4 ms·

One of those rare occasions where I can't possibly just salute an excellent comment with a mere upvote. Superbly balanced effort, each bullet point equally deva

• refulgentis 2y ago
  You have inspired me to do a quick Fisk-ing, in homage to rationality, remaining tethered to reality, and preferring some research before free-associating, if only to avoid information pollution. (note: we can quickly discover footage from inside the Titanic that obviates all these points. Here, we endeavor to cover this from an angle of how you could detect the arguments presented were weak, without that knowledge) * Difficult to navigate in a narrow underwater structure without crashing Passenger ship? Too narrow for a drone? * Signal penetration, or lack thereof, in an iron hull at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean Wireless signals aren't used for companion submersibles. * Extremely niche technology that would have few practical uses in other contexts since most of the seabed does not suffer from the same complexities as a shipwreck The seabed does not have any tight spaces? * Can't see for shit underwater in general We are commenting on an article that reconstructed a massive ship as a 3D model via photographs underwater * We already know whats down there and why it's down there, therefore unlikely to lead to significant new information We are commenting on an article that reconstructed the ship from the exterior despite this same factor applying. * This could actually be considered desecrating a mass grave under maritime law Not even wrong. Just throwing stuff out there.
  • billforsternz 2y ago
    Bravo. I am speechless at this point.
  • trulyamazing 2y ago
    [dead]