CEO Who Said Safety Is a “Waste” on Board Lost Submarine
CEO Who Said Safety Is a “Waste” on Board Lost Submarine
The CEO of the company whose Titanic-seeking submarine has been missing for nearly two days once said safety was a "pure waste."
The CEO of the company whose Titanic-seeking submarine has been missing for nearly two days once said safety was a "pure waste."
I work as a researcher in the university lab OceanGate used to test their vessels. My colleague told me that they would have tests run 7 times resulting in 6 failures and 1 success. OceanGate engineers (maybe their leadership?) would chalk that up as a success and keep going. My colleague says no one in the building would ever get into anything these "morons" built.
I assume there's a fair bit of hyperbole in this, but I think it generally is matching what we're seeing. Oh, also the general consensus here is that their hull caved in and they've been dead for a while.
Jesus that's just terrifying.
I highly doubt they will ever find the sub, its too small and could be literally anywhere.
Oh no! Anyway
Fuck the billionaires taking submarine rides for shits and giggles.
To quote the article:
I mean, if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed, don't get in your car, don't do anything. At some point, you're going to take some risk, and it really is a risk-reward question.
Because passenger vehicle safety hasn't had leaps and bounds since their inception. This is the equivalent of "don't get hurt" on job sites, and has about the same results. Regulations are written in blood.
"You know, at some point, safety is just pure waste," Rush told CBS' David Pogue during an episode of his "Unsung Science" podcast. "I mean, if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed, don't get in your car, don't do anything. At some point, you're going to take some risk, and it really is a risk-reward question."
There's a slight difference between driving in a car and going to the bottom of the ocean in tin can. These are not equivalent.
This dumbass earned his Darwin award, it's just too bad he had to take four other people with him who were lied to about the safety of the expedition.
I propose that we replace the phrase "hoisted by your own pitard" with "sunk by your own submarine." Feels more modern and less like my wife will laugh at me whenever I say it.
Its too bad that idiot had to take 4 other people to their deaths with him, especially that kid
We should never replace that phrase, just send your wife this simple explanation to get her on board with it.
Personally I have no problem with this dude being the billionaire's underwater tour manager.
He fucked around and found out
I think those kind of statements shouldn't be taken out of context.
I mean, it's not wrong to say there has to be a balance between security and usability, but neglecting security measures is a totally different thing.
It's true that, unfortunately often, top managers are the ones always trying to be cheap on security, but I don't think it's fair trying to imply someone actually did by publishing a statement out of context.
This thing will be investigated for sure, let's not start a witch-hunt before knowing the facts.
They're clearly not witches, as evidenced by the fact that they don't float.
I assume that they had quite some time to discuss the topic since Sunday, unfortunately.
"I think I can do this just as safely while breaking the rules," he added at the time.
Doesn’t sound that out of context to me. Rules and regulations are written in blood. FAFO
not if they were crushed instantly by water pressure, as it appears to be the case
Real 'leopards ate my face' kind of attitude.
So here's what he actually said:
"You know, at some point, safety is just pure waste," Rush told CBS' David Pogue during an episode of his "Unsung Science" podcast. "I mean, if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed, don't get in your car, don't do anything. At some point, you're going to take some risk, and it really is a risk-reward question."
I don't think that's unreasonable. I mean you can never go outside again to be safe but most people are gonna take a little bit of risk and go outside to get groceries or meet friends.
There is a huge difference between acceptable risk and recklessness. Reading his interviews he was a cowboy and this was an inevitability. This was in essence a murder suicide.
There's also the concept of informed risk, which realtes to informed consent, and this can be a big issue.
For example, if I ask a friend to come for a drive with me, they'll likely say "yes" on the assumption that the car is road safe and I have passed my driving test. But if I wait until we're already on the road to tell them that the fuel line sprays petrol into the footwell and the engine constantly misfires, then they agreed without understanding the full risks, and might have decided differently if they had all the info ahead of time.
I think any "reasonable person" would refuse to enter that sub if they were given a full understanding of the risks posed, and their likelihood.
Not unreasonable, but getting out of bed and going to the most dangerous part of our planet don't really equate, you know? And when your own engineers are telling you you've made something unsafe, but you just keep going?? Well...
I agree it's not that unreasonable of a decision to make for yourself. I'm the same way, I do things that many people would consider dangerous while out climbing.
However he was responsible for other people's safety... and now he's responsible for other people's deaths.
Eh I think their answer is dishonest, and I've had way too much exposure to risk calcs at work lately. Risks aren't born equally. Getting out of bed? Ridiculously low risk. Driving in my car? Still low risk, but higher. Skydiving? A lot higher risk, although it depends on the rate at which parachutes fail.
Sounds like a good candidate for a Darwin Award.
guy was a woke idiot and i don't feel bad for him one bit.