4 ms·

Is it "more disturbing," though, really? I mean, privileged rich dude who thinks he knows better than experts wins Darwin award, and some people dumb enough to

Is it "more disturbing," though, really? I mean, privileged rich dude who thinks he knows better than experts wins Darwin award, and some people dumb enough to trust him got to go along for the (one way) ride. I'm not any more disturbed by it now than I was a year ago, and a year ago it barely moved the needle. And then it was only about the 19 year old son of one of the passengers -- even at that age, a child ought to be able to trust his father to keep him safe, and Shahzada Dawood utterly failed on that count.

dudisubekti 2y ago
Stockton Rush is not eligible for Darwin award because he had two children. The 19-year old son is eligible, though he won’t win the award because he was peer-pressured by his dad.
- echoangle 2y ago
  I wanted to ask if the Darwin Award is also possible if you manage to get yourself and your child killed but the father had another daughter which is still alive
  - dudisubekti 2y ago
    I was mistaken, I just rechecked the rules and apparently having an offspring no longer disqualifies a candidate since the offspring only inherits 50% of the nominee’s genes. So everyone in the sub are eligible now.
- ubermonkey 2y ago
  Well, fair.
psychoslave 2y ago
I didn’t delve this story, I just remember I saw a five minutes info at some tv channel in France, which was interviewing a guy who refused to for the ride just before the launch as he estimated the safety level he was expecting was not there. I don’t know if other riders were aware of that fact, which should have been communicated to them as a big red alert. Sad story, really. These people at least died while actively pursuing a dream, though it finished in a dramatic way. This is unlike so many people in Gaza or Ukraine just to mention what pop out of my mind. :’(
- criddell 2y ago
  > I don’t know if other riders were aware of that fact, which should have been communicated to them as a big red alert. As I understand it, the passengers were made aware of the risks. https://www.businessinsider.com/read-oceangate-waiver-titan-sub-passengers-lists-numerous-death-risks-2023-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/read-oceangate-waiver-titan-...
  - coldtea 2y ago
    "the passengers were made aware of the risks" From people asking them to sign this who otherwise hand-waived the risks away?
    - criddell 2y ago
      I hadn't heard that before. Did Oceangate lie about or understate the risks?
      - coldtea 2y ago
        It's easy (and legally advised) to have a waiver mentioning all the risks, while also totally downplaying them in your sales pitch and live communications that go on before such a thing gets signed.
        criddell 2y ago
        Sure, but did they do that? I've seen plenty of reporting about the extensive and blunt waiver but nothing about them misleading passengers or, as you said, hand-waiving the risks away.
        coldtea 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure they did exactly that, seeing the way the owner talked about their "innovations" and blatant disregard for safety. James Cameron also alluded to that.
JKCalhoun 2y ago
I was disturbed reading about all of the back-pedaling by the contractors.
oska 2y ago
I wouldn't perhaps have expressed myself as callously as you, and I think the 'Darwin award' is a silly concept that doesn't deserve referencing but I do agree with your general sentiment. To directly reference the sensationalising Wired headline, no, this incident did not 'shock the world' and it is not really very disturbing (because the failings of those involved are very well known human traits). I personally paid scant attention to this story, mostly only observing how much of a media frenzy there was around it. Sure, it's fine to write up a story on what led up to the failure of the sub and fine for ppl to be interested in that story. But it's not a 'world shocking' nor particularly disturbing story. (I can think of things going on right now that are both shocking the world and truly disturbing, but I won't go there. Suffice to say that we devalue language when we use it sensationally.)

dudisubekti 2y ago

Stockton Rush is not eligible for Darwin award because he had two children. The 19-year old son is eligible, though he won’t win the award because he was peer-pressured by his dad.

echoangle 2y ago
I wanted to ask if the Darwin Award is also possible if you manage to get yourself and your child killed but the father had another daughter which is still alive
- dudisubekti 2y ago
  I was mistaken, I just rechecked the rules and apparently having an offspring no longer disqualifies a candidate since the offspring only inherits 50% of the nominee’s genes. So everyone in the sub are eligible now.
ubermonkey 2y ago
Well, fair.

psychoslave 2y ago

I didn’t delve this story, I just remember I saw a five minutes info at some tv channel in France, which was interviewing a guy who refused to for the ride just before the launch as he estimated the safety level he was expecting was not there. I don’t know if other riders were aware of that fact, which should have been communicated to them as a big red alert. Sad story, really. These people at least died while actively pursuing a dream, though it finished in a dramatic way. This is unlike so many people in Gaza or Ukraine just to mention what pop out of my mind. :’(

criddell 2y ago
> I don’t know if other riders were aware of that fact, which should have been communicated to them as a big red alert. As I understand it, the passengers were made aware of the risks. https://www.businessinsider.com/read-oceangate-waiver-titan-sub-passengers-lists-numerous-death-risks-2023-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/read-oceangate-waiver-titan-...
- coldtea 2y ago
  "the passengers were made aware of the risks" From people asking them to sign this who otherwise hand-waived the risks away?
  - criddell 2y ago
    I hadn't heard that before. Did Oceangate lie about or understate the risks?
    - coldtea 2y ago
      It's easy (and legally advised) to have a waiver mentioning all the risks, while also totally downplaying them in your sales pitch and live communications that go on before such a thing gets signed.
      - criddell 2y ago
        Sure, but did they do that? I've seen plenty of reporting about the extensive and blunt waiver but nothing about them misleading passengers or, as you said, hand-waiving the risks away.
        coldtea 2y ago
        I'm pretty sure they did exactly that, seeing the way the owner talked about their "innovations" and blatant disregard for safety. James Cameron also alluded to that.

JKCalhoun 2y ago

I was disturbed reading about all of the back-pedaling by the contractors.

oska 2y ago

I wouldn't perhaps have expressed myself as callously as you, and I think the 'Darwin award' is a silly concept that doesn't deserve referencing but I do agree with your general sentiment. To directly reference the sensationalising Wired headline, no, this incident did not 'shock the world' and it is not really very disturbing (because the failings of those involved are very well known human traits). I personally paid scant attention to this story, mostly only observing how much of a media frenzy there was around it. Sure, it's fine to write up a story on what led up to the failure of the sub and fine for ppl to be interested in that story. But it's not a 'world shocking' nor particularly disturbing story. (I can think of things going on right now that are both shocking the world and truly disturbing, but I won't go there. Suffice to say that we devalue language when we use it sensationally.)