4 ms·

"Hey, we're pretty sure your family is dead, because we heard them die, but we're going to give you a few days of thinking they're suffocating to death in a col

"Hey, we're pretty sure your family is dead, because we heard them die, but we're going to give you a few days of thinking they're suffocating to death in a cold dark can because..." This is just reasoning after the fact. It doesn't make sense to conceal evidence. If this used some secret technology, okay, why say it publicly now? If it's okay to be public, why not a few days ago?

satisfice 3y ago
They certainly told the family about the implosion noise, because I heard one of the expert commentators remark on how he knew about it prior to the news about the knocking noises. If he knew, the family knew. I think they were just holding out hope that it wasn’t an implosion noise.
- ALittleLight 3y ago
  It's fine to hold out hope, but there's no point to concealing evidence. Why not report what's actually happening to the best of your knowledge?
  - satisfice 3y ago
    I agree.
Ratiofarmings 3y ago
Because dealing with it internally and informing the public are two entirely different things. They may well have told the families some things, but not the public. Afterall this is a privately funded venture and the rescue effort isn't going to be paid for by the public either. They owe us nothing.
- ragingrobot 3y ago
  > They owe us nothing. Agreed. We seem, as a culture, to feel we're owed, or entitled, to everything nowaways. By releasing this information, there would have possible been a massive outcry by the (unconcerned) public and the families involved that the parties involved weren't doing enough. Everyone would have hopped on the "you're too slow to act" bandwagon. This despite not having any knowledge or expertise in the area. They may have created some headaches at this point, but saved themselves a lot of undeserved headaches and media criticism by not releasing info earlier.
- redeeman 3y ago
  > They owe us nothing. Are you referring to the actual "government" ? because in that case, it definitely seems like they owe their own citizens something?
  - pohl 3y ago
    They do, but what they owe differs by what part of the government one is dealing with. You’ll find that, with regards to the military, one thing they do not owe to citizens is real-time, unfettered access to intelligence.
- trogdor 3y ago
  >the rescue effort isn't going to be paid for by the public either That is not true. The federal government does not charge for search and rescue. Why do you believe otherwise?
tw04 3y ago
"Hey we heard a loud boom that may or may not mean your family is dead, and we have no other source of confirmation at this point but just stew on that for a few days while we try to confirm." Do you have NO empathy? Why would they tell the family they think everyone is dead without verifiable proof and within the window in which they could still be alive? (4 days of oxygen). What is the benefit beyond a bunch of virtual gawkers getting slightly more information slightly quicker?
- ALittleLight 3y ago
  I'm rolling my eyes at the "Do you have NO empathy" bit. Is it empathy that drives one to lie by omission to obfuscate the death of others? Is that the word for it? You don't have to tell the family you're certain they are dead, if you aren't, but you should tell the family "We heard a sound consistent with implosion at the same time we simultaneously lost communications and telemetry from the sub. The most rational explanation is that they are all dead." Once you've told the family, you should tell the public. What people are engaging in here, you included, is some kind of baffling Just World bias. That is, this unusual circumstance has happened - the sub imploded, the government knew, the government waited days to tell the public, and now you and others are defending the government's actions - as if, because it happened this way it must be justified in happening this way. In reality, of course, it's completely irrational - that's why you don't even bother to defend the course of events rather than imply I lack empathy (which, again, backwards because you are defending lying to the bereaved for no gain, in order to deceive them into believing their loved ones are huddled in the cold and dark and slowly suffocating when you know they are not). There is absolutely no reason to temporarily conceal the deaths. The government should have notified the families with their information, and then the public.

satisfice 3y ago

They certainly told the family about the implosion noise, because I heard one of the expert commentators remark on how he knew about it prior to the news about the knocking noises. If he knew, the family knew. I think they were just holding out hope that it wasn’t an implosion noise.

ALittleLight 3y ago
It's fine to hold out hope, but there's no point to concealing evidence. Why not report what's actually happening to the best of your knowledge?
- satisfice 3y ago
  I agree.

Ratiofarmings 3y ago

Because dealing with it internally and informing the public are two entirely different things. They may well have told the families some things, but not the public. Afterall this is a privately funded venture and the rescue effort isn't going to be paid for by the public either. They owe us nothing.

ragingrobot 3y ago
> They owe us nothing. Agreed. We seem, as a culture, to feel we're owed, or entitled, to everything nowaways. By releasing this information, there would have possible been a massive outcry by the (unconcerned) public and the families involved that the parties involved weren't doing enough. Everyone would have hopped on the "you're too slow to act" bandwagon. This despite not having any knowledge or expertise in the area. They may have created some headaches at this point, but saved themselves a lot of undeserved headaches and media criticism by not releasing info earlier.
redeeman 3y ago
> They owe us nothing. Are you referring to the actual "government" ? because in that case, it definitely seems like they owe their own citizens something?
- pohl 3y ago
  They do, but what they owe differs by what part of the government one is dealing with. You’ll find that, with regards to the military, one thing they do not owe to citizens is real-time, unfettered access to intelligence.
trogdor 3y ago
>the rescue effort isn't going to be paid for by the public either That is not true. The federal government does not charge for search and rescue. Why do you believe otherwise?

tw04 3y ago

"Hey we heard a loud boom that may or may not mean your family is dead, and we have no other source of confirmation at this point but just stew on that for a few days while we try to confirm." Do you have NO empathy? Why would they tell the family they think everyone is dead without verifiable proof and within the window in which they could still be alive? (4 days of oxygen). What is the benefit beyond a bunch of virtual gawkers getting slightly more information slightly quicker?

ALittleLight 3y ago
I'm rolling my eyes at the "Do you have NO empathy" bit. Is it empathy that drives one to lie by omission to obfuscate the death of others? Is that the word for it? You don't have to tell the family you're certain they are dead, if you aren't, but you should tell the family "We heard a sound consistent with implosion at the same time we simultaneously lost communications and telemetry from the sub. The most rational explanation is that they are all dead." Once you've told the family, you should tell the public. What people are engaging in here, you included, is some kind of baffling Just World bias. That is, this unusual circumstance has happened - the sub imploded, the government knew, the government waited days to tell the public, and now you and others are defending the government's actions - as if, because it happened this way it must be justified in happening this way. In reality, of course, it's completely irrational - that's why you don't even bother to defend the course of events rather than imply I lack empathy (which, again, backwards because you are defending lying to the bereaved for no gain, in order to deceive them into believing their loved ones are huddled in the cold and dark and slowly suffocating when you know they are not). There is absolutely no reason to temporarily conceal the deaths. The government should have notified the families with their information, and then the public.