5 ms·

The whole "PR" stuff bugged me, because it honestly doesn't matter if it is. It's perfectly possible, and preferable for PR to be win-win. And it really doesn

by soneil 8y ago

The whole "PR" stuff bugged me, because it honestly doesn't matter if it is. It's perfectly possible, and preferable for PR to be win-win. And it really doesn't matter if they didn't use it. More options is better than too few options. But his response to being called a "PR stunt" has been absolutely disgusting. Test it, validate it, prove it, and donate it to whoever it is that keeps big boxes of weird contraptions for when things go wrong. Then move on. Just .. not this. Quite the opposite of this.

danso 8y ago
I don’t mind if it’s PR either. He put his money where his mouth was. I doubt the rescue officials would be as annoyed with him if he developed his sub in private — and talked about it after the rescue was over.
flukus 8y ago
> And it really doesn't matter if they didn't use it. More options is better than too few options. No it really isn't. When people are fatigued, under pressure and facing some hard time constraints you want less options, options that the rescue team are familiar with and trained for. You don't want them thinking about whether this new contraption would work in the back of their minds. It's like having that boss that wants status reports every 5 minutes during a production issue, not only is it unhelpful but it does hamper efforts to resolve things. > Test it, validate it, prove it, and donate it to whoever it is that keeps big boxes of weird contraptions for when things go wrong. And do all of this before it's needed, don't wing it.
- petertodd 8y ago
  > options that the rescue team are familiar with and trained for. Eh, don't overestimate how common this rescue was. The techniques they used in the end appear to be unprecedented underwater - cave diving is sufficiently dangerous that rescuing people who can't move under their own power is unheard of. So people don't train for that. Notably, while the the two cave divers who actually found the kids had done successful cave rescues before in dry caves, this appears to be the first time they've ever successfully rescued someone underwater - all their prior experience underwater was body recoveries (one of which following a failed attempt(1) to rescue a cave diver). Heck, there's a school of thought in cave diving that rejects the usual scuba diving practice of having a buddy in favour of diving solo. It's common for the rescue attempt to simply end up killing the dive buddy as well rather than saving a life: https://cavedivinggroup.org.uk/in-praise-of-solo-cave-diving/ https://cavedivinggroup.org.uk/in-praise-of-solo-cave-diving... 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stanton_(cave_diver)#Caving_and_rescues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stanton_(cave_diver)#C...
  - flukus 8y ago
    > Eh, don't overestimate how common this rescue was The operation was unique, just about every rescue operation is in some way, but the equipment they're using is all the same stuff that's familiar because they've trained with it. Getting a dead body through a cave is fairly similar to a live one and the differences between the two is something they were very cautious about taking into account. Introducing a new piece of equipment they're not familiar with is an additional unknown that compounds the ones they were already facing.
- soneil 8y ago
  > Mr Stanton told reporters: "This was completely uncharted, unprecedented territory and nothing like this has been done. So, of course there were doubts. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44819416 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44819416) Those involved don't seem to think it was what they were familiar with, at all. Basically, the people that normally get trapped miles into flooded caves are other cave divers - not children who can barely swim at all. Especially in an environment where panic kills (they're still very guarded about admitting whether or not the kids were medicated to prevent panics, but this is exactly why they probably should have been). This is the same diver that found the kids, and the same diver who was telling Musk to hurry up. If he thought it was an option worth having, I'm more than willing to defer to his expertise. I don't think that's the part that went wrong - it was creating and then mishandling the publicity that's stung.

by soneil 8y ago

danso 8y ago

I don’t mind if it’s PR either. He put his money where his mouth was. I doubt the rescue officials would be as annoyed with him if he developed his sub in private — and talked about it after the rescue was over.

flukus 8y ago

> And it really doesn't matter if they didn't use it. More options is better than too few options. No it really isn't. When people are fatigued, under pressure and facing some hard time constraints you want less options, options that the rescue team are familiar with and trained for. You don't want them thinking about whether this new contraption would work in the back of their minds. It's like having that boss that wants status reports every 5 minutes during a production issue, not only is it unhelpful but it does hamper efforts to resolve things. > Test it, validate it, prove it, and donate it to whoever it is that keeps big boxes of weird contraptions for when things go wrong. And do all of this before it's needed, don't wing it.

petertodd 8y ago
> options that the rescue team are familiar with and trained for. Eh, don't overestimate how common this rescue was. The techniques they used in the end appear to be unprecedented underwater - cave diving is sufficiently dangerous that rescuing people who can't move under their own power is unheard of. So people don't train for that. Notably, while the the two cave divers who actually found the kids had done successful cave rescues before in dry caves, this appears to be the first time they've ever successfully rescued someone underwater - all their prior experience underwater was body recoveries (one of which following a failed attempt(1) to rescue a cave diver). Heck, there's a school of thought in cave diving that rejects the usual scuba diving practice of having a buddy in favour of diving solo. It's common for the rescue attempt to simply end up killing the dive buddy as well rather than saving a life: https://cavedivinggroup.org.uk/in-praise-of-solo-cave-diving/ https://cavedivinggroup.org.uk/in-praise-of-solo-cave-diving... 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stanton_(cave_diver)#Caving_and_rescues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stanton_(cave_diver)#C...
- flukus 8y ago
  > Eh, don't overestimate how common this rescue was The operation was unique, just about every rescue operation is in some way, but the equipment they're using is all the same stuff that's familiar because they've trained with it. Getting a dead body through a cave is fairly similar to a live one and the differences between the two is something they were very cautious about taking into account. Introducing a new piece of equipment they're not familiar with is an additional unknown that compounds the ones they were already facing.
soneil 8y ago
> Mr Stanton told reporters: "This was completely uncharted, unprecedented territory and nothing like this has been done. So, of course there were doubts. (https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44819416 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-44819416) Those involved don't seem to think it was what they were familiar with, at all. Basically, the people that normally get trapped miles into flooded caves are other cave divers - not children who can barely swim at all. Especially in an environment where panic kills (they're still very guarded about admitting whether or not the kids were medicated to prevent panics, but this is exactly why they probably should have been). This is the same diver that found the kids, and the same diver who was telling Musk to hurry up. If he thought it was an option worth having, I'm more than willing to defer to his expertise. I don't think that's the part that went wrong - it was creating and then mishandling the publicity that's stung.