3 ms·

The switch from the Dualshock to the Logitech, as a system designed by students, demonstrates negligence that led to the catastrophe. Had the system not been de

The switch from the Dualshock to the Logitech, as a system designed by students, demonstrates negligence that led to the catastrophe. Had the system not been designed by students, it would not use a wireless game controller. You could argue it in your head but in reality, which is part of the claim, no such system exists in any submarine.

andrewflnr 2y ago
Why are you so determined to make the gamepad mean something? Is it not enough that the whole design of the sub was fundamentally flawed? Anyway, the best sense I can make of your logic is that designedByStudents -> gamepad, and designedByStudents -> negligence, therefore gamepad -> negligence. In that case I believe your fallacy is "affirming the consequent", with a side of ad populum w.r.t other submarines. I don't see how changing the type of controller fits in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
- smittywerben 2y ago
  I'm not affirming the consequent here. I'm saying don't dismiss the gamepad claim outright. As I said, it's not normal for a sub traveling miles under water to have electronics sourced from Walmart's toy section. This thread is about the gamepad. The lawsuit mentions it. It's relevant. Period.
  - andrewflnr 2y ago
    It's mentioned, but we can still point out that its importance is at best overstated, and that the article headline mentioned it in a deceptive way, and that it most likely had nothing to do with the actual incident (again, plenty of bigger issues). So then the most important question relating to the gamepad remains: why do people keep mentioning it? The specific sub thread we're under started with a pretty good theory IMO. In the meantime, the correct thing is in fact to dismiss the gamepad until any evidence appears relating to its role in the vehicle loss, and not to get to excited for that to happen.

andrewflnr 2y ago

Why are you so determined to make the gamepad mean something? Is it not enough that the whole design of the sub was fundamentally flawed? Anyway, the best sense I can make of your logic is that designedByStudents -> gamepad, and designedByStudents -> negligence, therefore gamepad -> negligence. In that case I believe your fallacy is "affirming the consequent", with a side of ad populum w.r.t other submarines. I don't see how changing the type of controller fits in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

smittywerben 2y ago
I'm not affirming the consequent here. I'm saying don't dismiss the gamepad claim outright. As I said, it's not normal for a sub traveling miles under water to have electronics sourced from Walmart's toy section. This thread is about the gamepad. The lawsuit mentions it. It's relevant. Period.
- andrewflnr 2y ago
  It's mentioned, but we can still point out that its importance is at best overstated, and that the article headline mentioned it in a deceptive way, and that it most likely had nothing to do with the actual incident (again, plenty of bigger issues). So then the most important question relating to the gamepad remains: why do people keep mentioning it? The specific sub thread we're under started with a pretty good theory IMO. In the meantime, the correct thing is in fact to dismiss the gamepad until any evidence appears relating to its role in the vehicle loss, and not to get to excited for that to happen.