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.”

  • fiestapinguino@lemmy.worldEnglish
    26·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • dudeami0@lemmy.dudeami.winEnglish
    16·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • Saga@kbin.social
    15·
    2 years ago

    “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.

  • Konman72@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    2 years ago

    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.

  • dska22@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    2 years ago

    I assume that they had quite some time to discuss the topic since Sunday, unfortunately.

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 years ago

      “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

  • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.worldEnglish
    47·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 years ago

      You have a point, but in this case, I don’t think it’s really out of context. His attitude was very relevant to this tragedy imo

        • GojuRyu@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          2 years ago

          Ignorance and overconfidence in one self can lead to decisions that puts one in danger. If he didn’t understand the risks, overestimeted his control over the situation (as very rich people are prone to do) or simply surrounded himself with too many yes-men, then hi might not have thought he put himself in as much danger as he did. On the other hand he could also just see himself as an explorer and seeking rhe thrill as many of the dead bodies on Everest once did.

          I’m sure there are many reasons he could have gone into that sub despite having been told the risk. I of course can’t know for sure, but it does seem more likely in light of his comment than without it.

  • ech0@lemmy.worldEnglish
    311·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • cdipierr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 years ago

      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…

      • Liara@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 years ago

        They also learned nothing from a previous experience where the sub lost contact and got lost for hours. There were discussions of adding a beacon to the sub but that clearly never happened.

        I guess the CEO never expected cutting corners would directly affect his life.

        • cdipierr@lemmy.worldEnglish
          5·
          2 years ago

          According to that news article where it got lost for 2.5 hours, the CEO said he wasn’t going to try again until summer '23. So I’m reasonably certain the sub’s two attempts at diving resulted in one temporary and one permanent loss. The reporter who went on that successful dive and didn’t die must feel like he dodged a bullet.

    • meteotsunami@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • keanu0396@lemmy.worldEnglish
        7·
        2 years ago

        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.

        • meteotsunami@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          2 years ago

          You bring a great point and the one thing that boggles my mind in this disaster. Listening to the sub owner and reading his legal release, I can’t fathom (bad pun) signing on and saying sign me up! It’s like the same friend you mentioned told you the fuel line leaks but that’s ok, because the department of highway safety exists only to reduce profits and kill fun. We could make it to our destination or die in a fiery crash, YOLO.

          • Knoll0114@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 years ago

            I guess they thought since it’d gone down and up before it’d be fine. Chanced it one too many times.

    • A_A@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      2 years ago

      Thanks for the quote.
      The reward for a billionaire making such a trip is to brag by saying he did something we couldn’t do. Risk he took was high despite his belief.
      No insurance plan exists to pay for the rescue operations of such idiotic selfish trips even after this question was discussed concerning sail boat races around the world’s seas.
      On the other hand, the reward for making the groceries is to have food to stay alive. Risks of death for grocery’s trip is less than 1/100_000_000 (very rough estimate).
      Let’s put our resources and energy where it is sensible.

    • STUPIDVIPGUY@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 years ago

      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.

    • keeb420@kbin.social
      3·
      2 years ago

      If it were just his life in his hands, maybe I’d feel different, but he chose to pit others life in his hands. When you do that you need to care about safety.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      2 years ago

      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.