Didn’t they ignore a bunch of regulatory bodies by claiming the passengers were experts and not tourists? I think throwing more laws at it won;t do much, unless they close similar loopholes.
They were given trivial tasks to perform to justify the title. It was in bad faith and should have rung alarm bells. But I anticipate for the luxury thrill-seeker, they may be accustomed to fancy titles for their trips, and didn’t even really think about it.
It really only is, for the most part, on places like tik tok and youtube where the word ‘dead’ is banned. And it occasionally slips out into normal society but…just…no.
like 8 years ago i worked with this girl who would fucking say hashtag. like someone would say something really crazy and she would be like “hashtag really?”
Contrary to popular belief the word “dead” is not banned on tiktok or youtube. Do people really think that the censor can be tricked by a synonym a 5 yeard old could come up with?
Real argument is to protect people with trauma as seeing “dead” can be a trigger but even then it doesn’t make much sense as it’s the same word - just spelled differently. The only way this would work if we come up with new word for “death” every few months before our brains re-asocciate the synonyms but that’s absurdly impractical and impossible to implement. I do think it’s an interesting language phenomena tho and is fun to explore.
Now that I look yeah…your right. I fell for interwebs bullshit. But completely agree on you about the constant changing of words. And going going back to the original though…if you are so triggered by the word dead/death…im sorry but you just need to learn to live with that. Society cant abandon such incredibly basic words because of people like that.
I was using it satirically and I honestly think that’s where this word is going. I find it fascinating though - it’s absolutely meaningless but it also sounds safe and incredibly artificial. It’s full of these paradoxical features that make this word really fun. I’d invest meme points into it tbh.
I’ll be honest, I don’t think that’s a sensible approach. Yes, it’s billionaires offing themselves, sure. But regulations are quite important, in particular in sensible and critical areas like this.
If they also protect some billionaires that’s an unfortunate side effect, but overall these regulations would be very good to have. The rise of venture capitalist attitude outside of IT is only going to get worse, so the sooner we can establish rules against that the better.
Could you expand on why? Surely there must be more important areas to spend resource to regulate than protecting some rich people hobbie that only few people per year partake in. It would cost millions of dollars to regulate something like this effectively. The only argument I can think off is that it could cost less to regulate than to “save and rescue” these idiots but save and rescue is not a pro bono service for the most part either. They or their insurance will have to cover the costs of this.
dunno man the whole thing is a bit absurd. At the same time literally over 400 people drowned trying to escape poverty. It’s really hard to care for this particular human value when there’s this massive injustice. Reality is we don’t have infinite resources and attention - we should direct it more efficiently than this.
Unironically go fuck yourself, this is a sociopathic perspective. I don’t have much sympathy for Mister “safety is waste” himself but the people he lied to about the safety of his sub didn’t deserve to die.
The thing is that it’s not a binary on/off issue it’s resource distribution issue. Why should we collectively spend absurd amount of resources to protect this extremely small entertainment niche when there are literally people dying from preventable issues. I’m not an utalitarian but it’s really hard not to agree with their philosophy when you see events like this: rich people die in some absurd hobby and we spend more protecting them than hundreds of poor people literally drowning at the same time trying to escape unlivable poverty conditions. Like, I’m sorry man, but maybe you should redirect your anger there.
He’s extremely knowledgeable about submersibles. He helped design and build the Deepsea Challenger, which he then took to the bottom of Challenger Deep, the deepest known location on the planet. He’s one of two people to have done that.
He has a ton more experience on top of that. I’ll leave it up to you to go learn about it if you can be bothered to do so.
This is true. HOWEVER, he’s only opening his mouth to push for legislation on this because he doesn’t want any more of his asshole billionaire friends to die. This isn’t out of altruism for the average Joe… because let’s face it, how many folks do you know who can afford a trip like that?
ROFL. Love James Cameron much? Stop idolizing celebrities ffs. I think you’re the one that needs to touch grass instead of caring about what some boomer thinks.
I don't know, I'm an aircraft structural engineer and, based upon what technical commentary I did hear him make, it kinda sounds to me like he knows what he's talking about.
There are plenty of mutually agreed upon international regulations that ships, aircraft, etc. all abide by. It’s not rocket science (well there’s that too).
I work in aviation regulatory law but, a friend of mine does work in this arena. I did ask him if my analog existed in the nautical world and he was able to walk me through how he'd managed to avoid any regulatory oversight. There's SOLAS but, other than that, it's a gap that apparently needs to be closed.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems like the subs only operate in international waters. The ships carrying these deep sea submersibles dock at ports, but the subs themselves are cargo until you get out into the middle of nowhere.