Internet argument I don't actually care about winning is an hour not spent putting money in my pocket.

There in lies my point.  I'm all for calling out pieces of crap like Stockton Rush as the clear and easy villain in stories like this.  The other two billionaires are easy punching bags because of how much money they have.  If I'm going to shit on those two openly I would prefer to at least have some sort of confirmation that they aren't the great dudes I suspect them to be.  Accumulated wealth alone for me isn't enough circumstantial proof. 

I guess it kind of surprises me that you of all people on this forum it's you would so casually make this leap in logic.  Perhaps you aren't wrong, but it still surprises me.

I agree wholeheartedly with Max here. There's a lot of dancing on their proverbial graves here merely because of their status as billionaires. Presumably, their wealth has generated more economic activity than the entire sum of the users of this forum, and we're dealing with some good old-fashioned class envy here.

Many of us are engineers, and engineers shouldn't rush to judgment. Even if Mr. Rush made some stupid comments, that doesn't inherently mean the engineering was theoretically unsafe, although it seems as if they were pushing its known limits. We know next to nothing other than it was a catastrophic implosion known to have happened on Sunday (that for some reason our Navy just released yesterday after four days of media coverage). Presumably, there will be a post-mortem where we see what went right and what went wrong with the craft, and we can form scientific and safety-based conclusions then for future craft. Until we see that, we should exercise some compassion and withhold judgment and blame assignment until we have all the facts.

[Max Rockatansky]

I guess maybe I see failing to back up opinions that someone with money is bad as morally questionable?

You're looking for proof that hoarding wealth, to the point where you can spend $250,000 as easily as most of us would spend $25, is morally questionable?  I'd start with the source texts for several major world religions.

A lot people who are making the presumption in this thread have demanded more from others when it came to non-billionaires.

Not me - in fact, the reason I have little sympathy for the billionaires is the fact that, unlike non-billionaires, they can afford to pay people to explain to them why something like this was a bloody stupid idea.

You're bringing up things like religions texts and what social media pundits are saying, how is either reliable?  I'm sure there is way more substantial data on these people available than that.  For as much as people say they don't care about this story, there is sure a lot of people here rushing to make easy conclusions regarding those on the submarine.