So, it seems the most merciful scenario is what happened then... Likely dead before they even knew there was a problem. So that is good, to me. I was following the story mainly because I am a...
So, it seems the most merciful scenario is what happened then... Likely dead before they even knew there was a problem. So that is good, to me.
I was following the story mainly because I am a former submariner. And it just sucked, because every scenario where they were still alive still likely ended with "and then they still die," because we just don't have the technology to rescue a vessel like that at 4000m. Like, they could have pulled another DSV up to the viewing port, seen them alive, but i'm still prettyyyy sure it would have still been death... the technology to rescue them just doesn't exist.
I saw another post about the deepest rescue ever being at around 400-500m for a DSV, this would have been 10x that, and easily the most impressive feat of search and rescue in human history.
I’d actually never heard of this recovery, I do know that recovery at that depth is definitely possible, it’s the rescue that I just don’t think we have the technology for. Keeping the pressure...
I’d actually never heard of this recovery, I do know that recovery at that depth is definitely possible, it’s the rescue that I just don’t think we have the technology for. Keeping the pressure hull intact while attaching and whatnot to a vehicle resting on the bottom of the ocean without stressing the hull to the point of implosion is something that isn’t as easy as hooking onto a tow hook.
Though the wiki page you linked does say they the K-129 had an at least partially intact pressure hull, it had been subjected to “massive internal destruction”
It’s the rescue that makes it orders of magnitude more difficult than a recovery/salvage.
It's not really useful at this point, but had they found them early I think rescue would have been possible, in certain circumstances. The vessel had several failsafes in place that would cause...
It's not really useful at this point, but had they found them early I think rescue would have been possible, in certain circumstances.
The vessel had several failsafes in place that would cause the sub to come back to the surface if something went wrong - even if the power failed.
So let's say they were deep under water but alive, in a hypothetical scenario, what would be the likely cause would be they were trapped under the titanic debris, or stuck somewhere, and that obstacle is keeping them from going up. Your rescue mission isn't to lift them but rather to free it from the obstacle, so it can go up by itself. You could use ROVs for that quite easily.
I would not be surprised if the technology exists in a Navy/CIA/NSA/ABC/XYZ black project, but I would be very surprised if it was remotely accessible for this and even more surprised if they...
I would not be surprised if the technology exists in a Navy/CIA/NSA/ABC/XYZ black project, but I would be very surprised if it was remotely accessible for this and even more surprised if they would whip it out for this scenario.
This is the best outcome anyone could expect. Unfortunately, rescue was so unlikely it was almost a well-meaning fantasy. A slow death by suffocation in a cold submergible surrounded by darkness...
This is the best outcome anyone could expect. Unfortunately, rescue was so unlikely it was almost a well-meaning fantasy. A slow death by suffocation in a cold submergible surrounded by darkness is something I wish for no one, nor something that would cause me any satisfaction. This shouldn't be a matter of how much I approve of the victims' choices in life, that's human suffering I do not wish to occur or take any pleasure in. Period.
This always sounds so fascinating to me, because monkey brain me wants to think: Stack 2x the ballast to DSV, add magnets, dive to stranded DSV, magnets go THONK!, drop ballast, up we go. It's......
I saw another post about the deepest rescue ever being at around 400-500m for a DSV, this would have been 10x that, and easily the most impressive feat of search and rescue in human history.
This always sounds so fascinating to me, because monkey brain me wants to think: Stack 2x the ballast to DSV, add magnets, dive to stranded DSV, magnets go THONK!, drop ballast, up we go.
I don't know the limits of our recovery but I saw instant death or fast recovery as the best options. Sonce a fast recovery didn't happen, that leaves one option. I'm happy it was the implosion...
I don't know the limits of our recovery but I saw instant death or fast recovery as the best options. Sonce a fast recovery didn't happen, that leaves one option.
I'm happy it was the implosion because the alternatives are worse, but it's still an absolute tragedy.
I'm not completely convinced it was always hopeless. The Titan, if I understand it correctly, is inherently buoyant. Different from other DSVs, the pressure hull is larger, and is itself...
I'm not completely convinced it was always hopeless. The Titan, if I understand it correctly, is inherently buoyant. Different from other DSVs, the pressure hull is larger, and is itself responsible for buoyancy. Thus, if you strip it of any ballast, it will come back up if not held down by other things. Evidently, because it didn't come back up, and because of the design of the ballast systems, with at least one fail-safe method employed, it stands to reason that the boat might've gotten stuck. I'm not sure what kind of manipulators the rescue robots have, but I can reasonably imagine that some scenarios could be fixed, particularly if the Titan was wedged under a piece of wreckage. Does that sound plausible to a submariner? Not likely, mind you, just conceivable. The chances of this happening without popping the pressure hull are slim, in my mind.
You seem like someone who would know the answer to this question that's been bugging me for the past few days: If they could have got an ROV down to it, why is it difficult for that ROV to clip on...
Like, they could have pulled another DSV up to the viewing port, seen them alive, but i'm still prettyyyy sure it would have still been death... the technology to rescue them just doesn't exist.
You seem like someone who would know the answer to this question that's been bugging me for the past few days: If they could have got an ROV down to it, why is it difficult for that ROV to clip on a rope (e.g. with something like a karabiner, to the landing sled), and use that to haul it to the surface? The ROV is already tethered, as I understand it, so running a rope parallel to the ROV tether doesn't seem hard (from a layman's perspective).
But everyone's saying it's impossible. Can you explain?
I’m not under the impression that the ROV is tethered. In order to tether the Titan, you would need over 2mi/3km of rope or cable and something capable of winching that much rope back up. Not to...
I’m not under the impression that the ROV is tethered. In order to tether the Titan, you would need over 2mi/3km of rope or cable and something capable of winching that much rope back up. Not to mention how the rope would interact with the environment. It’s just not feasible from any practical standpoint.
If the ROVs aren't tethered, how does the video feed get back to the surface? Because it's certainly not going via acoustic text-messaging like the Titan comms.
If the ROVs aren't tethered, how does the video feed get back to the surface? Because it's certainly not going via acoustic text-messaging like the Titan comms.
I think so... I don't think the implosion happened at disconnect though. Does anyone know if these vehicles tend to have black boxes? The logs could tell us a lot......
So, it seems the most merciful scenario is what happened then
I think so... I don't think the implosion happened at disconnect though. Does anyone know if these vehicles tend to have black boxes? The logs could tell us a lot...
Later Thursday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the US Navy, using a top-secret listening system, actually heard the sound of an implosion hours after the sub went missing and that officials had thought it could have been the Titan.
Napkin math: NY to Paris is 3625mi. Sound travels in water at 1500m/s or ~3350mph, so if they heard the sound hours after the sub went missing, that implies a period of time from disconnect to implosion.
In that case, I'm curious to know why they couldn't abort the mission and return to the surface. Were they hoping for communication to reestablish? There's no way they continued the expedition after disconnecting, right? Were they returning to the surface already? Were there multiple independent or cascading failures, the first of which got them stuck?
I’m not sure where Yahoo/Insider got that information, because the source article they link cites the WSJ article and gives a timeline of “soon after”. The WSJ article itself says:...
I’m not sure where Yahoo/Insider got that information, because the source article they link cites the WSJ article and gives a timeline of “soon after”. The WSJ article itself says:
The Navy began listening for the Titan almost as soon as the sub lost communications, according to a U.S. defense official. Shortly after its disappearance, the U.S. system detected what it suspected was the sound of an implosion near the debris site discovered Thursday and reported its findings to the commander on site, U.S. defense officials said.
James Cameron has said that he heard from “the community” that the Titan was conducting an emergency ascension when it lost contact. It does at least seem plausible they knew something bad was happening, but they probably weren’t down there for hours awaiting their fate.
The main issue is that any rescue would have had to either mate another DSV to the Titan with a seal that also withstands the 4000m depth… which given it’s design, I doubt was ever possible, and...
The main issue is that any rescue would have had to either mate another DSV to the Titan with a seal that also withstands the 4000m depth… which given it’s design, I doubt was ever possible, and this method is for like big submarines that have the mating surfaces for these rescues as a part of their design. And the most common rescue methods have depth limits nowhere in the ballpark of 4000m
And the only other would amount to a “tow” to the surface, which again, given the design shortcuts taken, was likely never possible in the time frame. And the structure of the Titan very likely could not survive being towed without imploding during the process.
If the Titan was found intact with survivors, their likely only chance would have been if another submersible or ROV could untangle the Titan or otherwise help it to drop/remove any ballast that...
If the Titan was found intact with survivors, their likely only chance would have been if another submersible or ROV could untangle the Titan or otherwise help it to drop/remove any ballast that would then let it float back up to the surface on its own. These things are designed to be buoyant and held down with weights.
I read a post somewhere else stating that one submersible actually had bags full of salt strapped to it. The salt would slowly dissolve over a period of about 12 hours, after which the sub would be so buoyant that it would float back to the surface whether you wanted it to or not.
Kursk was in 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_submarine_disaster It was only 100 m down and they still couldn't rescue anyone, although the Russian government did decline all external...
It was only 100 m down and they still couldn't rescue anyone, although the Russian government did decline all external help for a long time which was probably not the best idea.
So that's twice now that an ocean vessel, with corners cut on safety features, ignored warnings which led to the loss of life of passengers in that exact spot. One named Titanic and the other...
So that's twice now that an ocean vessel, with corners cut on safety features, ignored warnings which led to the loss of life of passengers in that exact spot. One named Titanic and the other Titan. Really quite unbelievable.
While the it's probably a myth that the titanic was advertised as unsinkable by its builders, the VP of White Star Line stated it was. If that's not hubris I dunno what is.
While the it's probably a myth that the titanic was advertised as unsinkable by its builders, the VP of White Star Line stated it was.
When the New York office of the White Star Line was informed that Titanic was in trouble, White Star Line Vice President P.A.S. Franklin announced ” We place absolute confidence in the Titanic. We believe the boat is unsinkable.” By the time Franklin spoke those words Titanic was at the bottom of the ocean.
Also, I wouldn't want to name anything after the titans (in general or by name), given the last iteration of gods was the Greek gods and we all know how they played. Best to just choose another...
Also, I wouldn't want to name anything after the titans (in general or by name), given the last iteration of gods was the Greek gods and we all know how they played. Best to just choose another name altogether to avoid Poseidon's ire, right?
Official press conference just concluded. They found the nose cone and the front/rear parts of the hull and no further press conferences are scheduled. I'm honestly astonished they were even able...
Official press conference just concluded. They found the nose cone and the front/rear parts of the hull and no further press conferences are scheduled.
I'm honestly astonished they were even able to go up and down 12 times with success.
The 12 times were probably their undoing, in the end. Repeated pressure cycling causes fatigue damage by worsening existing flaws in the hull, which is likely why it failed this time instead of...
The 12 times were probably their undoing, in the end. Repeated pressure cycling causes fatigue damage by worsening existing flaws in the hull, which is likely why it failed this time instead of immediately.
Ultrasonic (UT) inspection would identify any flaws within the subsurface of any composite material. Professionally, I review UT inspections of high load/fatigue cycled composites including carbon...
Ultrasonic (UT) inspection would identify any flaws within the subsurface of any composite material.
Professionally, I review UT inspections of high load/fatigue cycled composites including carbon fiber and fiberglass.
Hindsight is 20/20 - It would have been cheap insurance.
What are the stress properties of carbon fibre compared to (say) steel? I was under the impression that it doesn't stress anything like the same way. Is there some other obvious/understood way...
What are the stress properties of carbon fibre compared to (say) steel? I was under the impression that it doesn't stress anything like the same way.
Is there some other obvious/understood way that carbon fibre fails due to stress?
It's completely different, yeah. Metals are typically what is called isotropic, which means their elastic and thermal properties are uniform in all 3 dimensions. Laminates such as carbon fiber are...
It's completely different, yeah. Metals are typically what is called isotropic, which means their elastic and thermal properties are uniform in all 3 dimensions. Laminates such as carbon fiber are anisotropic – their properties differ depending on fiber direction and through the thickness.
Failure mode is complicated and without knowing more about the structure it's hard to say. Composites are susceptible to delamination, and voids between layers of the laminate can be weak points that get worsened by fatigue and lead to failure. I mention voids specifically because that's something that could have been detected using NDE methods (non-destructive evaluation) like various types of penetrating scans.
I claim to know nothing about carbon fiber or their properties or lamination or its properties, but I would also have to assume that degradation by salt water and pressure (along with "regular"...
I claim to know nothing about carbon fiber or their properties or lamination or its properties, but I would also have to assume that degradation by salt water and pressure (along with "regular" wetting and drying of the product") might lead to making any voids worse if they existed. Salt is a really interesting compound and can do a lot of interesting things to many chemical structures.
Wait, has it been twelve? I tried looking it up but sources suggest it's made three trips since 2021. I'm curious mainly because if this was the thirteenth voyage... Yikes. I'm not superstitious,...
Wait, has it been twelve? I tried looking it up but sources suggest it's made three trips since 2021. I'm curious mainly because if this was the thirteenth voyage... Yikes. I'm not superstitious, but that would be a freaky coincidence.
It seems to have had many aborted trips, sometimes to depth. I'm not exactly sure how people are counting but do know it took one passenger (an Italian lady) four separate 'trips' before she...
It seems to have had many aborted trips, sometimes to depth.
I'm not exactly sure how people are counting but do know it took one passenger (an Italian lady) four separate 'trips' before she successfully got to see the wreck and even then the trip had significant - embarrassing - technical problems related to thrusters being installed backwards (seriously). The whole thing is featured in a documentary which really gave a sense of the extremely rudimentary operation they were running.
edit: this is the documentary, some clips of relevant sections are on Reddit today: https://vimeo.com/810451492
Do people know that the carbon fibre was bought at a discount? https://www.travelweekly.com/North-America-Travel/Mission-Titanic-part-2 The window was only rated to 1300 m, because he didn't want...
Only one thing concerned me: He said he had gotten the carbon fiber used to make the Titan at a big discount from Boeing because it was past its shelf-life for use in airplanes.
People booked on for a week's exercusion, but the round trip was supposed to take 8 hours. I am guessing those 3 trips it's made probably included going down more than one. So 12 makes sense if...
People booked on for a week's exercusion, but the round trip was supposed to take 8 hours. I am guessing those 3 trips it's made probably included going down more than one. So 12 makes sense if you go down 4 times in one week.
I've started trying to search for the history by changing the date range to only search to June 10. I saw one article mention ten dives in passing. Reading the articles from last year is eerie...
I've started trying to search for the history by changing the date range to only search to June 10. I saw one article mention ten dives in passing.
Reading the articles from last year is eerie though. I hadn't realized this was the first expedition with tourists. Seeing "fluff pieces" talk about when the tour was first announced and the light reference to them accepting "mission specialists" just feels... Odd.
There is a video on youtube from a spanish speaking guy who did it last year. Not sure in what capacity he took it, but definitely appears to be the same sub.
There is a video on youtube from a spanish speaking guy who did it last year. Not sure in what capacity he took it, but definitely appears to be the same sub.
Sorry if I'm re-posting. This article mentions the goal of raising the wreckage and analyzing what went wrong. Titan investigation: How will they find out what happened?...
Exemplary
Sorry if I'm re-posting. This article mentions the goal of raising the wreckage and analyzing what went wrong.
To answer the question of why this happened and what could have been done to prevent it, the authorities will be gathering every piece of the debris they can find, according to Ryan Ramsey, former submarine captain in Britain's Royal Navy.
Once investigators bring the pieces back up to the surface, they will look for the break structure in the carbon fibre structure, which is key to helping them understand what happened in those last moments, he says.
Each piece will be closely examined under a microscope to examine the direction of the carbon fibre filaments, looking for tears which suggest the exact place where the rupture happened.
This is an interesting update, it would be helpful to have this link edited in to the main body of the post I think. Not sure how to tag the poster to suggest this…!
This is an interesting update, it would be helpful to have this link edited in to the main body of the post I think. Not sure how to tag the poster to suggest this…!
This is a link post, not a text topic, so there is unfortunately no main text body to edit to include other links. Tildes Activity sort should still help people find the above new link though. And...
This is a link post, not a text topic, so there is unfortunately no main text body to edit to include other links. Tildes Activity sort should still help people find the above new link though. And if you feel it's an especially important contribution, you can always Exemplary label it so it catches people's eye, and rises further to the top of the comment section.
I'm hoping that analysis of what went wrong might yield some useful research for materials science. Does anyone with a bit more knowledge have any insights? I was also wondering if all the data...
I'm hoping that analysis of what went wrong might yield some useful research for materials science. Does anyone with a bit more knowledge have any insights?
I was also wondering if all the data collected during the initial search and the mapping of the debris field could be used for oceanographic research.
I have seen a lot of comments to the effect of "these rich people shouldn't have been allowed to spend this much money to go to somewhere like this", and whilst I have some sympathy for that point...
I have seen a lot of comments to the effect of "these rich people shouldn't have been allowed to spend this much money to go to somewhere like this", and whilst I have some sympathy for that point of view those aboard the Titan certainly didn't deserve to die. This whole story is first and foremost a tragedy.
Oceangate, and their mission was a worthy one. I'm a huge fan of science, history, engineering and everything that this company was trying to do. But it does seem like they acted recklessly when designing and builiding their sub - going for all the glory with none of the rigour. I hope that this story can go in the books alongside Apollo 1 and others as a cautionary tale to learn from.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. They wouldn't have died if they hadn't gotten into an uncertified, inherently unsafe experimental DSV, and while I don't know what legal framework would...
"these rich people shouldn't have been allowed to spend this much money to go to somewhere like this", and whilst I have some sympathy for that point of view those aboard the Titan certainly didn't deserve to die.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. They wouldn't have died if they hadn't gotten into an uncertified, inherently unsafe experimental DSV, and while I don't know what legal framework would have prevented them from doing so, it seems ridiculous that they did.
If only we could just fund ocean research with public money (taken from people like this), rather than research projects having to rely on dangerous gimmicks like near-abyssal tourism to keep operating.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point but those two things are (or at least should be) mutually exclusive. Those people did nothing other than exhibit poor judgement and did not deserve to die,...
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point but those two things are (or at least should be) mutually exclusive. Those people did nothing other than exhibit poor judgement and did not deserve to die, their personal wealth doesn’t really matter for this. At least I don’t see why it should. We should not tie human worth to personal wealth at either ends of the spectrum.
The "two things" in question are: these people should not have been allowed to spend $250,000 to get in an unproven, poorly designed, uncertified DSV to go sightseeing, and these people should not...
The "two things" in question are:
these people should not have been allowed to spend $250,000 to get in an unproven, poorly designed, uncertified DSV to go sightseeing, and
these people should not have died.
Those are both true, and indeed, had they been prevented from getting in the DSV, whether by taxing the fuck out of them or banning OceanGate from operating an uncertified DSV, they would not be dead.
I see, I think I did misunderstand your point then. I thought your "two things were" these people being allowed to spend the required money, and these people deserving to die The implication being...
I see, I think I did misunderstand your point then. I thought your "two things were"
these people being allowed to spend the required money, and
these people deserving to die
The implication being that them having and choosing to spend the money this way means they deserved this fate. I don't disagree that billionaires like this should be taxed more, and that OceanGate (and similar ventures) should be much more heavily regulated. I was just pushing back on a notion I've seen going around (and which I thought you were expressing) which basically boils down to "they're rich so who cares" which to me seems rather callous.
Ultimately if someone wants to build a vessel like this it's going to be hard to stop them. Even if the US, Europe, and every one of our allies all agree to require regulations, there's going to...
Ultimately if someone wants to build a vessel like this it's going to be hard to stop them. Even if the US, Europe, and every one of our allies all agree to require regulations, there's going to be some random third world country or rich island nation that doesn't. Whichever companies want to build things like this will just base themselves from that nation and now your regulations are meaningless.
At a certain point you can't stop people from killing themselves in dumb ways, that doesn't mean these people deserved to die, but sometimes you take risks that don't pan out.
I suppose the way forward is to include paths that mean they can do it. You don't ban it entirely operating out of USA and Europe, you say it's only permitted to operate after going through...
I suppose the way forward is to include paths that mean they can do it.
You don't ban it entirely operating out of USA and Europe, you say it's only permitted to operate after going through certain tests or certifications, maybe like those described in this article about Limiting Factor.
This won't stop a cowboy operating out of somewhere without such restrictions, but it might make their potential customers think twice, and mean there is a safer option they could take rather than the only other option being not doing it at all.
Oh, yeah. I mean, in the case of the oil exec I do believe that - he chose every day of his life to make the world a worse place and we are all worse off for his actions - but I wasn't expressing...
I was just pushing back on a notion I've seen going around (and which I thought you were expressing) which basically boils down to "they're rich so who cares" which to me seems rather callous.
Oh, yeah. I mean, in the case of the oil exec I do believe that - he chose every day of his life to make the world a worse place and we are all worse off for his actions - but I wasn't expressing that above.
Have you heard about the 6th guy? He was a friend of one of the passengers. He had doubts about the safety of the sub and decided not to take part. One hell of a good decision on his part.
Have you heard about the 6th guy?
He was a friend of one of the passengers. He had doubts about the safety of the sub and decided not to take part.
The guy who thought cutting corners was OK, the CEO of OceanGate, was literally on the vessel. I think most would argue that he of all people on that vessel, definitely deserved his fate. Imagine...
The guy who thought cutting corners was OK, the CEO of OceanGate, was literally on the vessel. I think most would argue that he of all people on that vessel, definitely deserved his fate. Imagine if he had sent some random pilot down with the tourists? He would be happily breathing while trying to mitigate a disaster and feign ignorance and saying how could this happen, etc.
At least no one has to listen to that fool blathering about how his super dangerous DSV was not at all dangerous, and how this was just a freak accident. He sleeps with his victims, that, out of everything else, is fair.
Ah, I’d actually like to see him alive to face the consequences. His company is fucked, people hate him, and possibly legal issues or at least all the rescue fees he’d have to pay back.
Ah, I’d actually like to see him alive to face the consequences. His company is fucked, people hate him, and possibly legal issues or at least all the rescue fees he’d have to pay back.
I want to kindly remind you some people are too rich to face consecuences. I'm not claiming that he's one of those, that he deserved to die, or that I know how the future could pan out. I didn't...
I want to kindly remind you some people are too rich to face consecuences. I'm not claiming that he's one of those, that he deserved to die, or that I know how the future could pan out.
I didn't know he was in there, so it seems he trusted that thing with his business, and with his life. He made a bet, and now no amount of money can bail him out of this.
I hope this is a wakeup call to those who oppose higher taxes for all for better funding for everything outside of the military-industrial complex. It would be for the best if we started funding...
I hope this is a wakeup call to those who oppose higher taxes for all for better funding for everything outside of the military-industrial complex. It would be for the best if we started funding better education, healthcare and all sorts of research so we can explore the ocean's depths and learn more in a safer way, just like we've been doing with space.
Dr. Robert Ballard (the man who discovered the wreck site of the Titanic) gave an interview on ABC yesterday and pointed out something I found interesting. He said the history of deep-submersible...
Dr. Robert Ballard (the man who discovered the wreck site of the Titanic) gave an interview on ABC yesterday and pointed out something I found interesting.
He said the history of deep-submersible vehicles goes all the way back to 1960. In the intervening 70 years, dozens of DSVs have conducted thousands of missions and not experienced a single lethal failure, until the Titan imploded on Sunday. James Cameron came on after and added that more time passed between the Trieste reaching the bottom of the Challenger Deep and the Titan imploding than Kittyhawk's first flight and the launch of the first Boeing 747.
How to explore the bottom of the ocean safely is a well understood problem from an engineering perspective. We have been doing it regularly for 70 years, and everyone but OceanGate has a spotless record.
An interesting related fact I dug up: DSV Alvin (the submersible Ballard used to visit the Titanic) was launched in 1964, has completed over 5,000 dives, and is still in active service to this day.
I agree, they're definitely not mutually exclusive. Any debate about the pros and cons of their decision would have carried so much more weight in the event of their safe return. The current...
I agree, they're definitely not mutually exclusive. Any debate about the pros and cons of their decision would have carried so much more weight in the event of their safe return. The current situation is a lose/lose for everyone, in particular the crew members of this sub.
I would love to see more public money spent on research of all kinds, this included. Generally I'm in favour of higher taxes, and more public spending. Unfortunatlely it seems that we live in a world where this isn't really what the majority of other people want, and I don't see that changing very quickly.
I don't think you can ever prevent something like that without turning into the ultimate nanny state. I cant help but take the stance of "so what if someone paid to go do something dangerous and...
They wouldn't have died if they hadn't gotten into an uncertified, inherently unsafe experimental DSV, and while I don't know what legal framework would have prevented them from doing so, it seems ridiculous that they did
I don't think you can ever prevent something like that without turning into the ultimate nanny state. I cant help but take the stance of "so what if someone paid to go do something dangerous and died?" That shouldn't be banned unless they are harming other members of society (or creating harm somehow), the person selling the service was negligent, or somehow it becomes extremely common despite the risks (goes back to first point).
In this case a few people died and governments spent a bunch of money searching for them. Its regrettable that they died and its even more regrettable if they weren't aware of the risks (?). As for the money spent, it provided a real world training exercise.
I would argue in this case the person selling the service was negligent. It wasn’t like no one knew how to make a submersible that goes that deep. He decided to ignore all the current wisdom on...
I would argue in this case the person selling the service was negligent. It wasn’t like no one knew how to make a submersible that goes that deep. He decided to ignore all the current wisdom on the subject.
I think this should be where government comes in. In Europe, the government is really strict on safety standards and fines companies that don't meet them. It's governments regulated. In the USA,...
I think this should be where government comes in. In Europe, the government is really strict on safety standards and fines companies that don't meet them. It's governments regulated. In the USA, it seems to be mostly 'sue companies privately if they mess up'. That's also why you have cases like the Mc Donalds hot coffee case. I reckon the families will sue OceanGate afterwards and then they will be forced to do better. I much prefer the European model.
It does appear that OceanGate is registered in the Bahamas, not the US, so that adds another layer of government (non)regulation. They don't register there just for the tax loopholes.
It does appear that OceanGate is registered in the Bahamas, not the US, so that adds another layer of government (non)regulation. They don't register there just for the tax loopholes.
I’m pretty sure ocean gate is going to be out of business after this. Even if they survive the sue fees they are now famous for their negligence causing a death and every stupid thing they’ve done...
I’m pretty sure ocean gate is going to be out of business after this. Even if they survive the sue fees they are now famous for their negligence causing a death and every stupid thing they’ve done has been wideLy publicized. Who is going to pay them enough money to go in another death trap?
The guy who used to own Segway died because he drove the Segway off a cliff while trying to demonstrate its braking system. The company still seems to be operating, though maybe they’d have had a...
The guy who used to own Segway died because he drove the Segway off a cliff while trying to demonstrate its braking system. The company still seems to be operating, though maybe they’d have had a bigger market penetration in micro-mobility instead of those dumb scooters if they hadn’t shit themselves in the. . . wheel I guess?
Yeah but that’s not as horror filled as the idea of sitting in a sub waiting to die. Until they found the debris that’s what has been on everyone’s mind when they think ocean gate.
Yeah but that’s not as horror filled as the idea of sitting in a sub waiting to die. Until they found the debris that’s what has been on everyone’s mind when they think ocean gate.
Nobody will. The problem is, other companies will just take over that market and do virtually the same thing. Apparently there is another millionaire who owns his own private sub that can go as...
Nobody will. The problem is, other companies will just take over that market and do virtually the same thing. Apparently there is another millionaire who owns his own private sub that can go as deep. It looks a tad more secure but who is to say?
Am I wrong for thinking that someone decided to do something experimental and dangerous on their own dollar, and that's fine with me? As long as they are required by law to carry enough insurance...
Am I wrong for thinking that someone decided to do something experimental and dangerous on their own dollar, and that's fine with me?
As long as they are required by law to carry enough insurance to cover possible rescue attempts and investigations, I don't really care what dangerous things people do if they're not really affecting much. People die on Everest every year. They all chose to be there, so that's fine with me too.
I'm more concerned about dangerous occupations like logging, mining, roofing, garbage collection, etc. since these are necessary services with people dying while just trying to make a living. Not trying to make a "whatabout," but I guess I'm just not seeing much of a need for government intervention in dumb recreational activities if it's just from a safety perspective. Environmental impacts would be a different story.
Yeah I think people should have the right to make those decisions, but there does need to be adequate understanding of what the externalized costs are to those to make sure that they're not...
Yeah I think people should have the right to make those decisions, but there does need to be adequate understanding of what the externalized costs are to those to make sure that they're not placing undue burdens onto the public as part of their dangerous recreational choices, like you mentioned insurance and what not to cover those. I'm fine with that as well.
I think there's always certain lines to draw in terms of what risk is acceptable to allow and who potentially becomes victimized by it. Recreational activities might be the lowest of the low in terms of what we should be concerned about, but in this case we might be singing a slightly different tune if the employee on the submersible was some ordinary employee of OceanGate rather than the CEO/Co-Founder as it would be a job that they might rely on, but even then, if they knew they were signing up to a job of piloting that type of vehicle then it's probably as fine as the others paying to be on it.
Where it gets a little trickier is something like medical testing, where you have people who could benefit from some new medical treatments that aren't approved yet, it might even be their life depends on it, and to what extent it's acceptable that people choose that risk might seem a bit different than those choosing dangerous recreational activities.
I can agree, but only with the caveat that they understand the risks they are taking. Climbers on Everest, for example, see the bodies of those who failed before them; there is no pretending their...
I can agree, but only with the caveat that they understand the risks they are taking. Climbers on Everest, for example, see the bodies of those who failed before them; there is no pretending their lives are not at high risk.
I think the CEO in this case was fully aware of the risk he was taking (after all, his company was embroiled in a lawsuit over them). I highly doubt the 19-year-old was.
I wouldn't expect you to draw a tear for someone you didn't knew, or get emotional in any way. I certainly haven't. However, I wouldn't say I'm "fine" with it in the same way I'm fine with...
I wouldn't expect you to draw a tear for someone you didn't knew, or get emotional in any way. I certainly haven't. However, I wouldn't say I'm "fine" with it in the same way I'm fine with rainbows and ice cream. Human suffering is bad even if I'm somewhat detached. It's not as if my day was suddenly ruined. Shit happens all the time. But I'm not going around saying I'm fine with it either, What would that accomplish? Street cred as an edgy dude? That would be weird.
I don't think being "fine with it" necessarily means they're indifferent to people dying, more so it's a response to the parent comment presenting a possible argument some might make Now maybe...
I don't think being "fine with it" necessarily means they're indifferent to people dying, more so it's a response to the parent comment presenting a possible argument some might make
"these rich people shouldn't have been allowed to spend this much money to go to somewhere like this"
Now maybe that remark is more for sentimental reasons about the Titanic wreckage, but it could also be taken to mean "Don't let people do dangerous things", and that's what I think the "I'm fine with it" type of response is addressing.
I'm very sorry, but I still believe stupid rich people should not suffer a horrible death. And it is perfectly possible to appreciate the stupidity of rich people without taking a ghoulish...
I'm very sorry, but I still believe stupid rich people should not suffer a horrible death. And it is perfectly possible to appreciate the stupidity of rich people without taking a ghoulish pleasure in their deaths. Not one is saying anyone should suffer for their deaths as you suffer the loss of someone you admire, bu if someone feels compelled to express that they're "fine" with human suffering, I can only conclude that I don't quite agree with the sentiment behind it.
I think you're misconstruing the "fine with it" part, because I quoted something that specifically said rich, which wasn't even my words or the words of the person who said they were fine with it....
I think you're misconstruing the "fine with it" part, because I quoted something that specifically said rich, which wasn't even my words or the words of the person who said they were fine with it. It's not about whether someone is rich, its not saying anyone deserves it.
It's about whether people have control over their own bodies and have the ability to make choices about what they do with their bodies, including participating in risky mountain climbs or getting into experimental un-certified submersibles to see things few people have ever seen in person.
Being "fine with it" in this case is expressing whether you're fine with people having the ability to control their own destiny.
You're twisting it into some nefarious thing and making people out to be evil when it's not even about that.
Yeah... That was not a good choice words at all. I don't think it's fair to say I'm twisting your words. I could certainly be more charitable, but something about saying "I'm fine" right after the...
Yeah... That was not a good choice words at all. I don't think it's fair to say I'm twisting your words. I could certainly be more charitable, but something about saying "I'm fine" right after the tragical death of five people doesn't sit well with me. I don't see how you can salvage an argument from that.
If all you do is read the words "fine with it" and don't look at the full context, then yes that might be the takeaway, but the context surrounding those words made it fairly clear that it wasn't...
If all you do is read the words "fine with it" and don't look at the full context, then yes that might be the takeaway, but the context surrounding those words made it fairly clear that it wasn't about taking pleasure in the deaths of others.
You are only looking at the logic of it. There's more to conversation than logic. The top reaction to the death of five people was to essentially state that they are okay with it potentially...
You are only looking at the logic of it. There's more to conversation than logic. The top reaction to the death of five people was to essentially state that they are okay with it potentially happening again. Time, rhetoric, and context matters. It's one thing to not care, it's another entirely to dismiss human suffering that recently happened to defend an abstract point.
Which is what the initial comment did.
I understand it was not your intention, but that's what the words you wrote accomplished.
And to be clear, the initial comment started with a question.
There are many insensitive comments about that news, but I specifically answered to this because it asked for an opinion.
"Fine" as in, I don't think we really need to enact policies as a society about these activities, other than account for any damage they cause. Not talking about emotions. These people are doing...
"Fine" as in, I don't think we really need to enact policies as a society about these activities, other than account for any damage they cause. Not talking about emotions.
These people are doing dangerous things because they are dangerous. The danger is part of the appeal. Some people are suggesting that they should not have been allowed to do it. I am fine with consenting adults doing what they want, even if it's dangerous. The loss of life is tragic, but that's the kind of activity they chose to do.
Also, maybe we are defining "fine" differently. I'm using it as meaning I accept it, but I don't feel good about it. Maybe you were thinking of the more traditional definition of equivalent to "good". I wouldn't describe rainbows and ice cream as "fine" unless I were in a bad mood.
It's going to make an excellent podcast - not just this incident but an investigation into the company, the CEO, the Titanic tourism industry. And also all of the lawsuits to come. There is a lot...
It's going to make an excellent podcast - not just this incident but an investigation into the company, the CEO, the Titanic tourism industry. And also all of the lawsuits to come. There is a lot of gold to mine with this story. I for one am interestedin hearing why OceanGate waited 8 hours to report them missing. I suspect they were getting rid of evidence of negligence (deleting emails, trashinghard drives, etc.). (Sorry if this sounds morbid. ETA: I would've preferred if they were somehow rescued. )
Earlier, my parents were talking to me about the submarine incident. The worst situation I heard was that they would be slowly suffocating, and the room would be full of the stench of excrement...
Earlier, my parents were talking to me about the submarine incident. The worst situation I heard was that they would be slowly suffocating, and the room would be full of the stench of excrement and piss. As well as body odour and the like.
So if an implosion did happen, I do agree it was the most merciful death any of the passengers would have.
I don't think it would just be limited to just excrement, piss and body odor. In a situation where oxygen is running out I think it would be very likely for one of the passengers to try to murder...
I don't think it would just be limited to just excrement, piss and body odor. In a situation where oxygen is running out I think it would be very likely for one of the passengers to try to murder one (or more) of the others in order to preserve oxygen. Imagine being locked up in a cylinder with four other people all desperate to live. If you have 90 hours of air with five people you probably have like 110 hours for four people and maybe 150 for three…
A quick and sudden death by implosion would most definitely be my choice (not that I would ever step foot inside a death trap like this…).
Not saying it couldn't happen, but it sounds a little more like drama people pick up from watching too much movies/tv. You're talking 20-40 hours tops maybe, and the chance that you'll even be...
I don't think it would just be limited to just excrement, piss and body odor. In a situation where oxygen is running out I think it would be very likely for one of the passengers to try to murder one (or more) of the others in order to preserve oxygen. Imagine being locked up in a cylinder with four other people all desperate to live. If you have 90 hours of air with five people you probably have like 110 hours for four people and maybe 150 for three…
Not saying it couldn't happen, but it sounds a little more like drama people pick up from watching too much movies/tv. You're talking 20-40 hours tops maybe, and the chance that you'll even be rescued is fucking slim to none as it is no matter the extra hours. Unless they had floated back up to the surface, they had such slim odds.
Then in the miraculous event they somehow got rescued, they'd be murderers. It's in international waters but I don't know if that would protect them from prosecution.
There's also the possibility that even if they didn't consider their chances of rescue to be that slim, they would have made their chances worse by attempting to murder people in there, using up more oxygen fighting people and possibly ending up dead themselves.
"very likely one for one of the passengers to try to murder" seems totally unrealistic.
I'm glad we figured out what happened to them. And it's good to know they likely didn't suffer for a long time down there. I've seen too many people all over the internet with a lack of empathy...
I'm glad we figured out what happened to them. And it's good to know they likely didn't suffer for a long time down there. I've seen too many people all over the internet with a lack of empathy towards their fellow human beings because they're rich or something. It's been pretty gross to see.
The lack of empathy has been astounding - the memes and jokes at the expense of the passengers were disgusting. I personally had held out hope that the five people aboard would be found alive,...
The lack of empathy has been astounding - the memes and jokes at the expense of the passengers were disgusting.
I personally had held out hope that the five people aboard would be found alive, until this morning when they were likely to run out of oxygen. Knowing they likely didn't suffer or even realize there was a problem is the most merciful outcome to this whole tragedy.
From what I read, he still signed the documents that mentioned the risk of death and had the risk explained to him but his father was pushing for him to do it when he was still scared about it....
From what I read, he still signed the documents that mentioned the risk of death and had the risk explained to him but his father was pushing for him to do it when he was still scared about it. Regardless, people are dead and it's not a good thing.
I think the joking is a reaction to how horrifying this is. The horror is surprisingly accessible for people to grasp despite how unusual the circumstances. One can think about the various ways...
I think the joking is a reaction to how horrifying this is. The horror is surprisingly accessible for people to grasp despite how unusual the circumstances. One can think about the various ways they could die (running out of oxygen but carbon dioxide still being removed, running out of oxygen but Co2 scrubbers stop working, hull breach and implosion, someone murdering the others, stuck at the bottom, able to float to the top but can't get rescued, freezing to death, dehydration, etc.). All the options horrible. The only thing to give some relief is gallows humor. It's a very human reaction.
I agree that's part of it. But I've seen a ton of memes and reactions that basically amount to nothing but "Ha! Billionaires dead!" That's more of a bad reaction based on political propaganda than...
I agree that's part of it. But I've seen a ton of memes and reactions that basically amount to nothing but "Ha! Billionaires dead!" That's more of a bad reaction based on political propaganda than it is a coping thing for a bad situation. I've seen people outright say in the wake of this that it's good rich people died. And even if you hate the rich, they have families.
I'm perfectly fine with some memes and dark humor. Just depends on the context to me.
Same here. I am on the verge of unfriending a facebook friend I otherwise get on well with online. Her jokes are specifically aimed at them being rich, and after just making a comment basically...
Same here. I am on the verge of unfriending a facebook friend I otherwise get on well with online. Her jokes are specifically aimed at them being rich, and after just making a comment basically saying 'Please don't do this, people died, it's not funny' her response was to ignore me and post more. The latest was a meme basically saying that she shouldn't have empathy for them because they don't have empathy for anybody else.
I have socialist views and hate the level of wealth inequality, she is to the level of basically wanting communism. She is otherwise staunchly pro-lgbt and anti-racism and the rest so I was expecting her to have empathy but apparently she is so extreme that empathy just doesn't stretch to rich folks.
My dad died last year, I wouldn't wish that feeling on anyone. I can't imagine the agony of losing a child or a husband. The idea of laughing at that feeling just because someone is rich is so cruel to me.
I'm very pro-capitalist and conservative when it comes to economic issues (but progressive on most social issues) but I have a lot of super progressive and socialist friends. I'd say the majority...
I'm very pro-capitalist and conservative when it comes to economic issues (but progressive on most social issues) but I have a lot of super progressive and socialist friends. I'd say the majority have been pretty good about it on Facebook but there have definitely been a few like the friend you're describing. I try not to get too mad though, this behavior is not exclusive to any one "side". People lack empathy online in general and it's kind of a problem.
I also agree with what your saying. It might not simply be class warfare, though. It's kind of the flipside of finding the horror relatable - being a billionaire is not relatable for the vast...
I also agree with what your saying. It might not simply be class warfare, though. It's kind of the flipside of finding the horror relatable - being a billionaire is not relatable for the vast majority of people. Saying billionaires deserve this fate may be a coping mechanism- "I wouldn't be so foolish as this person if I had billions of dollars." Sort of like when someone learns a person died of lung cancer. The first question almost invariably is "Did they smoke?" People want to hear that they smoked two packs a day so that they can feel like they are not at risk. They don't want to hear that the person never smoked. Same as they don't want to hear that the 19 year old wasn't a billionaire and neither was the scientist who was on board. ETA: In other words,, it's a way to pit distance between them and the horror (I think). I may be giving people too much credit.
Agreed. It's not like I don't understand it, in a sense - "eat the rich" and all that - but all I can think about when reading about stuff like this is the human aspect. The thought of suffocating...
Agreed. It's not like I don't understand it, in a sense - "eat the rich" and all that - but all I can think about when reading about stuff like this is the human aspect. The thought of suffocating in such a tiny, cramped, dark space at the bottom of the ocean isn't something I'd wish on anyone, and it boggles my mind to see people openly joking about it so callously.
I am with you in the jokes. Just wanted to mention the thoughts you described, they didn't suffer that faith. Their deaths were far more humane, thank god.
I am with you in the jokes. Just wanted to mention the thoughts you described, they didn't suffer that faith. Their deaths were far more humane, thank god.
I just fundamentally can't get on board with the schadenfreude part of that. I don't know how best to put it into words, either - it's just at complete odds with my values. And to be clear, I'm...
I just fundamentally can't get on board with the schadenfreude part of that. I don't know how best to put it into words, either - it's just at complete odds with my values. And to be clear, I'm not advocating for sympathy towards hyper-billionaires here, either - I'm sure their fortunes are worth a hell of a lot more to them than any sympathy I could offer.
I should also probably clarify/correct myself in saying that off-colour humour doesn't bother me in principle - I've got a pretty dark sense of humour myself, and I've chuckled more than I'd care to admit at some of the memes going around - but I feel like 1) there's a time and place for that kind of humour, and it's usually not public, especially so soon after the fact, and 2) there's a fine line between "good-natured" dark humour (for lack of a better term) and being outright malicious, and a disturbing amount of the reactions I've been seeing are too close to the latter for my tastes.
For better or worse, I'm a very deeply empathic person, and I can't control it - even if we're talking about objectively terrible people (which is a can of worms I'm loath to open on anyone who's recently deceased) my focus always ends up on "a person with family and friends has died". I just can't get past that hurdle, and I don't understand how other people can.
“there's a time and place for that kind of humour, and it's usually not public” This is a key point for me. I can’t help but think about their families and friends, and how they’d feel if they...
“there's a time and place for that kind of humour, and it's usually not public”
This is a key point for me. I can’t help but think about their families and friends, and how they’d feel if they came across some of these internet threads. How unbearably distressing that would be
As an engineer, there is definitely some schadenfreude going on. It's a big, continuous fight within manufacturing industries to get people to take safety seriously both in practice and in actual...
As an engineer, there is definitely some schadenfreude going on. It's a big, continuous fight within manufacturing industries to get people to take safety seriously both in practice and in actual company dedication ($$$/resources). A rich dude CEO publicly trashing safety regulations, good engineering, and good safety practices over and over after firing a dude concerned with safety of this very thing getting the entirely predictable results of his philosophy is probably the best possible way to repair the damage he has caused to society by continually badmouthing the regs/practices.
It's tragic because he took a bunch of innocent people down with him.
I see what you're getting at, and while I don't like saying it, I can't really disagree, either. Thing is - and I'm sure my tune would be at least a bit different if I were in the field myself - I...
I see what you're getting at, and while I don't like saying it, I can't really disagree, either. Thing is - and I'm sure my tune would be at least a bit different if I were in the field myself - I still can't relate to "schadenfreude" in this context. More than anything, it just makes me upset - sad that other people end up getting caught up in the matter and either taking the blame or suffering in some other way for it (death, injury, etc.), and angry that somehow, no matter how many times something like this happens, there are people who just can't get it through their heads that neglecting safety is going to lead to tragedy.
"It sucks" feels like a pretty massive understatement, but... man, it sucks.
A big subset of the memes, jokes, and comments I'm seeing on SM are from engineers. The barbs are focused in the CEO and the company and their cavalier attitude towards safety, certifications, and...
A big subset of the memes, jokes, and comments I'm seeing on SM are from engineers. The barbs are focused in the CEO and the company and their cavalier attitude towards safety, certifications, and regulations. I have the sense that they are letting out a lot of (justified) hidden frustrations. I'm not seeing them gleeful that the passengers died but they are, let's say, neutral about the CEO dying.
ETA: Some grad student is going to have a lot of fun parsing all of these.memes and gifs for all of their meanings.
I have had this debate with people on reddit many times before, because so many people blame the rich for the existance of the poor. The rich don't set minimum wages, governments do. The rich...
I have had this debate with people on reddit many times before, because so many people blame the rich for the existance of the poor.
The rich don't set minimum wages, governments do.
The rich don't set tax brackets, government's do.
The rich didn't decide to let people die of treatable conditions, the government decided healthcare is something they didn't need to provide for free.
I personally care about charity and I think wealth should be shared if you can, and it's selfish to go see the titanic when you could have donated that to build affordable housing for folks. I think that's shitty. But I don't think we should go that hard on folks just because they are shitty.
I fundamentally don't understand how some of the same people screaming EAT THE RICH are also totally fine and accepting the same government making you starve. There are people who are making fun of a 19 year old dying under sea and see nothing wrong with it, simply because he was born in a fundamentally broken system. I think it's time we eat the politics not the rich.
Who do you think has tons of influence over the politicians? Who do you think uses their money, power, and influence to break the system? It's easy to understand if you're willing to accept the...
Who do you think has tons of influence over the politicians? Who do you think uses their money, power, and influence to break the system?
It's easy to understand if you're willing to accept the evidence.
Corporations and rich people fight against minimum wage increases, downplay COVID and advocate for "back to normal" while taking precautions and treatments not available to most, lobby and vote...
Corporations and rich people fight against minimum wage increases, downplay COVID and advocate for "back to normal" while taking precautions and treatments not available to most, lobby and vote against taxes that would benefit us all, hinder climate change efforts while contributing massively to CO2 emissions, and force workers to rely on benefits to subsidize their low wages while also sabotaging those benefits.
They do all of this by donating millions to candidates that will pass laws in their favor, because it makes them more money.
The 19 year old never had a chance to get free of the system he was born into, and it's indeed sad. But 40, 50, 80 year old billionaires are ruining the world and rigging politics to do it. You can't "eat the politics" without removing billionaires from the equation somehow. (Getting rid of Citizens United would be a start.)
Unfortunately, this is just how the Internet is. The surface web is an escape from the world, into something more controllable. American mass media outlets tend to be more left than right, maybe...
I've seen too many people all over the internet with a lack of empathy towards their fellow human beings because they're rich or something. It's been pretty gross to see.
Unfortunately, this is just how the Internet is. The surface web is an escape from the world, into something more controllable. American mass media outlets tend to be more left than right, maybe out of selection bias or passivity. Twitter, in spite of its mismanagement and ethical problems to put it very lightly, is still left-leaning and even horribly radical at points. YouTube tends to be that way too. Social media has cultivated "slacktivists" who think we should eat the rich, tax the rich, etc. Yet do nothing and instead flaunt the "privilege" they so criticise other people for.
Memes are often a reaction against mass media, it is a news media outlet if you think about it that way. A lot of users communicate ideas, concepts, et cetera that way. Mass communication.
I am openly anti-capitalist. To be frank, I am not happy about what has happened nor do I find this hilarious. I don't care all that much. Doom is an inherent problem to mass media cos it sells. For better or worse, it's better to prioritise your own life than live in everyone else's. I did hope that they would live, yet not everything works out.
You could argue either point. If the passengers did not go on the vessel, they wouldn't be in the implosion. If they didn't give their money to OceanGate, less income for them. Albeit small and insignificant, less capital is a pressure point. Cutting corners is often a symptom of for-profit corporations wanting to increase net profit. Wealth is the easiest way to obtain power. Power has been normalised for eons. That's why the British monarchy, w virtually no political say in Parliament, are still icons despite having been a part of various crimes against humanity. That's why there's no sympathy with anyone who is wealthy. We've always let it slide forever. Often, the law doesn't apply to these people either. Why else would the most realistic charge be criminal negligence instead of manslaughter?
Could I reasonably prove this w evidence? Probably not. I don't know any wealthy people, cause they're always hanging out within their own communities. And given the unending scandals and controversies with major players, you know no one is going to be honest. Class is class, and that often means playing chess. That is politics.
Yet, not every wealthy individual is a bad person at their core. Yeah, the West was built on exploitation, genocide, corruption and the like. Yeah, all of us are furthering this current system and are responsible to varying degrees. But whatever. What is often the right thing to do is to be kind. Love is the direct opposite to hate. Hate begets hate, we see that on the Internet.
What is really happening is the paradox of luck. If you could just bank right, you get every ball in the hole and you save the world! Not possible.
You made perfect sense. Thanks for your reply. It was really well thought out. I'm very much pro-capitalist and not leftist when it comes to economic matters personally. But I try as a rule not to...
You made perfect sense. Thanks for your reply. It was really well thought out. I'm very much pro-capitalist and not leftist when it comes to economic matters personally. But I try as a rule not to cheer for anyone's death even if I vehemently disagree with them or thought they were an awful force upon the world. I even thought the celebration of Saddam and Bin Laden's deaths were disgusting tbh. Awful human beings, but I don't find cheering for the death of another a good or pleasant thing.
And I'll say, I'm okay with memes in general. Even for events like this right after they happen. Dark humor is good at helping people cope and can be fun. But some people are using the memes to dehumanize and that's what's gross to me.
This is an awful tragedy, but I have to ask: how long before another sub is created for rich people to go down and view both wreckages, the Titanic and the Titan? And then how long before that sub...
This is an awful tragedy, but I have to ask: how long before another sub is created for rich people to go down and view both wreckages, the Titanic and the Titan?
And then how long before that sub implodes as well, leaving a third wreckages and the cycle repeats...
There are cruises that are still selling submarine experiences, albeit only to 300 m and not to mass grave sites. https://www.seabourn.com/en_US/experience/onboard-activities/activity/submarines.html
There are cruises that are still selling submarine experiences, albeit only to 300 m and not to mass grave sites.
It’s a bit unfair to call them stupid for this. We all put our faith in companies to keep us safe. Every time we get in a car or, more comparable, an aeroplane we have trusted that company to make...
It’s a bit unfair to call them stupid for this. We all put our faith in companies to keep us safe. Every time we get in a car or, more comparable, an aeroplane we have trusted that company to make and maintain a machine which will keep us safe on our journey. This might be a less common form of travel but it had been down before with no issues; they could reasonably believe this would be the same. The blame is entirely on the company here
This company spent a lot of time publicly bragging about cutting corners and macgyvering their submarine together. I think it's fair to question the judgement of the people who saw that and...
This company spent a lot of time publicly bragging about cutting corners and macgyvering their submarine together. I think it's fair to question the judgement of the people who saw that and thought "yes, I'll get in this machine and go to one of the most inhospitable locations on the planet".
I feel there is a wide difference between respectfully questioning someone’s judgement and outright calling them stupid. Stupid has much more negative connotations and is derisive. I acknowledge...
I feel there is a wide difference between respectfully questioning someone’s judgement and outright calling them stupid. Stupid has much more negative connotations and is derisive. I acknowledge that I may be niggling about semantics here.
I have read news stories about airline companies cutting corners and yet these companies do not go out of business. People still fly with them every day. These people made a risk assessment, which was admittedly probably skewed by them wanting to be part of an exclusive club, and it didn’t work out in their favour this time. I think they were maybe naive, too trusting, too cocky and/or suffering from hubris but I don’t think any of that is worthy of calling them stupid.
Fair points all around. I think a lot of the hate these people are receiving is because they're a sort of proxy for rich people doing rich people things. The hoi polloi, with our ever-widening...
Fair points all around. I think a lot of the hate these people are receiving is because they're a sort of proxy for rich people doing rich people things. The hoi polloi, with our ever-widening wealth inequality, see an easy target to take out some of that anger.
I'm not making a judgement on the morality of that position, just observing that it's a factor.
I'm in your camp. It's interesting to hear the anti-rich talk. It has been increasing on social media over the past year or so. It's kind of a shift in the culture - from worshipping the wealthy...
I'm in your camp. It's interesting to hear the anti-rich talk. It has been increasing on social media over the past year or so. It's kind of a shift in the culture - from worshipping the wealthy to mocking them. I wonder if this shift in sentiment has broader implications.
In a scary (to me) scenario, my local home community in an old town downtown is having some signs going up about saving single family home zoning. I am all for new zoning and more walkable cities...
In a scary (to me) scenario, my local home community in an old town downtown is having some signs going up about saving single family home zoning. I am all for new zoning and more walkable cities and biking. However breaking single family homes in a small area into rental units changes a neighborhood. I have reservations as we have a college and other college towns nearby the houses are all just rentals that are empty all summer and no real community exists.
Before I left Reddit the local subreddit seemed to have a view that basically anyone who owned a house downtown was rich and therefore a pretty crappy person. There was no difference in the 1% rich and a person who bought a house 25 years ago before any housing price boom. Just the haves and the have nots and owning a house was enough to be on the bad side.
I am over 50 and this was one of the things that recently made me think Reddit was skewing too young for me to even stay around.
The claim I was responding to was that anyone owning a single family home was a millionaire. You don't have to be a millionaire to inherit a house. It's common to inherit a house from a deceased...
The claim I was responding to was that anyone owning a single family home was a millionaire. You don't have to be a millionaire to inherit a house. It's common to inherit a house from a deceased parent or other family member. Young people might not have had any relative die yet.
I actually almost included that in my reply to you, I think that’s absolutely correct. I won’t pretend I didn’t have some of the same thoughts cross my mind as a knee-jerk reaction, but I can also...
I actually almost included that in my reply to you, I think that’s absolutely correct. I won’t pretend I didn’t have some of the same thoughts cross my mind as a knee-jerk reaction, but I can also see how they aren’t all that different to anyone else doing an extreme sport, and I wouldn’t call them stupid for making the risk assessments they do (I might think they’re entirely mad to want to put themselves in that danger, but that’s slightly different)
Airplanes are safe because the industry is regulated to the Nth degree. Oceangate went out of their way to ensure they didn't have to pass inspection or otherwise submit to regulation. I get on an...
Airplanes are safe because the industry is regulated to the Nth degree. Oceangate went out of their way to ensure they didn't have to pass inspection or otherwise submit to regulation.
I get on an American Airlines plane without asking any questions because I know there is no way that plane is allowed to operate if it has not been properly inspected and maintained.
The dudes in this propane tank with a window had no such assurances and I think it's fair to take the position of: you knowingly got into a machine that had a high risk of killing you, and it killed you.
I don't think it's that simple. They haven't necessarily heard all angles, they've heard the CEO's spiel about how it's an experimental vessel and it's "not possible to certify it with current...
I don't think it's that simple.
They haven't necessarily heard all angles, they've heard the CEO's spiel about how it's an experimental vessel and it's "not possible to certify it with current rigid testing standards that simply aren't designed for this type of vessel". They've heard him say that nonetheless they "undergo stringent testing", and can even point to the years of delays getting their commercial Titanic visiting trips started caused by an earlier version of the design failing testing "not meeting the high standards they had set" and needing to replace the hull with a stronger design, which has been proven repeatedly.
Maybe there was more diligence the passengers could have done, but they probably aren't material science experts or necessarily aware of the problems caused by cyclic pressurisation on the structure of carbon composites (can any of us say we were this time last week?) to identify the risk themselves. You naturally believe companies when they say they it's been designed by experts, claim it's been thoroughly tested and proven safe. Even if they sought external advice, it can still be hard to sway someone away from the opinion of a good talker, especially if they've made a good connection to them. Not to mention that the CEO believes every word and can argue it passionately - and they know he believes it because he's going down with them.
(Quotes are my attempt to suggest how the facts could be spun in their favour, not direct quotes from the company or CEO).
I’m not saying they weren’t risky or that you couldn’t expect the possibility of this outcome. I just think it’s unnecessarily denigrating to call them stupid. Yes the airline industry is very...
I’m not saying they weren’t risky or that you couldn’t expect the possibility of this outcome. I just think it’s unnecessarily denigrating to call them stupid.
Yes the airline industry is very heavily regulated but I’ve seen more than one article talking about airlines skipping required maintenance. We still all kind of trust that the company wouldn’t do something unsafe, don’t we? We assume that they wouldn’t want the bad PR of a crash so of course they’re confident in their crafts. I have to think similar thoughts occurred to these people - remember one of them was the CEO of the company; that would give me a lot of confidence in the trip if I had been considering it and I think most people would say the same
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings From my understanding of these incidents, Boeing was responding to pressure from Airbus and so retrofitted their earlier plane to have...
From my understanding of these incidents, Boeing was responding to pressure from Airbus and so retrofitted their earlier plane to have larger jets. Without having clearance below the hull to do so, they had to be mounted further forwards. This caused problems with stability that were addressed in the flight systems.
Internal Boeing documents and interviews with former Federal Aviation Administration officials and congressional investigators reveal how competitive pressures influenced the efforts to bring the 737 Max to market. And The Times’s investigation details how an essential software system known as MCAS was implemented with insufficient oversight and inadequate pilot training.
If your airplane ticket comes with a death waiver saying that it is uncertified and experimental, you probably shouldn't get on that airplane Same goes for submarines
If your airplane ticket comes with a death waiver saying that it is uncertified and experimental, you probably shouldn't get on that airplane
This is my stance too. I’ve signed and asked people to sign many waivers talking about risk of death and not suing for SCUBA dives. The vast majority of those were not particularly risky dives....
This is my stance too. I’ve signed and asked people to sign many waivers talking about risk of death and not suing for SCUBA dives. The vast majority of those were not particularly risky dives. People expect that language when they’re doing a more extreme sport and it doesn’t always translate to the actual level of risk
The ceo was on that sub! That wouldn’t have given you some confidence?! I dunno man, I think it’s easy to label them stupid because that lets us say “I would never make this dumb choice” but I bet...
The ceo was on that sub! That wouldn’t have given you some confidence?! I dunno man, I think it’s easy to label them stupid because that lets us say “I would never make this dumb choice” but I bet we’ve all made dumb choices that we were just lucky didn’t result in harm. This wasn’t the Titans maiden voyage. The other people made risky decisions to be on it, too, but they were fine. I think there’s a little lack of empathy, here, to blame them entirely
That person doesn't want to go to prison. If not for manslaughter (or would it be murder? Because of the amount of people that died), it is going to be criminal negligence because of the cost...
Can't believe the co-founder said we should learn from what happened and move forward.....
That person doesn't want to go to prison. If not for manslaughter (or would it be murder? Because of the amount of people that died), it is going to be criminal negligence because of the cost cutting that went into the safety features of the sub that they fucking knew this was going to cause safety issues because of the whistle blower and the former captain, both of whom they fired because of it. I would be more shocked that there is not a case being built against them.
I’m not sure waivers would help in this case. Im not a lawyer and would appreciate being corrected if I’m wrong here, but I think waivers are solid for things like “if you don’t disclose a medical...
I’m not sure waivers would help in this case. Im not a lawyer and would appreciate being corrected if I’m wrong here, but I think waivers are solid for things like “if you don’t disclose a medical issue that would preclude you going on the trip and something happens to you, it’s not our fault” but not “we didn’t do sufficient safety checks and you can’t sue us for that”
The waivers mentioned that the vessel was uncertified and experimental, that definitely implies that anyone signing them knows there's a risk. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit but I'd be surprised...
The waivers mentioned that the vessel was uncertified and experimental, that definitely implies that anyone signing them knows there's a risk. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit but I'd be surprised if it went anywhere
oops! I didn't even realize what I did there. I think we're all conditioned to have this jokey trauma response at this point. I do feel for the 19-year-old, and slightly less for the others aside...
oops! I didn't even realize what I did there.
I think we're all conditioned to have this jokey trauma response at this point. I do feel for the 19-year-old, and slightly less for the others aside from the CEO. I have no sympathy for him.
According to this article, it is going to be the US because of the fact that it involved American Citizens. And to make it more fun, it is going to be a Federal case, meaning the FBI is going to...
According to this article, it is going to be the US because of the fact that it involved American Citizens. And to make it more fun, it is going to be a Federal case, meaning the FBI is going to be involved. In other cases, not involving Americans, it is the countries whose flags are flown on those ships.
And I agree with what @cuwabren had said, I really do hope that the families just band together and just hire an entire team of the top of the line lawyers (which they can afford, it would just make more sense to do a gigantic "fuck you" to OceanGate and its founders, than to go on their own) to make the waivers null and void and to sue them. I just really want these families to get some sort of closure.
That's good to know. I will be interested to see if anything actually comes of it, especially jail time, given this is going to be tried in the US, famously a two-tiered justice system for those...
That's good to know. I will be interested to see if anything actually comes of it, especially jail time, given this is going to be tried in the US, famously a two-tiered justice system for those with money and those without.
I know what you mean. But considering how big this got, something might come out of it. But, I just don't know. I just feel like that paying that much money for something they should have the...
I know what you mean. But considering how big this got, something might come out of it. But, I just don't know. I just feel like that paying that much money for something they should have the decency to have the safest as possible option do it, but no, the fuckers, I mean, the founders, got greedy and cut corners. I just hope that the families can sue them for what they are worth, so that the founders can't afford the lawyers that they could at the present.
The person most responsible for this, the founder and CEO, has died with the sub, which is more than paying for his crimes. The cofounder I am honestly not sure. He hasn't been involved with the...
The person most responsible for this, the founder and CEO, has died with the sub, which is more than paying for his crimes.
The cofounder I am honestly not sure. He hasn't been involved with the running of the company for 10 years. Owners or founders often don't handle the day to day, some do but most leave it to the CEO. So it's totally plausible that he had never been involved in the building of this sub and didn't know much at all, or anything, about it.
There will definitely be some education taking place, once the dust (debris?) settles and the families of the dead start looking hard at the safety protocols and questionable decisions made by the...
There will definitely be some education taking place, once the dust (debris?) settles and the families of the dead start looking hard at the safety protocols and questionable decisions made by the company. I guess we'll need to decide what to call a scandal and investigation involving a company whose name already ends in -gate.
WASHINGTON—A top secret U.S. Navy acoustic detection system designed to spot enemy submarines first heard the Titan sub implosion hours after the submersible began its mission, officials involved in the search said.
The Navy began listening for the Titan almost as soon as the sub lost communications, according to a U.S. defense official. Shortly after its disappearance, the U.S. system detected what it suspected was the sound of an implosion near the debris site discovered Thursday and reported its findings to the commander on site, U.S. defense officials said.
“The U.S. Navy conducted an analysis of acoustic data and detected an anomaly consistent with an implosion or explosion in the general vicinity of where the Titan submersible was operating when communications were lost,” a senior U.S. Navy official told The Wall Street Journal in a statement. “While not definitive, this information was immediately shared with the Incident Commander to assist with the ongoing search and rescue mission.”
The Navy asked that the specific system used not be named, citing national security concerns.
Wait. I thought that the company didn’t notify anyone until about 8 hours after they lost contact? Does this mean they possibly were stuck down there and imploded while being stuck?
Wait. I thought that the company didn’t notify anyone until about 8 hours after they lost contact? Does this mean they possibly were stuck down there and imploded while being stuck?
I believe they immediately reported the lost contact, but the actual search and rescue didn’t start until several hours after the expected resurface time. This somewhat makes sense given the...
I believe they immediately reported the lost contact, but the actual search and rescue didn’t start until several hours after the expected resurface time. This somewhat makes sense given the history of lost comms and late resurfaces.
I'm relieved that their death was instantaneous, the prospect of them slowly suffocating to death due to CO2 poisoning at the bottom of the ocean terrified me, and to be quite honest, actually...
I'm relieved that their death was instantaneous, the prospect of them slowly suffocating to death due to CO2 poisoning at the bottom of the ocean terrified me, and to be quite honest, actually rescuing them in the time that we had was simply never going to happen short of a miracle less likely to happen than winning the lottery.
So apparently on a previous dive they had a thruster installed in reverse. They did some preliminary testing near the surface, couldn't figure out what was causing the problem, and did the full...
So apparently on a previous dive they had a thruster installed in reverse. They did some preliminary testing near the surface, couldn't figure out what was causing the problem, and did the full dive anyway.
This is absolutely shameful. On drones (quadcopters) if you have a motor installed/configured with the wrong rotation it is blatantly obvious what is wrong and is a quick fix. The drone won't fly, it will just flip over when you increase the throttle. With the DSV apparently it was spinning/going in circles...a normal person's intuition would be to assume the problem is with the thrusters. Either one is not outputting the same thrust as the other, or they are installed incorrectly.
On a drone you can either swap the motor lead connections, or in software update the electronic speed controller firmware to run the motor in the opposite direction. It blows my mind that they didn't try the equivalent with the DSV.
To top it all off, the CEO couldn't even remember how the controls were bound to the sticks on the high quality bluetooth Logitech controller. Can you imagine an airplane pilot forgetting where the throttle is, or which directions on the stick/rudder control roll, yaw, and pitch????
Just a friendly tip. Something like this should probably be submitted as a top level comment in one of the other recent threads (1, 2) on this topic. Just helps people who might not be interested...
Just a friendly tip. Something like this should probably be submitted as a top level comment in one of the other recent threads (1, 2) on this topic. Just helps people who might not be interested avoiding having their front page flooded.
I'm not sure that I agree here. The "Titanic tourboat goes missing" thread is old news to me. If it were bumped up to the top by new replies, I would assume it is just more back & forth from users...
I'm not sure that I agree here. The "Titanic tourboat goes missing" thread is old news to me. If it were bumped up to the top by new replies, I would assume it is just more back & forth from users about some detail. But this declaration that they're believed to be dead by S&R is new and different and interesting. It deserves more than just a bump in a days-old topic.
I know tildes users like to "keep one topic to a single thread" more than redditfugees, Maybe it would work better if OP or by some other method you could update the post title to reflect the...
I know tildes users like to "keep one topic to a single thread" more than redditfugees, Maybe it would work better if OP or by some other method you could update the post title to reflect the news, similar to a traditional forum.
I agree with you here. Major breaking news should have its own post. But this discussion makes me think of the discussions had recently in Deimos' post about groups. Maybe setting up a ~breaking...
I agree with you here. Major breaking news should have its own post. But this discussion makes me think of the discussions had recently in Deimos' post about groups. Maybe setting up a ~breaking group (could be ~news.breaking) for breaking news that doesn't show in user feeds by default (you have to manually subscribe) that can surface up to the ~news group if it's important enough.
But I do think this kind of friction between some users who don't want to see multiple posts about the same thing and people who want to share a bunch of news about an event will continue to grow as the site gets more active and bigger unless something is done to change how groups and the home feed work.
I think the best solution would simply be moderators being able to merge threads. Unlike Reddit, there's nothing inherent to Tildes that requires a new topic to sustain discussion.
I think the best solution would simply be moderators being able to merge threads. Unlike Reddit, there's nothing inherent to Tildes that requires a new topic to sustain discussion.
Fair point about the older topic. Personally, I think think one new topic about today’s developments is enough, although I might be more bothered by topic spam than most.
Fair point about the older topic. Personally, I think think one new topic about today’s developments is enough, although I might be more bothered by topic spam than most.
As a new user to the site, I've been trying to follow ongoing developments of the Greece boat tragedy. The submarine story has so completely dominated news cycles I've been really struggling to...
As a new user to the site, I've been trying to follow ongoing developments of the Greece boat tragedy. The submarine story has so completely dominated news cycles I've been really struggling to find places to follow it.
If I wanted to find stories like that on tildes what is the best way to go about it? Click on the news group and scroll through it? Searching can always be a bit hit and miss relying on you knowing the right search term it might have been submitted under. On tildes instead of new threads related to its developments, should I expect them to be submitted in a much earlier thread?
Scrolling ~news in activity sort is probably the fastest. You'll see bumped old threads and new threads that way. The search is also quite good, I believe it's a full text search (comments, tags,...
On tildes instead of new threads related to its developments, should I expect them to be submitted in a much earlier thread?
Scrolling ~news in activity sort is probably the fastest. You'll see bumped old threads and new threads that way. The search is also quite good, I believe it's a full text search (comments, tags, title) so you'll probably find it if it's there. You can also search in ~news only directly from the group page.
It has its share of issues and certainly isn't perfect, but I've personally found wikipedia to be a decent source to read up on such events.
As a new user to the site, I've been trying to follow ongoing developments of the Greece boat tragedy. The submarine story has so completely dominated news cycles I've been really struggling to find places to follow it.
It has its share of issues and certainly isn't perfect, but I've personally found wikipedia to be a decent source to read up on such events.
Wikipedia has policies against editing ongoing current events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper Also described in this essay...
Wikipedia has policies against editing ongoing current events.
So while wikipedia can be great for delayed, verified information. They specifically don't want to used as a platform to watch events unfold.
After the sinking, the statements put out by the Greek coastguard and their authorities have already been shown to be factually wrong. For example their statements about the course of the ferry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65942426
I've been trying to find if the Greek authorities have responded to this, but like I said the internet is swamped with the submarine.
The survivors have been telling their accounts, with multiple people describing the coast guard as towing the ship and everyone screaming as they started to drag the ship over. Their coast guard initially denied any towing. Then they changed their story to briefly attaching a line, but it was removed after the crew and passengers "rejected their help".
Again I really want to read any information on the Greek response to this. It is already an unmitigated humanitarian catastrophe. But if there is truth to it being caused by their coastguard, who already have a documented history of towing migrant/refugee vessels outside Greek waters, then it represents a massive reprehensible crime.
They were already in violation of dozens of international statues by not offering help. If they actively caused the ship to sink along with perhaps 100 children in the hold it is an act of barbarity that cannot stand in modern society. They should be charged with whatever legal equivalent they have to murder/manslaughter. It would be impossible for them to claim that they couldn't have expected it to capsize, that would be blatant wilful ignorance.
Survivors said that a Greek Coast Guard ship caused the fishing boat to capsize when it tried to tow the vessel with a rope.
The Greek authorities say instead that they offered help several times but were rebuffed. When they did so again, this time in response to a report of engine failure — in international waters but within Greece’s search and rescue area — the men on the Adriana’s deck declined assistance. Soon after, the ship listed uncontrollably, and panicked passengers, all of them lacking life vests, shifted its weight. The boat sank in front of Coast Guard officers, who scrambled to save whomever they could, Greek officials said.
European authorities say the real problem is not tougher policies, but ruthless smugglers. On Thursday, Greek officials arrested nine Egyptian men who had survived the sinking, charging them with causing the wreck and illegally transferring migrants. By some survivors’ accounts, the men had denied food and water to the migrants, some of whom may have died of thirst and exposure on the ship’s deck even before the sinking.
Greece, which was alerted to the ship’s presence as early as Tuesday morning by the Italian authorities and the European Union’s border protection agency, noted that in prior days, the ship had passed near Malta, which did nothing. But Greece, which has said the ship turned down its repeated offers of assistance, appears to have been willing to take no for an answer and let the ship become Italy’s problem.
A Greek Coast Guard spokesman, Nikos Alexiou, initially denied that a Coast Guard ship ever tied ropes to the vessel. But after being contradicted by media reports, the Greek Coast Guard later acknowledged that it did so briefly, to ascertain the condition of the vessel and its occupants. Afterward, the traffickers or migrants untied the ropes and the Coast Guard ship moved away, observing from a close distance, a shipping ministry official said.
Yes, that is from the 16th. Since then the story has evolved so much. This story I linked from the BBC was from the 19th and has since been independently corroborated by other groups. The...
Yes, that is from the 16th. Since then the story has evolved so much. This story I linked from the BBC was from the 19th and has since been independently corroborated by other groups.
The survivors who have finally been able to reach their families have been sharing their personal experiences over the last couple of days.
the men on the Adriana’s deck declined assistance
Maritime legal experts have written comprehensive analysis showing why this holds absolutely no meaning under international law and documents dozens of treaties they have violated. Including that they could be brought to the ECHR.
The Greek officials have made a show of arresting the awful people traffickers. But it has been used as a way to distract blame from their own inaction and direct actions causing the catastrophe.
appears to have been willing to take no for an answer and let the ship become Italy’s problem
Blatant lies when we know the ship was effectively stationary for many hours leading up to its sinking. The ship wasn't going anywhere, it wasn't becoming Italy's problem.
So, it seems the most merciful scenario is what happened then... Likely dead before they even knew there was a problem. So that is good, to me.
I was following the story mainly because I am a former submariner. And it just sucked, because every scenario where they were still alive still likely ended with "and then they still die," because we just don't have the technology to rescue a vessel like that at 4000m. Like, they could have pulled another DSV up to the viewing port, seen them alive, but i'm still prettyyyy sure it would have still been death... the technology to rescue them just doesn't exist.
I saw another post about the deepest rescue ever being at around 400-500m for a DSV, this would have been 10x that, and easily the most impressive feat of search and rescue in human history.
Couldn't have paid me 250k to go near that DSV.
I’d actually never heard of this recovery, I do know that recovery at that depth is definitely possible, it’s the rescue that I just don’t think we have the technology for. Keeping the pressure hull intact while attaching and whatnot to a vehicle resting on the bottom of the ocean without stressing the hull to the point of implosion is something that isn’t as easy as hooking onto a tow hook.
Though the wiki page you linked does say they the K-129 had an at least partially intact pressure hull, it had been subjected to “massive internal destruction”
It’s the rescue that makes it orders of magnitude more difficult than a recovery/salvage.
It's not really useful at this point, but had they found them early I think rescue would have been possible, in certain circumstances.
The vessel had several failsafes in place that would cause the sub to come back to the surface if something went wrong - even if the power failed.
So let's say they were deep under water but alive, in a hypothetical scenario, what would be the likely cause would be they were trapped under the titanic debris, or stuck somewhere, and that obstacle is keeping them from going up. Your rescue mission isn't to lift them but rather to free it from the obstacle, so it can go up by itself. You could use ROVs for that quite easily.
None of that is relevant now but yeah.
True, so it would have depended at what point of the search they got there
I would not be surprised if the technology exists in a Navy/CIA/NSA/ABC/XYZ black project, but I would be very surprised if it was remotely accessible for this and even more surprised if they would whip it out for this scenario.
This is the best outcome anyone could expect. Unfortunately, rescue was so unlikely it was almost a well-meaning fantasy. A slow death by suffocation in a cold submergible surrounded by darkness is something I wish for no one, nor something that would cause me any satisfaction. This shouldn't be a matter of how much I approve of the victims' choices in life, that's human suffering I do not wish to occur or take any pleasure in. Period.
This always sounds so fascinating to me, because monkey brain me wants to think: Stack 2x the ballast to DSV, add magnets, dive to stranded DSV, magnets go THONK!, drop ballast, up we go.
It's... not quite that easy, is it? :'(
I don't know the limits of our recovery but I saw instant death or fast recovery as the best options. Sonce a fast recovery didn't happen, that leaves one option.
I'm happy it was the implosion because the alternatives are worse, but it's still an absolute tragedy.
I'm not completely convinced it was always hopeless. The Titan, if I understand it correctly, is inherently buoyant. Different from other DSVs, the pressure hull is larger, and is itself responsible for buoyancy. Thus, if you strip it of any ballast, it will come back up if not held down by other things. Evidently, because it didn't come back up, and because of the design of the ballast systems, with at least one fail-safe method employed, it stands to reason that the boat might've gotten stuck. I'm not sure what kind of manipulators the rescue robots have, but I can reasonably imagine that some scenarios could be fixed, particularly if the Titan was wedged under a piece of wreckage. Does that sound plausible to a submariner? Not likely, mind you, just conceivable. The chances of this happening without popping the pressure hull are slim, in my mind.
You seem like someone who would know the answer to this question that's been bugging me for the past few days: If they could have got an ROV down to it, why is it difficult for that ROV to clip on a rope (e.g. with something like a karabiner, to the landing sled), and use that to haul it to the surface? The ROV is already tethered, as I understand it, so running a rope parallel to the ROV tether doesn't seem hard (from a layman's perspective).
But everyone's saying it's impossible. Can you explain?
I’m not under the impression that the ROV is tethered. In order to tether the Titan, you would need over 2mi/3km of rope or cable and something capable of winching that much rope back up. Not to mention how the rope would interact with the environment. It’s just not feasible from any practical standpoint.
If the ROVs aren't tethered, how does the video feed get back to the surface? Because it's certainly not going via acoustic text-messaging like the Titan comms.
I think so... I don't think the implosion happened at disconnect though. Does anyone know if these vehicles tend to have black boxes? The logs could tell us a lot...
https://news.yahoo.com/robert-ballard-discovered-titanic-wreck-163319516.html
Napkin math: NY to Paris is 3625mi. Sound travels in water at 1500m/s or ~3350mph, so if they heard the sound hours after the sub went missing, that implies a period of time from disconnect to implosion.
In that case, I'm curious to know why they couldn't abort the mission and return to the surface. Were they hoping for communication to reestablish? There's no way they continued the expedition after disconnecting, right? Were they returning to the surface already? Were there multiple independent or cascading failures, the first of which got them stuck?
I’m not sure where Yahoo/Insider got that information, because the source article they link cites the WSJ article and gives a timeline of “soon after”. The WSJ article itself says:
https://archive.ph/pSpem
James Cameron has said that he heard from “the community” that the Titan was conducting an emergency ascension when it lost contact. It does at least seem plausible they knew something bad was happening, but they probably weren’t down there for hours awaiting their fate.
The main issue is that any rescue would have had to either mate another DSV to the Titan with a seal that also withstands the 4000m depth… which given it’s design, I doubt was ever possible, and this method is for like big submarines that have the mating surfaces for these rescues as a part of their design. And the most common rescue methods have depth limits nowhere in the ballpark of 4000m
And the only other would amount to a “tow” to the surface, which again, given the design shortcuts taken, was likely never possible in the time frame. And the structure of the Titan very likely could not survive being towed without imploding during the process.
Long story short, 4000m is DEEP
If the Titan was found intact with survivors, their likely only chance would have been if another submersible or ROV could untangle the Titan or otherwise help it to drop/remove any ballast that would then let it float back up to the surface on its own. These things are designed to be buoyant and held down with weights.
I read a post somewhere else stating that one submersible actually had bags full of salt strapped to it. The salt would slowly dissolve over a period of about 12 hours, after which the sub would be so buoyant that it would float back to the surface whether you wanted it to or not.
You could have been thinking of the Kursk Submarine Disaster.
Kursk was in 2000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kursk_submarine_disaster
It was only 100 m down and they still couldn't rescue anyone, although the Russian government did decline all external help for a long time which was probably not the best idea.
So that's twice now that an ocean vessel, with corners cut on safety features, ignored warnings which led to the loss of life of passengers in that exact spot. One named Titanic and the other Titan. Really quite unbelievable.
Only if you want to look like a total boob
Hey, at least he kept abreast of recent developments while considering it!
It is a good plan if you want every passenger to anic upon realising the purpose of the vessel
Nope, except it's a great setup for the "it went Tits up" joke after your vessel fails. Bon voyage!
I think one was an accident, the second was hubris and tempting fate. You don't tempt fate unless you want it to fuck with you.
While the it's probably a myth that the titanic was advertised as unsinkable by its builders, the VP of White Star Line stated it was.
If that's not hubris I dunno what is.
Also, I wouldn't want to name anything after the titans (in general or by name), given the last iteration of gods was the Greek gods and we all know how they played. Best to just choose another name altogether to avoid Poseidon's ire, right?
That’s not hubris, that’s just PR
Official press conference just concluded. They found the nose cone and the front/rear parts of the hull and no further press conferences are scheduled.
I'm honestly astonished they were even able to go up and down 12 times with success.
The 12 times were probably their undoing, in the end. Repeated pressure cycling causes fatigue damage by worsening existing flaws in the hull, which is likely why it failed this time instead of immediately.
Especially because of the concerns around a lack of inspections for such flaws in the hull.
As the saying goes: “Regulations are written in blood”. And from what I’ve read about the CEO of the company, he wasn’t too fond of them.
Are there good procedures for these types of inspections, for this material, in this application?
Ultrasonic (UT) inspection would identify any flaws within the subsurface of any composite material.
Professionally, I review UT inspections of high load/fatigue cycled composites including carbon fiber and fiberglass.
Hindsight is 20/20 - It would have been cheap insurance.
What are the stress properties of carbon fibre compared to (say) steel? I was under the impression that it doesn't stress anything like the same way.
Is there some other obvious/understood way that carbon fibre fails due to stress?
It's completely different, yeah. Metals are typically what is called isotropic, which means their elastic and thermal properties are uniform in all 3 dimensions. Laminates such as carbon fiber are anisotropic – their properties differ depending on fiber direction and through the thickness.
Failure mode is complicated and without knowing more about the structure it's hard to say. Composites are susceptible to delamination, and voids between layers of the laminate can be weak points that get worsened by fatigue and lead to failure. I mention voids specifically because that's something that could have been detected using NDE methods (non-destructive evaluation) like various types of penetrating scans.
Super interesting, thank you. I recall NDE being one of the reccomendations of the now-fired Oceangate engineer.
I claim to know nothing about carbon fiber or their properties or lamination or its properties, but I would also have to assume that degradation by salt water and pressure (along with "regular" wetting and drying of the product") might lead to making any voids worse if they existed. Salt is a really interesting compound and can do a lot of interesting things to many chemical structures.
Wait, has it been twelve? I tried looking it up but sources suggest it's made three trips since 2021. I'm curious mainly because if this was the thirteenth voyage... Yikes. I'm not superstitious, but that would be a freaky coincidence.
It seems to have had many aborted trips, sometimes to depth.
I'm not exactly sure how people are counting but do know it took one passenger (an Italian lady) four separate 'trips' before she successfully got to see the wreck and even then the trip had significant - embarrassing - technical problems related to thrusters being installed backwards (seriously). The whole thing is featured in a documentary which really gave a sense of the extremely rudimentary operation they were running.
edit: this is the documentary, some clips of relevant sections are on Reddit today: https://vimeo.com/810451492
Do people know that the carbon fibre was bought at a discount? https://www.travelweekly.com/North-America-Travel/Mission-Titanic-part-2
The window was only rated to 1300 m, because he didn't want to pay for full design and testing. https://twitter.com/IanColdwater/status/1672319017913032708?s=20
People booked on for a week's exercusion, but the round trip was supposed to take 8 hours. I am guessing those 3 trips it's made probably included going down more than one. So 12 makes sense if you go down 4 times in one week.
I've started trying to search for the history by changing the date range to only search to June 10. I saw one article mention ten dives in passing.
Reading the articles from last year is eerie though. I hadn't realized this was the first expedition with tourists. Seeing "fluff pieces" talk about when the tour was first announced and the light reference to them accepting "mission specialists" just feels... Odd.
It wasn't the first trip with tourists, they were taking paying passengers last year.
There is a video on youtube from a spanish speaking guy who did it last year. Not sure in what capacity he took it, but definitely appears to be the same sub.
Sorry if I'm re-posting. This article mentions the goal of raising the wreckage and analyzing what went wrong.
Titan investigation: How will they find out what happened?
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65994181
This is an interesting update, it would be helpful to have this link edited in to the main body of the post I think. Not sure how to tag the poster to suggest this…!
This is a link post, not a text topic, so there is unfortunately no main text body to edit to include other links. Tildes Activity sort should still help people find the above new link though. And if you feel it's an especially important contribution, you can always Exemplary label it so it catches people's eye, and rises further to the top of the comment section.
Oh of course, that was silly of me. Thanks for the suggestion :)
It's always good to know the correct way to use that label, so thank you for that info.
I'm hoping that analysis of what went wrong might yield some useful research for materials science. Does anyone with a bit more knowledge have any insights?
I was also wondering if all the data collected during the initial search and the mapping of the debris field could be used for oceanographic research.
I have seen a lot of comments to the effect of "these rich people shouldn't have been allowed to spend this much money to go to somewhere like this", and whilst I have some sympathy for that point of view those aboard the Titan certainly didn't deserve to die. This whole story is first and foremost a tragedy.
Oceangate, and their mission was a worthy one. I'm a huge fan of science, history, engineering and everything that this company was trying to do. But it does seem like they acted recklessly when designing and builiding their sub - going for all the glory with none of the rigour. I hope that this story can go in the books alongside Apollo 1 and others as a cautionary tale to learn from.
Those two things aren't mutually exclusive. They wouldn't have died if they hadn't gotten into an uncertified, inherently unsafe experimental DSV, and while I don't know what legal framework would have prevented them from doing so, it seems ridiculous that they did.
If only we could just fund ocean research with public money (taken from people like this), rather than research projects having to rely on dangerous gimmicks like near-abyssal tourism to keep operating.
Maybe I am misunderstanding your point but those two things are (or at least should be) mutually exclusive. Those people did nothing other than exhibit poor judgement and did not deserve to die, their personal wealth doesn’t really matter for this. At least I don’t see why it should. We should not tie human worth to personal wealth at either ends of the spectrum.
The "two things" in question are:
Those are both true, and indeed, had they been prevented from getting in the DSV, whether by taxing the fuck out of them or banning OceanGate from operating an uncertified DSV, they would not be dead.
I see, I think I did misunderstand your point then. I thought your "two things were"
The implication being that them having and choosing to spend the money this way means they deserved this fate. I don't disagree that billionaires like this should be taxed more, and that OceanGate (and similar ventures) should be much more heavily regulated. I was just pushing back on a notion I've seen going around (and which I thought you were expressing) which basically boils down to "they're rich so who cares" which to me seems rather callous.
Ultimately if someone wants to build a vessel like this it's going to be hard to stop them. Even if the US, Europe, and every one of our allies all agree to require regulations, there's going to be some random third world country or rich island nation that doesn't. Whichever companies want to build things like this will just base themselves from that nation and now your regulations are meaningless.
At a certain point you can't stop people from killing themselves in dumb ways, that doesn't mean these people deserved to die, but sometimes you take risks that don't pan out.
I suppose the way forward is to include paths that mean they can do it.
You don't ban it entirely operating out of USA and Europe, you say it's only permitted to operate after going through certain tests or certifications, maybe like those described in this article about Limiting Factor.
This won't stop a cowboy operating out of somewhere without such restrictions, but it might make their potential customers think twice, and mean there is a safer option they could take rather than the only other option being not doing it at all.
Oh, yeah. I mean, in the case of the oil exec I do believe that - he chose every day of his life to make the world a worse place and we are all worse off for his actions - but I wasn't expressing that above.
Have you heard about the 6th guy?
He was a friend of one of the passengers. He had doubts about the safety of the sub and decided not to take part.
One hell of a good decision on his part.
The guy who thought cutting corners was OK, the CEO of OceanGate, was literally on the vessel. I think most would argue that he of all people on that vessel, definitely deserved his fate. Imagine if he had sent some random pilot down with the tourists? He would be happily breathing while trying to mitigate a disaster and feign ignorance and saying how could this happen, etc.
At least no one has to listen to that fool blathering about how his super dangerous DSV was not at all dangerous, and how this was just a freak accident. He sleeps with his victims, that, out of everything else, is fair.
Ah, I’d actually like to see him alive to face the consequences. His company is fucked, people hate him, and possibly legal issues or at least all the rescue fees he’d have to pay back.
I want to kindly remind you some people are too rich to face consecuences. I'm not claiming that he's one of those, that he deserved to die, or that I know how the future could pan out.
I didn't know he was in there, so it seems he trusted that thing with his business, and with his life. He made a bet, and now no amount of money can bail him out of this.
I hope this is a wakeup call to those who oppose higher taxes for all for better funding for everything outside of the military-industrial complex. It would be for the best if we started funding better education, healthcare and all sorts of research so we can explore the ocean's depths and learn more in a safer way, just like we've been doing with space.
Dr. Robert Ballard (the man who discovered the wreck site of the Titanic) gave an interview on ABC yesterday and pointed out something I found interesting.
He said the history of deep-submersible vehicles goes all the way back to 1960. In the intervening 70 years, dozens of DSVs have conducted thousands of missions and not experienced a single lethal failure, until the Titan imploded on Sunday. James Cameron came on after and added that more time passed between the Trieste reaching the bottom of the Challenger Deep and the Titan imploding than Kittyhawk's first flight and the launch of the first Boeing 747.
How to explore the bottom of the ocean safely is a well understood problem from an engineering perspective. We have been doing it regularly for 70 years, and everyone but OceanGate has a spotless record.
An interesting related fact I dug up: DSV Alvin (the submersible Ballard used to visit the Titanic) was launched in 1964, has completed over 5,000 dives, and is still in active service to this day.
I agree, they're definitely not mutually exclusive. Any debate about the pros and cons of their decision would have carried so much more weight in the event of their safe return. The current situation is a lose/lose for everyone, in particular the crew members of this sub.
I would love to see more public money spent on research of all kinds, this included. Generally I'm in favour of higher taxes, and more public spending. Unfortunatlely it seems that we live in a world where this isn't really what the majority of other people want, and I don't see that changing very quickly.
I don't think you can ever prevent something like that without turning into the ultimate nanny state. I cant help but take the stance of "so what if someone paid to go do something dangerous and died?" That shouldn't be banned unless they are harming other members of society (or creating harm somehow), the person selling the service was negligent, or somehow it becomes extremely common despite the risks (goes back to first point).
In this case a few people died and governments spent a bunch of money searching for them. Its regrettable that they died and its even more regrettable if they weren't aware of the risks (?). As for the money spent, it provided a real world training exercise.
I would argue in this case the person selling the service was negligent. It wasn’t like no one knew how to make a submersible that goes that deep. He decided to ignore all the current wisdom on the subject.
I think this should be where government comes in. In Europe, the government is really strict on safety standards and fines companies that don't meet them. It's governments regulated. In the USA, it seems to be mostly 'sue companies privately if they mess up'. That's also why you have cases like the Mc Donalds hot coffee case. I reckon the families will sue OceanGate afterwards and then they will be forced to do better. I much prefer the European model.
It does appear that OceanGate is registered in the Bahamas, not the US, so that adds another layer of government (non)regulation. They don't register there just for the tax loopholes.
I’m pretty sure ocean gate is going to be out of business after this. Even if they survive the sue fees they are now famous for their negligence causing a death and every stupid thing they’ve done has been wideLy publicized. Who is going to pay them enough money to go in another death trap?
The guy who used to own Segway died because he drove the Segway off a cliff while trying to demonstrate its braking system. The company still seems to be operating, though maybe they’d have had a bigger market penetration in micro-mobility instead of those dumb scooters if they hadn’t shit themselves in the. . . wheel I guess?
Yeah but that’s not as horror filled as the idea of sitting in a sub waiting to die. Until they found the debris that’s what has been on everyone’s mind when they think ocean gate.
Nobody will. The problem is, other companies will just take over that market and do virtually the same thing. Apparently there is another millionaire who owns his own private sub that can go as deep. It looks a tad more secure but who is to say?
Am I wrong for thinking that someone decided to do something experimental and dangerous on their own dollar, and that's fine with me?
As long as they are required by law to carry enough insurance to cover possible rescue attempts and investigations, I don't really care what dangerous things people do if they're not really affecting much. People die on Everest every year. They all chose to be there, so that's fine with me too.
I'm more concerned about dangerous occupations like logging, mining, roofing, garbage collection, etc. since these are necessary services with people dying while just trying to make a living. Not trying to make a "whatabout," but I guess I'm just not seeing much of a need for government intervention in dumb recreational activities if it's just from a safety perspective. Environmental impacts would be a different story.
Yeah I think people should have the right to make those decisions, but there does need to be adequate understanding of what the externalized costs are to those to make sure that they're not placing undue burdens onto the public as part of their dangerous recreational choices, like you mentioned insurance and what not to cover those. I'm fine with that as well.
I think there's always certain lines to draw in terms of what risk is acceptable to allow and who potentially becomes victimized by it. Recreational activities might be the lowest of the low in terms of what we should be concerned about, but in this case we might be singing a slightly different tune if the employee on the submersible was some ordinary employee of OceanGate rather than the CEO/Co-Founder as it would be a job that they might rely on, but even then, if they knew they were signing up to a job of piloting that type of vehicle then it's probably as fine as the others paying to be on it.
Where it gets a little trickier is something like medical testing, where you have people who could benefit from some new medical treatments that aren't approved yet, it might even be their life depends on it, and to what extent it's acceptable that people choose that risk might seem a bit different than those choosing dangerous recreational activities.
I can agree, but only with the caveat that they understand the risks they are taking. Climbers on Everest, for example, see the bodies of those who failed before them; there is no pretending their lives are not at high risk.
I think the CEO in this case was fully aware of the risk he was taking (after all, his company was embroiled in a lawsuit over them). I highly doubt the 19-year-old was.
A million dollars in gas per trip. It’s still incredibly wasteful as is climbing Everest.
I wouldn't expect you to draw a tear for someone you didn't knew, or get emotional in any way. I certainly haven't. However, I wouldn't say I'm "fine" with it in the same way I'm fine with rainbows and ice cream. Human suffering is bad even if I'm somewhat detached. It's not as if my day was suddenly ruined. Shit happens all the time. But I'm not going around saying I'm fine with it either, What would that accomplish? Street cred as an edgy dude? That would be weird.
I don't think being "fine with it" necessarily means they're indifferent to people dying, more so it's a response to the parent comment presenting a possible argument some might make
Now maybe that remark is more for sentimental reasons about the Titanic wreckage, but it could also be taken to mean "Don't let people do dangerous things", and that's what I think the "I'm fine with it" type of response is addressing.
I'm very sorry, but I still believe stupid rich people should not suffer a horrible death. And it is perfectly possible to appreciate the stupidity of rich people without taking a ghoulish pleasure in their deaths. Not one is saying anyone should suffer for their deaths as you suffer the loss of someone you admire, bu if someone feels compelled to express that they're "fine" with human suffering, I can only conclude that I don't quite agree with the sentiment behind it.
I think you're misconstruing the "fine with it" part, because I quoted something that specifically said rich, which wasn't even my words or the words of the person who said they were fine with it. It's not about whether someone is rich, its not saying anyone deserves it.
It's about whether people have control over their own bodies and have the ability to make choices about what they do with their bodies, including participating in risky mountain climbs or getting into experimental un-certified submersibles to see things few people have ever seen in person.
Being "fine with it" in this case is expressing whether you're fine with people having the ability to control their own destiny.
You're twisting it into some nefarious thing and making people out to be evil when it's not even about that.
Yeah... That was not a good choice words at all. I don't think it's fair to say I'm twisting your words. I could certainly be more charitable, but something about saying "I'm fine" right after the tragical death of five people doesn't sit well with me. I don't see how you can salvage an argument from that.
If all you do is read the words "fine with it" and don't look at the full context, then yes that might be the takeaway, but the context surrounding those words made it fairly clear that it wasn't about taking pleasure in the deaths of others.
You are only looking at the logic of it. There's more to conversation than logic. The top reaction to the death of five people was to essentially state that they are okay with it potentially happening again. Time, rhetoric, and context matters. It's one thing to not care, it's another entirely to dismiss human suffering that recently happened to defend an abstract point.
Which is what the initial comment did.
I understand it was not your intention, but that's what the words you wrote accomplished.
And to be clear, the initial comment started with a question.
There are many insensitive comments about that news, but I specifically answered to this because it asked for an opinion.
"Fine" as in, I don't think we really need to enact policies as a society about these activities, other than account for any damage they cause. Not talking about emotions.
These people are doing dangerous things because they are dangerous. The danger is part of the appeal. Some people are suggesting that they should not have been allowed to do it. I am fine with consenting adults doing what they want, even if it's dangerous. The loss of life is tragic, but that's the kind of activity they chose to do.
Also, maybe we are defining "fine" differently. I'm using it as meaning I accept it, but I don't feel good about it. Maybe you were thinking of the more traditional definition of equivalent to "good". I wouldn't describe rainbows and ice cream as "fine" unless I were in a bad mood.
It's going to make an excellent podcast - not just this incident but an investigation into the company, the CEO, the Titanic tourism industry. And also all of the lawsuits to come. There is a lot of gold to mine with this story. I for one am interestedin hearing why OceanGate waited 8 hours to report them missing. I suspect they were getting rid of evidence of negligence (deleting emails, trashinghard drives, etc.). (Sorry if this sounds morbid. ETA: I would've preferred if they were somehow rescued. )
Wait, this is the first I’m hearing of OceanGate not reporting them missing for 8 whole hours, that’s wild.
https://radaronline.com/p/oceangate-waits-8-hours-to-report-titanic-tourist-sub-missing/
Well at least they got a quick death. An implosion sound preferable to slowly suffocating to death in a sardine can.
Earlier, my parents were talking to me about the submarine incident. The worst situation I heard was that they would be slowly suffocating, and the room would be full of the stench of excrement and piss. As well as body odour and the like.
So if an implosion did happen, I do agree it was the most merciful death any of the passengers would have.
I don't think it would just be limited to just excrement, piss and body odor. In a situation where oxygen is running out I think it would be very likely for one of the passengers to try to murder one (or more) of the others in order to preserve oxygen. Imagine being locked up in a cylinder with four other people all desperate to live. If you have 90 hours of air with five people you probably have like 110 hours for four people and maybe 150 for three…
A quick and sudden death by implosion would most definitely be my choice (not that I would ever step foot inside a death trap like this…).
Not saying it couldn't happen, but it sounds a little more like drama people pick up from watching too much movies/tv. You're talking 20-40 hours tops maybe, and the chance that you'll even be rescued is fucking slim to none as it is no matter the extra hours. Unless they had floated back up to the surface, they had such slim odds.
Then in the miraculous event they somehow got rescued, they'd be murderers. It's in international waters but I don't know if that would protect them from prosecution.
There's also the possibility that even if they didn't consider their chances of rescue to be that slim, they would have made their chances worse by attempting to murder people in there, using up more oxygen fighting people and possibly ending up dead themselves.
"very likely one for one of the passengers to try to murder" seems totally unrealistic.
I'm glad we figured out what happened to them. And it's good to know they likely didn't suffer for a long time down there. I've seen too many people all over the internet with a lack of empathy towards their fellow human beings because they're rich or something. It's been pretty gross to see.
The lack of empathy has been astounding - the memes and jokes at the expense of the passengers were disgusting.
I personally had held out hope that the five people aboard would be found alive, until this morning when they were likely to run out of oxygen. Knowing they likely didn't suffer or even realize there was a problem is the most merciful outcome to this whole tragedy.
I don't mind some memes. Dark humor is my jam. But at least have a little respect and don't go dehumanizing the people involved.
One of the passengers was only 19 and probably didn’t understand the risk. Hard for me to joke knowing that fact.
From what I read, he still signed the documents that mentioned the risk of death and had the risk explained to him but his father was pushing for him to do it when he was still scared about it. Regardless, people are dead and it's not a good thing.
I think the joking is a reaction to how horrifying this is. The horror is surprisingly accessible for people to grasp despite how unusual the circumstances. One can think about the various ways they could die (running out of oxygen but carbon dioxide still being removed, running out of oxygen but Co2 scrubbers stop working, hull breach and implosion, someone murdering the others, stuck at the bottom, able to float to the top but can't get rescued, freezing to death, dehydration, etc.). All the options horrible. The only thing to give some relief is gallows humor. It's a very human reaction.
I agree that's part of it. But I've seen a ton of memes and reactions that basically amount to nothing but "Ha! Billionaires dead!" That's more of a bad reaction based on political propaganda than it is a coping thing for a bad situation. I've seen people outright say in the wake of this that it's good rich people died. And even if you hate the rich, they have families.
I'm perfectly fine with some memes and dark humor. Just depends on the context to me.
Same here. I am on the verge of unfriending a facebook friend I otherwise get on well with online. Her jokes are specifically aimed at them being rich, and after just making a comment basically saying 'Please don't do this, people died, it's not funny' her response was to ignore me and post more. The latest was a meme basically saying that she shouldn't have empathy for them because they don't have empathy for anybody else.
I have socialist views and hate the level of wealth inequality, she is to the level of basically wanting communism. She is otherwise staunchly pro-lgbt and anti-racism and the rest so I was expecting her to have empathy but apparently she is so extreme that empathy just doesn't stretch to rich folks.
My dad died last year, I wouldn't wish that feeling on anyone. I can't imagine the agony of losing a child or a husband. The idea of laughing at that feeling just because someone is rich is so cruel to me.
I'm very pro-capitalist and conservative when it comes to economic issues (but progressive on most social issues) but I have a lot of super progressive and socialist friends. I'd say the majority have been pretty good about it on Facebook but there have definitely been a few like the friend you're describing. I try not to get too mad though, this behavior is not exclusive to any one "side". People lack empathy online in general and it's kind of a problem.
I also agree with what your saying. It might not simply be class warfare, though. It's kind of the flipside of finding the horror relatable - being a billionaire is not relatable for the vast majority of people. Saying billionaires deserve this fate may be a coping mechanism- "I wouldn't be so foolish as this person if I had billions of dollars." Sort of like when someone learns a person died of lung cancer. The first question almost invariably is "Did they smoke?" People want to hear that they smoked two packs a day so that they can feel like they are not at risk. They don't want to hear that the person never smoked. Same as they don't want to hear that the 19 year old wasn't a billionaire and neither was the scientist who was on board. ETA: In other words,, it's a way to pit distance between them and the horror (I think). I may be giving people too much credit.
Agreed. It's not like I don't understand it, in a sense - "eat the rich" and all that - but all I can think about when reading about stuff like this is the human aspect. The thought of suffocating in such a tiny, cramped, dark space at the bottom of the ocean isn't something I'd wish on anyone, and it boggles my mind to see people openly joking about it so callously.
I am with you in the jokes. Just wanted to mention the thoughts you described, they didn't suffer that faith. Their deaths were far more humane, thank god.
I just fundamentally can't get on board with the schadenfreude part of that. I don't know how best to put it into words, either - it's just at complete odds with my values. And to be clear, I'm not advocating for sympathy towards hyper-billionaires here, either - I'm sure their fortunes are worth a hell of a lot more to them than any sympathy I could offer.
I should also probably clarify/correct myself in saying that off-colour humour doesn't bother me in principle - I've got a pretty dark sense of humour myself, and I've chuckled more than I'd care to admit at some of the memes going around - but I feel like 1) there's a time and place for that kind of humour, and it's usually not public, especially so soon after the fact, and 2) there's a fine line between "good-natured" dark humour (for lack of a better term) and being outright malicious, and a disturbing amount of the reactions I've been seeing are too close to the latter for my tastes.
For better or worse, I'm a very deeply empathic person, and I can't control it - even if we're talking about objectively terrible people (which is a can of worms I'm loath to open on anyone who's recently deceased) my focus always ends up on "a person with family and friends has died". I just can't get past that hurdle, and I don't understand how other people can.
“there's a time and place for that kind of humour, and it's usually not public”
This is a key point for me. I can’t help but think about their families and friends, and how they’d feel if they came across some of these internet threads. How unbearably distressing that would be
As an engineer, there is definitely some schadenfreude going on. It's a big, continuous fight within manufacturing industries to get people to take safety seriously both in practice and in actual company dedication ($$$/resources). A rich dude CEO publicly trashing safety regulations, good engineering, and good safety practices over and over after firing a dude concerned with safety of this very thing getting the entirely predictable results of his philosophy is probably the best possible way to repair the damage he has caused to society by continually badmouthing the regs/practices.
It's tragic because he took a bunch of innocent people down with him.
I see what you're getting at, and while I don't like saying it, I can't really disagree, either. Thing is - and I'm sure my tune would be at least a bit different if I were in the field myself - I still can't relate to "schadenfreude" in this context. More than anything, it just makes me upset - sad that other people end up getting caught up in the matter and either taking the blame or suffering in some other way for it (death, injury, etc.), and angry that somehow, no matter how many times something like this happens, there are people who just can't get it through their heads that neglecting safety is going to lead to tragedy.
"It sucks" feels like a pretty massive understatement, but... man, it sucks.
A big subset of the memes, jokes, and comments I'm seeing on SM are from engineers. The barbs are focused in the CEO and the company and their cavalier attitude towards safety, certifications, and regulations. I have the sense that they are letting out a lot of (justified) hidden frustrations. I'm not seeing them gleeful that the passengers died but they are, let's say, neutral about the CEO dying.
ETA: Some grad student is going to have a lot of fun parsing all of these.memes and gifs for all of their meanings.
I have had this debate with people on reddit many times before, because so many people blame the rich for the existance of the poor.
The rich don't set minimum wages, governments do.
The rich don't set tax brackets, government's do.
The rich didn't decide to let people die of treatable conditions, the government decided healthcare is something they didn't need to provide for free.
I personally care about charity and I think wealth should be shared if you can, and it's selfish to go see the titanic when you could have donated that to build affordable housing for folks. I think that's shitty. But I don't think we should go that hard on folks just because they are shitty.
I fundamentally don't understand how some of the same people screaming EAT THE RICH are also totally fine and accepting the same government making you starve. There are people who are making fun of a 19 year old dying under sea and see nothing wrong with it, simply because he was born in a fundamentally broken system. I think it's time we eat the politics not the rich.
Who do you think has tons of influence over the politicians? Who do you think uses their money, power, and influence to break the system?
It's easy to understand if you're willing to accept the evidence.
https://www.vox.com/2014/4/18/5624310/martin-gilens-testing-theories-of-american-politics-explained
Corporations and rich people fight against minimum wage increases, downplay COVID and advocate for "back to normal" while taking precautions and treatments not available to most, lobby and vote against taxes that would benefit us all, hinder climate change efforts while contributing massively to CO2 emissions, and force workers to rely on benefits to subsidize their low wages while also sabotaging those benefits.
They do all of this by donating millions to candidates that will pass laws in their favor, because it makes them more money.
The 19 year old never had a chance to get free of the system he was born into, and it's indeed sad. But 40, 50, 80 year old billionaires are ruining the world and rigging politics to do it. You can't "eat the politics" without removing billionaires from the equation somehow. (Getting rid of Citizens United would be a start.)
Unfortunately, this is just how the Internet is. The surface web is an escape from the world, into something more controllable. American mass media outlets tend to be more left than right, maybe out of selection bias or passivity. Twitter, in spite of its mismanagement and ethical problems to put it very lightly, is still left-leaning and even horribly radical at points. YouTube tends to be that way too. Social media has cultivated "slacktivists" who think we should eat the rich, tax the rich, etc. Yet do nothing and instead flaunt the "privilege" they so criticise other people for.
Memes are often a reaction against mass media, it is a news media outlet if you think about it that way. A lot of users communicate ideas, concepts, et cetera that way. Mass communication.
I am openly anti-capitalist. To be frank, I am not happy about what has happened nor do I find this hilarious. I don't care all that much. Doom is an inherent problem to mass media cos it sells. For better or worse, it's better to prioritise your own life than live in everyone else's. I did hope that they would live, yet not everything works out.
You could argue either point. If the passengers did not go on the vessel, they wouldn't be in the implosion. If they didn't give their money to OceanGate, less income for them. Albeit small and insignificant, less capital is a pressure point. Cutting corners is often a symptom of for-profit corporations wanting to increase net profit. Wealth is the easiest way to obtain power. Power has been normalised for eons. That's why the British monarchy, w virtually no political say in Parliament, are still icons despite having been a part of various crimes against humanity. That's why there's no sympathy with anyone who is wealthy. We've always let it slide forever. Often, the law doesn't apply to these people either. Why else would the most realistic charge be criminal negligence instead of manslaughter?
Could I reasonably prove this w evidence? Probably not. I don't know any wealthy people, cause they're always hanging out within their own communities. And given the unending scandals and controversies with major players, you know no one is going to be honest. Class is class, and that often means playing chess. That is politics.
Yet, not every wealthy individual is a bad person at their core. Yeah, the West was built on exploitation, genocide, corruption and the like. Yeah, all of us are furthering this current system and are responsible to varying degrees. But whatever. What is often the right thing to do is to be kind. Love is the direct opposite to hate. Hate begets hate, we see that on the Internet.
What is really happening is the paradox of luck. If you could just bank right, you get every ball in the hole and you save the world! Not possible.
Hopefully I made sense.
You made perfect sense. Thanks for your reply. It was really well thought out. I'm very much pro-capitalist and not leftist when it comes to economic matters personally. But I try as a rule not to cheer for anyone's death even if I vehemently disagree with them or thought they were an awful force upon the world. I even thought the celebration of Saddam and Bin Laden's deaths were disgusting tbh. Awful human beings, but I don't find cheering for the death of another a good or pleasant thing.
And I'll say, I'm okay with memes in general. Even for events like this right after they happen. Dark humor is good at helping people cope and can be fun. But some people are using the memes to dehumanize and that's what's gross to me.
This is an awful tragedy, but I have to ask: how long before another sub is created for rich people to go down and view both wreckages, the Titanic and the Titan?
And then how long before that sub implodes as well, leaving a third wreckages and the cycle repeats...
There are cruises that are still selling submarine experiences, albeit only to 300 m and not to mass grave sites.
https://www.seabourn.com/en_US/experience/onboard-activities/activity/submarines.html
Given its current state, I don’t think anyone will be visiting wreckage of the Titan
Nah, give it 100 years and someone will crash a submarine called the Tit.
It’s a bit unfair to call them stupid for this. We all put our faith in companies to keep us safe. Every time we get in a car or, more comparable, an aeroplane we have trusted that company to make and maintain a machine which will keep us safe on our journey. This might be a less common form of travel but it had been down before with no issues; they could reasonably believe this would be the same. The blame is entirely on the company here
This company spent a lot of time publicly bragging about cutting corners and macgyvering their submarine together. I think it's fair to question the judgement of the people who saw that and thought "yes, I'll get in this machine and go to one of the most inhospitable locations on the planet".
I feel there is a wide difference between respectfully questioning someone’s judgement and outright calling them stupid. Stupid has much more negative connotations and is derisive. I acknowledge that I may be niggling about semantics here.
I have read news stories about airline companies cutting corners and yet these companies do not go out of business. People still fly with them every day. These people made a risk assessment, which was admittedly probably skewed by them wanting to be part of an exclusive club, and it didn’t work out in their favour this time. I think they were maybe naive, too trusting, too cocky and/or suffering from hubris but I don’t think any of that is worthy of calling them stupid.
Fair points all around. I think a lot of the hate these people are receiving is because they're a sort of proxy for rich people doing rich people things. The hoi polloi, with our ever-widening wealth inequality, see an easy target to take out some of that anger.
I'm not making a judgement on the morality of that position, just observing that it's a factor.
I'm in your camp. It's interesting to hear the anti-rich talk. It has been increasing on social media over the past year or so. It's kind of a shift in the culture - from worshipping the wealthy to mocking them. I wonder if this shift in sentiment has broader implications.
In a scary (to me) scenario, my local home community in an old town downtown is having some signs going up about saving single family home zoning. I am all for new zoning and more walkable cities and biking. However breaking single family homes in a small area into rental units changes a neighborhood. I have reservations as we have a college and other college towns nearby the houses are all just rentals that are empty all summer and no real community exists.
Before I left Reddit the local subreddit seemed to have a view that basically anyone who owned a house downtown was rich and therefore a pretty crappy person. There was no difference in the 1% rich and a person who bought a house 25 years ago before any housing price boom. Just the haves and the have nots and owning a house was enough to be on the bad side.
I am over 50 and this was one of the things that recently made me think Reddit was skewing too young for me to even stay around.
I think this is more a reaction to growing income inequality and not about age. Although maybe those Redditors were not old enough to inherit a house.
I don't understand this part.
The claim I was responding to was that anyone owning a single family home was a millionaire. You don't have to be a millionaire to inherit a house. It's common to inherit a house from a deceased parent or other family member. Young people might not have had any relative die yet.
I actually almost included that in my reply to you, I think that’s absolutely correct. I won’t pretend I didn’t have some of the same thoughts cross my mind as a knee-jerk reaction, but I can also see how they aren’t all that different to anyone else doing an extreme sport, and I wouldn’t call them stupid for making the risk assessments they do (I might think they’re entirely mad to want to put themselves in that danger, but that’s slightly different)
Airplanes are safe because the industry is regulated to the Nth degree. Oceangate went out of their way to ensure they didn't have to pass inspection or otherwise submit to regulation.
I get on an American Airlines plane without asking any questions because I know there is no way that plane is allowed to operate if it has not been properly inspected and maintained.
The dudes in this propane tank with a window had no such assurances and I think it's fair to take the position of: you knowingly got into a machine that had a high risk of killing you, and it killed you.
I don't think it's that simple.
They haven't necessarily heard all angles, they've heard the CEO's spiel about how it's an experimental vessel and it's "not possible to certify it with current rigid testing standards that simply aren't designed for this type of vessel". They've heard him say that nonetheless they "undergo stringent testing", and can even point to the years of delays getting their commercial Titanic visiting trips started caused by an earlier version of the design
failing testing"not meeting the high standards they had set" and needing to replace the hull with a stronger design, which has been proven repeatedly.Maybe there was more diligence the passengers could have done, but they probably aren't material science experts or necessarily aware of the problems caused by cyclic pressurisation on the structure of carbon composites (can any of us say we were this time last week?) to identify the risk themselves. You naturally believe companies when they say they it's been designed by experts, claim it's been thoroughly tested and proven safe. Even if they sought external advice, it can still be hard to sway someone away from the opinion of a good talker, especially if they've made a good connection to them. Not to mention that the CEO believes every word and can argue it passionately - and they know he believes it because he's going down with them.
(Quotes are my attempt to suggest how the facts could be spun in their favour, not direct quotes from the company or CEO).
Yeah, in this case it probably makes more sense to hold the CEO accountable.
... as the sea already did.
I’m not saying they weren’t risky or that you couldn’t expect the possibility of this outcome. I just think it’s unnecessarily denigrating to call them stupid.
Yes the airline industry is very heavily regulated but I’ve seen more than one article talking about airlines skipping required maintenance. We still all kind of trust that the company wouldn’t do something unsafe, don’t we? We assume that they wouldn’t want the bad PR of a crash so of course they’re confident in their crafts. I have to think similar thoughts occurred to these people - remember one of them was the CEO of the company; that would give me a lot of confidence in the trip if I had been considering it and I think most people would say the same
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings
From my understanding of these incidents, Boeing was responding to pressure from Airbus and so retrofitted their earlier plane to have larger jets. Without having clearance below the hull to do so, they had to be mounted further forwards. This caused problems with stability that were addressed in the flight systems.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/13/NYT-Presents/boeing-737-max-crash-frontline.html
If your airplane ticket comes with a death waiver saying that it is uncertified and experimental, you probably shouldn't get on that airplane
Same goes for submarines
This is my stance too. I’ve signed and asked people to sign many waivers talking about risk of death and not suing for SCUBA dives. The vast majority of those were not particularly risky dives. People expect that language when they’re doing a more extreme sport and it doesn’t always translate to the actual level of risk
The ceo was on that sub! That wouldn’t have given you some confidence?! I dunno man, I think it’s easy to label them stupid because that lets us say “I would never make this dumb choice” but I bet we’ve all made dumb choices that we were just lucky didn’t result in harm. This wasn’t the Titans maiden voyage. The other people made risky decisions to be on it, too, but they were fine. I think there’s a little lack of empathy, here, to blame them entirely
So the banging was something else...
Can't believe the co-founder said we should learn from what happened and move forward.....
That person doesn't want to go to prison. If not for manslaughter (or would it be murder? Because of the amount of people that died), it is going to be criminal negligence because of the cost cutting that went into the safety features of the sub that they fucking knew this was going to cause safety issues because of the whistle blower and the former captain, both of whom they fired because of it. I would be more shocked that there is not a case being built against them.
I really hope they get some prison time as well as sued into oblivion. Given that it's international, I wonder what courts will try the co-founder.
I'm sure there was some sort of waiver signed, but personally I wouldn't want to face the lawyers of 4 billionaire families even with signed waivers.
I’m not sure waivers would help in this case. Im not a lawyer and would appreciate being corrected if I’m wrong here, but I think waivers are solid for things like “if you don’t disclose a medical issue that would preclude you going on the trip and something happens to you, it’s not our fault” but not “we didn’t do sufficient safety checks and you can’t sue us for that”
The waivers mentioned that the vessel was uncertified and experimental, that definitely implies that anyone signing them knows there's a risk. I'm sure there will be a lawsuit but I'd be surprised if it went anywhere
I'm curious just how airtight waivers are in cases like this that make global news and are that catastrophic.
oops! I didn't even realize what I did there.
I think we're all conditioned to have this jokey trauma response at this point. I do feel for the 19-year-old, and slightly less for the others aside from the CEO. I have no sympathy for him.
According to this article, it is going to be the US because of the fact that it involved American Citizens. And to make it more fun, it is going to be a Federal case, meaning the FBI is going to be involved. In other cases, not involving Americans, it is the countries whose flags are flown on those ships.
And I agree with what @cuwabren had said, I really do hope that the families just band together and just hire an entire team of the top of the line lawyers (which they can afford, it would just make more sense to do a gigantic "fuck you" to OceanGate and its founders, than to go on their own) to make the waivers null and void and to sue them. I just really want these families to get some sort of closure.
That's good to know. I will be interested to see if anything actually comes of it, especially jail time, given this is going to be tried in the US, famously a two-tiered justice system for those with money and those without.
I know what you mean. But considering how big this got, something might come out of it. But, I just don't know. I just feel like that paying that much money for something they should have the decency to have the safest as possible option do it, but no,
the fuckers, I mean, the founders, got greedy and cut corners. I just hope that the families can sue them for what they are worth, so that the founders can't afford the lawyers that they could at the present.I hope you're right. As much as I don't care for the rich, I hope the families can get some closure.
The person most responsible for this, the founder and CEO, has died with the sub, which is more than paying for his crimes.
The cofounder I am honestly not sure. He hasn't been involved with the running of the company for 10 years. Owners or founders often don't handle the day to day, some do but most leave it to the CEO. So it's totally plausible that he had never been involved in the building of this sub and didn't know much at all, or anything, about it.
There will definitely be some education taking place, once the dust (debris?) settles and the families of the dead start looking hard at the safety protocols and questionable decisions made by the company. I guess we'll need to decide what to call a scandal and investigation involving a company whose name already ends in -gate.
The US Navy detected sounds "consistent with an implosion" shortly after OceanGate's Titan submersible lost contact, a navy official has said.
WSJ: U.S. Navy Detected Titan Sub Implosion Days Ago
Wait. I thought that the company didn’t notify anyone until about 8 hours after they lost contact? Does this mean they possibly were stuck down there and imploded while being stuck?
I believe they immediately reported the lost contact, but the actual search and rescue didn’t start until several hours after the expected resurface time. This somewhat makes sense given the history of lost comms and late resurfaces.
Probably the best case scenario, no prolonged suffering. I definitely wasn’t holding out hope that they sub would be found intact.
I'm relieved that their death was instantaneous, the prospect of them slowly suffocating to death due to CO2 poisoning at the bottom of the ocean terrified me, and to be quite honest, actually rescuing them in the time that we had was simply never going to happen short of a miracle less likely to happen than winning the lottery.
Titanic tourist sub photos show wreckage being brought ashore
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66045554
So apparently on a previous dive they had a thruster installed in reverse. They did some preliminary testing near the surface, couldn't figure out what was causing the problem, and did the full dive anyway.
This is absolutely shameful. On drones (quadcopters) if you have a motor installed/configured with the wrong rotation it is blatantly obvious what is wrong and is a quick fix. The drone won't fly, it will just flip over when you increase the throttle. With the DSV apparently it was spinning/going in circles...a normal person's intuition would be to assume the problem is with the thrusters. Either one is not outputting the same thrust as the other, or they are installed incorrectly.
On a drone you can either swap the motor lead connections, or in software update the electronic speed controller firmware to run the motor in the opposite direction. It blows my mind that they didn't try the equivalent with the DSV.
To top it all off, the CEO couldn't even remember how the controls were bound to the sticks on the high quality bluetooth Logitech controller. Can you imagine an airplane pilot forgetting where the throttle is, or which directions on the stick/rudder control roll, yaw, and pitch????
Just a friendly tip. Something like this should probably be submitted as a top level comment in one of the other recent threads (1, 2) on this topic. Just helps people who might not be interested avoiding having their front page flooded.
/offtopic
I'm not sure that I agree here. The "Titanic tourboat goes missing" thread is old news to me. If it were bumped up to the top by new replies, I would assume it is just more back & forth from users about some detail. But this declaration that they're believed to be dead by S&R is new and different and interesting. It deserves more than just a bump in a days-old topic.
I know tildes users like to "keep one topic to a single thread" more than redditfugees, Maybe it would work better if OP or by some other method you could update the post title to reflect the news, similar to a traditional forum.
As seen in the topic log.
It's swedish, it means "very confused"
I agree with you here. Major breaking news should have its own post. But this discussion makes me think of the discussions had recently in Deimos' post about groups. Maybe setting up a ~breaking group (could be ~news.breaking) for breaking news that doesn't show in user feeds by default (you have to manually subscribe) that can surface up to the ~news group if it's important enough.
But I do think this kind of friction between some users who don't want to see multiple posts about the same thing and people who want to share a bunch of news about an event will continue to grow as the site gets more active and bigger unless something is done to change how groups and the home feed work.
I think the best solution would simply be moderators being able to merge threads. Unlike Reddit, there's nothing inherent to Tildes that requires a new topic to sustain discussion.
Fair point about the older topic. Personally, I think think one new topic about today’s developments is enough, although I might be more bothered by topic spam than most.
As a new user to the site, I've been trying to follow ongoing developments of the Greece boat tragedy. The submarine story has so completely dominated news cycles I've been really struggling to find places to follow it.
If I wanted to find stories like that on tildes what is the best way to go about it? Click on the news group and scroll through it? Searching can always be a bit hit and miss relying on you knowing the right search term it might have been submitted under. On tildes instead of new threads related to its developments, should I expect them to be submitted in a much earlier thread?
/offtopic
I would always start by using the country in the search box. And on desktop using the Greece tag.
Scrolling ~news in activity sort is probably the fastest. You'll see bumped old threads and new threads that way. The search is also quite good, I believe it's a full text search (comments, tags, title) so you'll probably find it if it's there. You can also search in ~news only directly from the group page.
It has its share of issues and certainly isn't perfect, but I've personally found wikipedia to be a decent source to read up on such events.
Wikipedia has policies against editing ongoing current events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper
Also described in this essay https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Current_Events_Editing
So while wikipedia can be great for delayed, verified information. They specifically don't want to used as a platform to watch events unfold.
After the sinking, the statements put out by the Greek coastguard and their authorities have already been shown to be factually wrong. For example their statements about the course of the ferry https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65942426
I've been trying to find if the Greek authorities have responded to this, but like I said the internet is swamped with the submarine.
The survivors have been telling their accounts, with multiple people describing the coast guard as towing the ship and everyone screaming as they started to drag the ship over. Their coast guard initially denied any towing. Then they changed their story to briefly attaching a line, but it was removed after the crew and passengers "rejected their help".
Again I really want to read any information on the Greek response to this. It is already an unmitigated humanitarian catastrophe. But if there is truth to it being caused by their coastguard, who already have a documented history of towing migrant/refugee vessels outside Greek waters, then it represents a massive reprehensible crime.
They were already in violation of dozens of international statues by not offering help. If they actively caused the ship to sink along with perhaps 100 children in the hold it is an act of barbarity that cannot stand in modern society. They should be charged with whatever legal equivalent they have to murder/manslaughter. It would be impossible for them to claim that they couldn't have expected it to capsize, that would be blatant wilful ignorance.
NYT, June 16: Hundreds Dead, 9 Arrested, and Many Questions in Migrant Wreck
Yes, that is from the 16th. Since then the story has evolved so much. This story I linked from the BBC was from the 19th and has since been independently corroborated by other groups.
The survivors who have finally been able to reach their families have been sharing their personal experiences over the last couple of days.
Maritime legal experts have written comprehensive analysis showing why this holds absolutely no meaning under international law and documents dozens of treaties they have violated. Including that they could be brought to the ECHR.
The Greek officials have made a show of arresting the awful people traffickers. But it has been used as a way to distract blame from their own inaction and direct actions causing the catastrophe.
Blatant lies when we know the ship was effectively stationary for many hours leading up to its sinking. The ship wasn't going anywhere, it wasn't becoming Italy's problem.