• 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.