[dead]
The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
31–40 of 98 posts
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#32Off topic, but interesting to me: not sure if I've ever seen an editing mistake in The New Yorker before, and I've been reading it since I was a teenager. In a quote, "Ocean Gate" should be "OceanGate" or at the very least should include a "[sic]".
It's not a mistake if it's verbatim. The [sic] is usually to show that the mistake isn't by the publisher but adding an additional space in a company name probably isn't egregious enough to warrant it.
> It's not a mistake if it's verbatim.
Yes it is (and [sic] is specifically used for verbatim quotes[1]). Companies often take their style guides pretty seriously, so an extra space can be a big deal. But in any case, The New Yorker has extremely high AP standards, so that's why I'm surprised to see even such a slight mistake.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sic-meaning-us...
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
This wasn't some new gig economy venture, or some software idea. This was a submarine carrying tourists to one of the most dangerous places on earth. There are companies dedicated to certifying maritime vehicles and standards against which they need to be built and tested, and Stockton Rush explicitly rejected them because he felt that they were stifling to innovation. Additionally, the people who told him that he wa…
> the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields Turns out engineers and other experts disagree with each other all the time. I assume you are an expert in your field. Do you always get listened to? > just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listene…
all I've heard about this guy is that he ignored warnings, cut corners, and that he was a wealthy dude who's never had to deal with anyone telling him no his entire life. in all the reporting I haven't heard anything at all that would make me say "he got that right at least" and I challenge anyone to come up with something.
also when engineers disagree with each other you generally don't continue to use the topic of disagreement as a passenger vehicle. Finally, the guy making decisions wasn't an engineer and as far as I've heard no actual engineers who were well informed on the subject and experts in the domain were supporting this guy.... so what you should have said is "management disagree with engineers and dismiss their opinion all the time, often leading to high public catastrophes like the Challenger and the Titan"
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a mistake if it's verbatim. The [sic] is usually to show that the mistake isn't by the publisher but adding an additional space in a company name probably isn't egregious enough to warrant it.
> It's not a mistake if it's verbatim. Yes it is (and [ sic ] is specifically used for verbatim quotes[1]). Companies often take their style guides pretty seriously, so an extra space can be a big deal. But in any case, The New Yorker has extremely high AP standards, so that's why I'm surprised to see even such a slight mistake. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sic-meaning-us...
I looked it up and the AP style guide now recommends against using [sic].
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the people who told him that he was needlessly endangering people's lives were experts in their fields Turns out engineers and other experts disagree with each other all the time. I assume you are an expert in your field. Do you always get listened to? > just because there are often naysayers who claim some big projects are impossible doesn't mean that there aren't situations where they should absolutely be listene…
all I've heard about this guy is that he ignored warnings, cut corners, and that he was a wealthy dude who's never had to deal with anyone telling him no his entire life. in all the reporting I haven't heard anything at all that would make me say "he got that right at least" and I challenge anyone to come up with something. also when engineers disagree with each other you generally don't continue to use the topic of…
> all I've heard about this guy
Hearing something else would require a journalist to formulate an alternative narrative. Not only would that conflict with their peers, it's not very interesting for readers ("actually that guy with the sub took a sufficient level of care").
Have you every had insider knowledge about a public story? How different was it from reality?
> no actual engineers who were well informed on the subject and experts in the domain were supporting this guy.
How did it get designed and built then? I wouldn't own up to this project with bad press. Would you?
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Titan is fairly akin to modern software engineering , there's a lot of behaviours in the company that certainly resonates. Mechanical and structural engineers don't behave like this 99% of the time.
I heard pressure testing of the carbon fiber wasn't done. They relied on sensors to detect delamination instead. In software engineering, a component is both created and unit tested with tests on relevant functionality. Delamination sensors are poor compensation for a missing test. They probably didn't test the delamination sensors, either.
As the article mentions though, one of the issues with using carbon fiber for this is that unlike titanium, it weakens with each pressure test.
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#37I'm sure most of us have been on projects where similar bad engineering decisions were made. It's depressing how common these attitudes are. At least death isn't a possibility with the projects I've left in disgust.
Titan is fairly akin to modern software engineering , there's a lot of behaviours in the company that certainly resonates. Mechanical and structural engineers don't behave like this 99% of the time.
I would certainly NOT apply what I did in the job in this kind things. They are of different leagues.
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#38Maybe somewhat off-topic, but if you don't know, there is a video on YouTube published 11 months ago by "CBC NL - Newfoundland and Labrador" titled "This submersible takes passengers to The Titanic wreck. Climb in!" (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClkytJa0ghc)
If I put myself 11 months in the past watching that video, I would probably think this company OceanGate is so professional with zero possibility of merging and mixing their passengers with whatever content in that tiny toilet box.
In my mind, all 5 lost souls are explorers. But 11 months... that's long enough time for someone to generate doubts on the thing to either fix it or speak out.
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#39[flagged]
> Anyone who has worked on a challenging project has heard concerns like this at various stages. It's absurd to conclude the project was doomed or reckless, just because someone expresseed concerns about success or not enough precaution. This is almost certainly what Rush told people and a refutation of this claim is exactly why I think stories like this are valuable. It's all a matter of degree. When one or two peop…
I agree with all that you said, except that we as outsiders don't have enough information to make the conclusions you want to make.
The best evidence for recklessness would be a pattern of similar failures.
> the absolute worst reaction is to take it as a personal affront, especially if it's coming from all directions.
This is a good point. Especially if that's the response given to other insiders working on the project.
Re: The Titan Submersible Was “An Accident Waiting to Happen”
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not a mistake if it's verbatim. Yes it is (and [ sic ] is specifically used for verbatim quotes[1]). Companies often take their style guides pretty seriously, so an extra space can be a big deal. But in any case, The New Yorker has extremely high AP standards, so that's why I'm surprised to see even such a slight mistake. [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/sic-meaning-us...
I looked it up and the AP style guide now recommends against using [sic].
Cool callout, super interesting justification[1], had no idea.
[1] https://twitter.com/APStylebook/status/1124320764054863873