11 ms·

That's a particularly crass thing to say about someone while their life is in jeopardy. >Did it not occur to anyone that it might be a bad idea? It's hard to b

That's a particularly crass thing to say about someone while their life is in jeopardy. >Did it not occur to anyone that it might be a bad idea? It's hard to be sympathetic in the face of such arrogance The company advertises the safety of their submersible and an active suite of sensors to detect and prevent failures.

paganel 3y ago
Crass but maybe other rich people will also get hold of this sentiment and will avoid doing stupid stuff like this in the future. Also, they were there visiting a place filled with dead and probably long decomposed people, can’t say I’m very sympathetic.
- noirbot 3y ago
  Isn't visiting places filled with dead and decomposing people a fairly normal tourist activity? Various catacombs, graveyards, temples, battlefields, memorials, Pompeii... I've got no real thoughts on the "stupidity" of doing this, but visiting the wreck of a famous ship doesn't seem an obviously unsympathetic thing to do compared to visiting the ruins of a city.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Or the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor.
  - bell-cot 3y ago
    Yes...but those are places where where the dead received "proper" burials. (Excepting Pompeii, and maybe some battlefields. Pompeii tends to get a pass because "ancient", "technically buried", and "A-listed Roman cultural site".) And generally, visiting ~none of those other places is a brag-worthy way to show off being one of the modern 0.1%. (Which, these days, gets very little sympathy in many quarters. Even without the "vultures draped in diamonds" aspect here.)
    - noirbot 3y ago
      Oh sure. I'm not arguing this is a good idea or not a way to show off your money, just that it's kinda a weird assertion that visiting a place where people died and weren't properly buried at some point in the past is uniquely distasteful. It's not as if they're going to look at the dead bodies, and as someone else points out, there's almost no chance there's intact remains left at that depth after all this time. There's plenty of less-deep shipwrecks all over the Caribbean or other coastal areas where people probably died that are normal enough to scuba dive into and I'm not sure people think that that's distasteful. The "you spent how much on this" part is something I'm absolutely fine with people taking issue with, but it doesn't seem that much more gauche than flying to space or just flying your private jet around.
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      It's very common for recreational divers to visit ships with bodies still in them. Maybe it's morbid, but it's common and generally you don't need to be "0.1%" to do it. If this story were about some working class people who died while scuba diving around a wreck in shallow water, would you still be trying to vilify them for it?
      - bell-cot 3y ago
        True about recreational divers. I'm trying to explain the sentiments which user paganel originally voiced - which I suspect are kinda common. My sense is that the strong negative feeling are tied to how much of a "just too many emotional points against it" corner case this is. A famous & famously tragic shipwreck, the dangers inherent in their extreme tourism, how very few people can imagine "it coulda been someone like me in that little sub", the "mass grave" scale of death, the kinda-mythical "forbidden underworld" aura to the site, etc., etc.
        noirbot 3y ago
        I think some of the pushback that I feel to that is that it seems like a socially acceptable guise for just wanting to hate rich people. I'm fine if your opinion is "screw rich people who spend this much on weird things", or even "Rich people who died doing something this frivolous deserved it." But just own that. If this had been the original diving expedition to the Titanic to find the wreck for the first time, or even the followups, and people had potentially died then, I doubt we would have had this many people out in the comments about how its distasteful and they're hoping it would dissuade anyone from doing it again. At least "I hate rich people" is a consistent view whether you agree or not. Trying to make that view more socially acceptable by adding new and inconsistent layers on top about how visiting a place people died is inherently something that makes them unsympathetic just feels weird.
  - dongaudreau 3y ago
    any evidence human remains ie posed to ocean water and 12k of pressure i believe is long gone
    - ghostpepper 3y ago
      Not in the ocean, but I believe there are shipwrecks in Lake Superior with preserved bodies https://unidentified-awareness.fandom.com/wiki/Old_Whitey https://unidentified-awareness.fandom.com/wiki/Old_Whitey
      - mcpackieh 3y ago
        Even in the ocean, human remains may be partially preserved if the conditions are right for it. They found human remains in or around the Vasa, a Swedish warship that sank in 1628. Mostly just bones, but also a little bit of soft tissue more than 300 years later. > Organic materials fared better in the anaerobic conditions, and so wood, cloth and leather are often in very good condition, but objects exposed to the currents were eroded by the sediment in the water, so that some are barely recognizable.[43] Objects which fell off the hull into the mud after the nails corroded through were well protected, so that many of the sculptures still retain areas of paint and gilding. Of the human remains, most of the soft tissue was consumed, leaving only the bones, which were often held together only by clothing, although in one case, hair, nails and brain tissue survived.[44] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)#Deterioration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)#Deterioration The brain in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD8xOCoct4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD8xOCoct4w
  - dongaudreau 3y ago
    i believe the ocean has long dissolved any human remains
- chihuahua 3y ago
  Also crass, but the eat-the-rich crowd might applaud the concept of finding more people willing to pay $250k for a thrill ride and imploding the vehicle at the bottom of the ocean or in space.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    [flagged]
kotaKat 3y ago
https://youtu.be/29co_Hksk6o?t=157 https://youtu.be/29co_Hksk6o?t=157 Having been linked this elsewhere in the thread I don't quite like the fact that they're so brazen that they bought internal lighting from Camping World and drive it with a Logitech USB gamepad and using half-ass construction piping as a ballast. Or the fact that they scrubbed a Titanic launch for the media due to weather (presenting from some kind of briefing room where they presented from a laptop on top of a Breville cooker box), went elsewhere, then scrubbed THAT launch while in the water because the launch platform floats detached...
- stickfigure 3y ago
  I think you have unreasonable expectations. Off-the-shelf components may be more reliable than custom developed products (especially since you can afford a backup or two). Also, with respect to emergency ballast - cheapness is a virtue. You're supposed to drop it in an emergency, and hesitating because "I don't want to lose my expensive weights" could kill you. This is a consideration for recreational scuba too, instructors recommend buying cheap weight belts (and the companies selling expensive ones usually advertise "free replacement if you use them in an emergency").
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Yeah. I'm not sure having Boeing design and build me a $10,000 LED lighting array is necessarily a big improvement and, if you're worried about the reliability of your game controller? Buy two maybe of everything maybe, even three? There can be reasons to use expensive bespoke coffee pots on commercial flights. But going with the gold-plated aerospace version isn't always the answer.
  - gchadwick 3y ago
    Though choice is still important, why that gamepad? Especially if it was the wireless version. Building the controls with wired arcade buttons and an arcade joystick would be a little pricier but you'd get parts designed to take a beating, plenty of real world usage to demonstrate this and no potentially flaky usb/wireless stack that you have no control over to deal with.
jonathankoren 3y ago
It may be crass, but it's also true. Contrary to what many folks say, this is the exact time to be talking about these deficiencies. Putting it off to later, is simply an attempt to memory hole them. The company lost a submersible for four hours on a previous dive. They don't talk about that. In fact, they killed the internet so the reporter that happened to be onboard couldn't report it. (That's what we call, a "cover up".) Putting much weight into a company declaring their commitment to safety is a bit of a fool's errand. Even the most reckless company says that safety is paramount.
king_magic 3y ago
> The company advertises the safety of their submersible and an active suite of sensors to detect and prevent failures. Looks like they did a real half-assed job at exactly that.

paganel 3y ago

Crass but maybe other rich people will also get hold of this sentiment and will avoid doing stupid stuff like this in the future. Also, they were there visiting a place filled with dead and probably long decomposed people, can’t say I’m very sympathetic.

noirbot 3y ago
Isn't visiting places filled with dead and decomposing people a fairly normal tourist activity? Various catacombs, graveyards, temples, battlefields, memorials, Pompeii... I've got no real thoughts on the "stupidity" of doing this, but visiting the wreck of a famous ship doesn't seem an obviously unsympathetic thing to do compared to visiting the ruins of a city.
- ghaff 3y ago
  Or the Arizona Memorial at Pearl Harbor.
- bell-cot 3y ago
  Yes...but those are places where where the dead received "proper" burials. (Excepting Pompeii, and maybe some battlefields. Pompeii tends to get a pass because "ancient", "technically buried", and "A-listed Roman cultural site".) And generally, visiting ~none of those other places is a brag-worthy way to show off being one of the modern 0.1%. (Which, these days, gets very little sympathy in many quarters. Even without the "vultures draped in diamonds" aspect here.)
  - noirbot 3y ago
    Oh sure. I'm not arguing this is a good idea or not a way to show off your money, just that it's kinda a weird assertion that visiting a place where people died and weren't properly buried at some point in the past is uniquely distasteful. It's not as if they're going to look at the dead bodies, and as someone else points out, there's almost no chance there's intact remains left at that depth after all this time. There's plenty of less-deep shipwrecks all over the Caribbean or other coastal areas where people probably died that are normal enough to scuba dive into and I'm not sure people think that that's distasteful. The "you spent how much on this" part is something I'm absolutely fine with people taking issue with, but it doesn't seem that much more gauche than flying to space or just flying your private jet around.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    It's very common for recreational divers to visit ships with bodies still in them. Maybe it's morbid, but it's common and generally you don't need to be "0.1%" to do it. If this story were about some working class people who died while scuba diving around a wreck in shallow water, would you still be trying to vilify them for it?
    - bell-cot 3y ago
      True about recreational divers. I'm trying to explain the sentiments which user paganel originally voiced - which I suspect are kinda common. My sense is that the strong negative feeling are tied to how much of a "just too many emotional points against it" corner case this is. A famous & famously tragic shipwreck, the dangers inherent in their extreme tourism, how very few people can imagine "it coulda been someone like me in that little sub", the "mass grave" scale of death, the kinda-mythical "forbidden underworld" aura to the site, etc., etc.
      - noirbot 3y ago
        I think some of the pushback that I feel to that is that it seems like a socially acceptable guise for just wanting to hate rich people. I'm fine if your opinion is "screw rich people who spend this much on weird things", or even "Rich people who died doing something this frivolous deserved it." But just own that. If this had been the original diving expedition to the Titanic to find the wreck for the first time, or even the followups, and people had potentially died then, I doubt we would have had this many people out in the comments about how its distasteful and they're hoping it would dissuade anyone from doing it again. At least "I hate rich people" is a consistent view whether you agree or not. Trying to make that view more socially acceptable by adding new and inconsistent layers on top about how visiting a place people died is inherently something that makes them unsympathetic just feels weird.
- dongaudreau 3y ago
  any evidence human remains ie posed to ocean water and 12k of pressure i believe is long gone
  - ghostpepper 3y ago
    Not in the ocean, but I believe there are shipwrecks in Lake Superior with preserved bodies https://unidentified-awareness.fandom.com/wiki/Old_Whitey https://unidentified-awareness.fandom.com/wiki/Old_Whitey
    - mcpackieh 3y ago
      Even in the ocean, human remains may be partially preserved if the conditions are right for it. They found human remains in or around the Vasa, a Swedish warship that sank in 1628. Mostly just bones, but also a little bit of soft tissue more than 300 years later. > Organic materials fared better in the anaerobic conditions, and so wood, cloth and leather are often in very good condition, but objects exposed to the currents were eroded by the sediment in the water, so that some are barely recognizable.[43] Objects which fell off the hull into the mud after the nails corroded through were well protected, so that many of the sculptures still retain areas of paint and gilding. Of the human remains, most of the soft tissue was consumed, leaving only the bones, which were often held together only by clothing, although in one case, hair, nails and brain tissue survived.[44] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)#Deterioration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasa_(ship)#Deterioration The brain in question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD8xOCoct4w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD8xOCoct4w
- dongaudreau 3y ago
  i believe the ocean has long dissolved any human remains
chihuahua 3y ago
Also crass, but the eat-the-rich crowd might applaud the concept of finding more people willing to pay $250k for a thrill ride and imploding the vehicle at the bottom of the ocean or in space.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  [flagged]

kotaKat 3y ago

https://youtu.be/29co_Hksk6o?t=157 https://youtu.be/29co_Hksk6o?t=157 Having been linked this elsewhere in the thread I don't quite like the fact that they're so brazen that they bought internal lighting from Camping World and drive it with a Logitech USB gamepad and using half-ass construction piping as a ballast. Or the fact that they scrubbed a Titanic launch for the media due to weather (presenting from some kind of briefing room where they presented from a laptop on top of a Breville cooker box), went elsewhere, then scrubbed THAT launch while in the water because the launch platform floats detached...

stickfigure 3y ago
I think you have unreasonable expectations. Off-the-shelf components may be more reliable than custom developed products (especially since you can afford a backup or two). Also, with respect to emergency ballast - cheapness is a virtue. You're supposed to drop it in an emergency, and hesitating because "I don't want to lose my expensive weights" could kill you. This is a consideration for recreational scuba too, instructors recommend buying cheap weight belts (and the companies selling expensive ones usually advertise "free replacement if you use them in an emergency").
- ghaff 3y ago
  Yeah. I'm not sure having Boeing design and build me a $10,000 LED lighting array is necessarily a big improvement and, if you're worried about the reliability of your game controller? Buy two maybe of everything maybe, even three? There can be reasons to use expensive bespoke coffee pots on commercial flights. But going with the gold-plated aerospace version isn't always the answer.
- gchadwick 3y ago
  Though choice is still important, why that gamepad? Especially if it was the wireless version. Building the controls with wired arcade buttons and an arcade joystick would be a little pricier but you'd get parts designed to take a beating, plenty of real world usage to demonstrate this and no potentially flaky usb/wireless stack that you have no control over to deal with.

jonathankoren 3y ago

It may be crass, but it's also true. Contrary to what many folks say, this is the exact time to be talking about these deficiencies. Putting it off to later, is simply an attempt to memory hole them. The company lost a submersible for four hours on a previous dive. They don't talk about that. In fact, they killed the internet so the reporter that happened to be onboard couldn't report it. (That's what we call, a "cover up".) Putting much weight into a company declaring their commitment to safety is a bit of a fool's errand. Even the most reckless company says that safety is paramount.

king_magic 3y ago

> The company advertises the safety of their submersible and an active suite of sensors to detect and prevent failures. Looks like they did a real half-assed job at exactly that.