• bearr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    67
    ·
    2 years ago

    No need for regulations, just set a price floor please. Only billionaires allowed.

    • inspxtr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I wonder about the people who would work on the subs, who are basically not millionaires. Would regulation, insurance and such help them have some protection and compensation?

  • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    2 years ago

    Don’t waste tax money on this. If some rich idiots want to unalive themselves in a can to see some garbage at the bottom of the ocean - let them.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        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.

    • Shard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      2 years ago

      We’ve already wasted money on them.

      Who do you think paid the coast guards and navies of the multiple nationals that conducted the deep sea search for Titan?

      Hint: Tax payers.

      • jkmooney@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        I don’t know about the others, but Coast Guard gets paid regardless. These events justify their budget. It wasn’t an “extra cost” to the taxpayers.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

          • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

    • scarabic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      I was this close to agreeing with you and then I remembered there was a kid on that sub, and now I’m thinking this was a really shitty thing to say.

      • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        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.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 years ago

    To be clear, it wasn’t a “tourist sub”… so maybe the first regulation should be defining exactly what that is,

    • jkmooney@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 years ago

      The CEO was very careful to skirt applicable regulatory laws. He even called his passengers “crew members”. In the aviation world, I have some experience harmonizing multiple regulatory authorities. Because of “international waters”, there will need to be some agreement and harmonizing of regulations. There’s already SOLAS so, I think it can be done.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 years ago

        A “crew member” would be some kind of employee.

        Employees don’t pay a company a quarter of a million dollars to do “work” for eight hours. You don’t pay to work, you get payed to work.

        Just because you call someone a crew member doesn’t necessarily mean that would hold up in a court of law.

        • Skavargen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 years ago

          Technically I believe they were classified as employees that “donated” to the company. Nice workaround Stockton! Let’s see how that holds up in court with the obvious gross negligence.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Absolutely.

        The issue is that the regulations that do exist allow them to skirt it by not offering a hard, and broad, definitions of ‘tourist subs’.

  • Default_Defect@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    2 years ago

    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.

    • kep@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      2 years ago

      Mission Specialists.

      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.

    • Something Burger 🍔@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 years ago

      Tickets for the tours aren’t sold from international waters, and countries can still sue someone for breaking their laws outside their territories if they want.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 years ago

        Except if X country has restrictions, rich assholes will then register the sub in Y country.

        The Titan sub was registered out of Bermuda. The carry boat was registered in Canada, it normally docked in the US.

        That’s how rich asshole work, they register the boat where ever the fuck they want to.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      From the article:

      Cameron told the event that the shocking loss of the Titan might force international agencies to craft regulations for passenger vessels.

      Presumably he means agencies like the IMO (International Maritime Organization), which has written international laws like the International Convention For The Safety Of Life At Sea.

      Such laws are usually enforced by regional agencies of the signatory countries.

    • Chickenstalker@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 years ago

      Dude. Do you think that “international waters/airspace” means you can just anything? Consider airlines. What happens if you suddenly drop trou and shat in the aisles? You will be restrained and arrested the moment you land. Similarly, people on ships are bound by the laws their ship is flagged with. In addition, insurance companies won’t insure your vessel if you decide to not obey any laws. That alone can destroy your business venture.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 years ago

        Dude. Do you think that “international waters/airspace” means you can just anything? Consider airlines. What happens if you suddenly drop trou and shat in the aisles? You will be restrained and arrested the moment you land.

        Cameron is talking about binding the owners not the passengers with his proposed regulations. If I own the airplane I can totally shit on the floor and there is no law to stop me.

        Similarly, people on ships are bound by the laws their ship is flagged with.

        Exactly, future-risky-sub-owner could simply seek out a country that doesn’t adhere to any safety regulations. I imagine there would be many small nations which could have their “Private submarine regulation” laws bought for a relatively small sum of money.

        In addition, insurance companies won’t insure your vessel if you decide to not obey any laws. That alone can destroy your business venture.

        The insurance angle is a good one, but that would just mean they would have to go uninsured (or self insured) and risk losing clients that have a problem with it.

    • mercano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      It is going to be tricky to regulate, but the expedition ship does come back to shore to resupply. They don’t leave the sub adrift on the high seas, they bring it back with them, and I imagine it’s easier to do maintenance on it on dry land, or at least in the protected waters of port.

  • foggy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 years ago

    I mean ok

    But also has an air of “won’t someone please think of the billionaires”

    Like, if some dipshit builds rockets and is offering trips to space for a million dollars and you tried to go to space through this clown and idk, not NASA… that’s kinda on you.

    But yeah, sure. Preventable deaths, etc.

    • cmbabul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 years ago

      There for sure should be something to regulate the commercial aspect of it, I don’t give a goddamn if some billionaires want to build their own sub, go exploring and die themselves.

      But you shouldn’t be able to charge someone or pay someone else to go with/for you unless certain minimum safety standards are met. And you know that’s what these rich asshole will do if given the opportunity

    • jwagner7813@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Who says this couldn’t eventually become a mass produced product though? I 100% believe it should be regulated, even if I could care less for some of the people that were on board. It still should be maintained so people don’t get sucked into unregulated BS, regardless of who gets on board.

    • Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      I take the radical perspective that people dying horrible pointless deaths is a bad thing and should be prevented. Yes, even stupid rich people.

  • jkmooney@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    In the aviation world, an experimental aircraft may not be used for “compensation or hire”. The only exception is that a kitplane manufacturer is allowed to give demo flights.

  • fidelacchius@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 years ago

    Only the gooberment can protect us from rich people getting killed private subs. Plz take more of my tax dollars.

  • BurtReynoldsMustache@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 years ago

    I for one welcome more of these “catastrophic failures” if it means more billionaires will lose their lives. Worthless sociopathic assholes

    • IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.

      • BurtReynoldsMustache@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 years ago

        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?

    • jkmooney@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      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.