3 ms·
We have "accredited investors" whose wealth and sophistication makes them able to take financial risks in unregulated markets where scams would destroy naive in
by HWR_14 3y ago
We have "accredited investors" whose wealth and sophistication makes them able to take financial risks in unregulated markets where scams would destroy naive investors. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that any billionaire entering a dangerous situation can have or access whatever experts on risk mitigation they want. I have no sympathy towards the "cannot vet the safety" argument.
If it was regular tourists who save up for a once in a lifetime experience, I would feel differently.
- sugarkjube 3y agoI'm pretty sure they only went because the CEO/owner went along. Seems like a reasonable assumption to make as a customer that the CEO wouldn't risk his life.
- HWR_14 3y agoAgain, they don't have to make assumptions. They can have their own engineers provide due diligence. These are people who can trivially afford that level of care on an experimental submersible.
- flangola7 3y agoMaking the argument that customers should have had their own engineers conduct an assessment if they wanted safety is definitely a solid plan if your goal is to be torn to sheds by the judge/jury.
- HWR_14 3y agoI'm sure the legal case before the judge is "check page 2, subsection 4 of our indemnity clause" and the case is tossed before it even gets to the jury. I'm specifically talking about people trying risky things. And yes, billionaires who want to risk their lives on experimental deadly craft should hire engineers.