Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#81

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

tgamblin wrote: post #64
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. He thought it was safer than it was. But I don't think he thought it was close to a 0% chance of death. It's clear that he knew it was somewhat risky. It failed after like 25 dives which means around a ~4% failure rate. I'd hope he thought it had less than a 1% failure rate. Who knows what the true failure rate is. Maybe they got really lucky, and it actually had a higher failure rate. Maybe they got extr…

"It failed after 25 dives" is not a 4% failure rate if the failure was caused by deterioration over time (as it likely was here). It's a 100% failure rate over the full life of any given Titan sub. They'll all implode, given enough trips. Moreover, both 1% and 4% are horrible failure rates for anything meant to carry passengers. Example: the risk of dying in a commercial plane crash is 1 in 11 million [1]. The risk o…

> This guy was taking extremely unreasonable risks.

It's easy to agree post-ex, after he went and killed himself and 4 other people.

He probably thought the failure rate might've been closer to 1 in 1000. That still seems WAY too high for me, but maybe for him that was fine.

Either way, he was almost certainly wrong, and it was much higher than that.

Would he have done it if he thought it had a 4% chance of failure? Maybe once. But I doubt 25 times...

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#82

Post by polishdude20 »

politelemon wrote: post #79
jjulius wrote: post #17

An excerpt from an email Stockton Rush sent out, according to the article (emphasis mine): >I have grown tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation and new entrants from entering their small existing market. Since Guillermo and I started OceanGate we have heard the baseless cries of "you are going to kill someone" way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult. Just... wow.

I keep wondering if that person thought about the cut corners and his general attitude while going through his final moments, or perhaps it never occurred to him as he was simply focused on survival.

With an implosion of a carbon fiber hull, there probably wasn't enough time to even think of his mistakes let alone the words "oh fuck".

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#83

Post by TMWNN »

youngNed wrote: post #61
908B64B197 wrote: post #4

"The OceanGate CEO who is trapped on a 22-foot submersible on an ill-fated voyage to see the Titanic wreck once explained how he didn’t hire “50-year-old white guys” with military experience to captain his vessels because they weren’t “inspirational.” The CEO, Stockton Rush, added that “expertise was unnecessary” because “anybody can drive the sub” with a $30 video game controller." [0] [0] https://www.outkick.com/tr…

Hey! It looks like you are trying to shoehorn into your culture war narrative! Don't you think this is tedious yet?

Said shoehorning seems very relevant.

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#84

Post by Shish2k »

xyzelement wrote: post #62
stasmo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just simple prejudice.

Either nothing is significant or everything is. As a matter of faith I chose the later. You are welcome to chose the former. I wouldn't go a surgeon named Butcher or a financial advisor named Broke, would you?

> Either nothing is significant or everything is

Alternatively: some things are significant and other things aren’t? As a matter of living in reality, I choose that middle option :P

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#85

Post by kataklasm »

polishdude20 wrote: post #82
politelemon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep wondering if that person thought about the cut corners and his general attitude while going through his final moments, or perhaps it never occurred to him as he was simply focused on survival.

With an implosion of a carbon fiber hull, there probably wasn't enough time to even think of his mistakes let alone the words "oh fuck".

Apparently the crew commissioned an emergency ascent right before implosion, suggesting they had a warning of some kind (hearing the ongoing delamination, maybe? scary thought).

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#86

Post by [deleted] »

polishdude20 wrote: post #82
politelemon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I keep wondering if that person thought about the cut corners and his general attitude while going through his final moments, or perhaps it never occurred to him as he was simply focused on survival.

With an implosion of a carbon fiber hull, there probably wasn't enough time to even think of his mistakes let alone the words "oh fuck".

[deleted]

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#87

Post by nitwit005 »

Nux wrote: post #36
jjulius wrote: post #17

An excerpt from an email Stockton Rush sent out, according to the article (emphasis mine): >I have grown tired of industry players who try to use a safety argument to stop innovation and new entrants from entering their small existing market. Since Guillermo and I started OceanGate we have heard the baseless cries of "you are going to kill someone" way too often. I take this as a serious personal insult. Just... wow.

A bet gone wrong.. Many innovations started off in a similar manner, ignoring or challenging the status quo.. That said, it's mighty spectacular and sad the way he was proven wrong. rip.

They didn't need to take a bet though. It's not like early aircraft, where someone had to be there to steer. They could have run unmanned trials.

Apparently that was the plan. The CEO scrapped the idea and fired the engineer who suggested it was a safety problem (he filed a whistleblower lawsuit).

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#88

Post by BenjiWiebe »

gtvwill wrote: post #74
tiedieconderoga wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not usually, no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea You can definitely be convicted of one, though!

Lol thought experiment. Your driving in a new area and don't see a change in speed limit because a large truck blocked your view of the sign as you passed it. You get pulled over a short period later for going 20 above the speed limit. Do you think you can be fined or not? Should you be fined or not?

You can be fined, the fine might be reversible in court, you shouldn't be fined.

The cop should just give you a warning.

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#89

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

freedomben wrote: post #47
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

more to the point, taking safety warnings as a personal insult is a red flag for literally dangerous narcissism

> taking safety warnings as a personal insult is a red flag for literally dangerous narcissism It certainly can be, but I have worked with people that absolutely use "safety" as a reason not to do anything, or as a reason to shoot down ideas from people they are competing against (different departments, possible promotions, etc). Like most things in life, this is not black or white, it's some shade of gray.

> I have worked with people that absolutely use "safety" as a reason not to do anything, or as a reason to shoot down ideas from people they are competing against

this is literally the exact same argument used by the CEO before he and several others died due to it

he was so insulted that experienced and qualified personnel were just trying to shoot down his idea

even if you believe this is the case in a given hypothetic, it's still not a valid reason to take it as an attack on you as a person, vs. a concern about a thing

Re: Titan sub CEO dismissed safety warnings as 'baseless cries', emails show

#90

Post by mydogcanpurr »

_Algernon_ wrote: post #18
mydogcanpurr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you still unethical when you don't know about your incompetence? You're correct that reality can be more complicated, and it depends. I can imagine a scenario, e.g. the plot of "Manchester by the Sea" which doesn't seem completely unethical. I find it hard to believe in this case that he was that incompetent. I think he took what he believed to be a calculated risk, and I'm guessing he didn't go around broadcas…

They signed a waiver that mentioned the risk of "death" 3 times on the first page. I'd call that broadcasting. Edit: I mean just read the waiver: https://nypost.com/2023/06/23/read-the-death-waiver-doomed-t... It speaks for itself.

Fair enough.
Post reply on HN