https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/james-cameron-titan-sub-regulations-b2379214.html
The filmmaker said OceanGate lacked the ‘rigour and discipline’ required for deep sea exploration
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's too late man it's now apart of the modern language. Insert Abe Simpson "I used to be hip.." meme.
It really only is, for the most part, on places like tik tok and youtube where the word 'dead' is banned. And it occasionally slips out into normal society but....just...no.
Contrary to popular belief the word "dead" is not banned on tiktok or youtube. Do people really think that the censor can be tricked by a synonym a 5 yeard old could come up with?
Real argument is to protect people with trauma as seeing "dead" can be a trigger but even then it doesn't make much sense as it's the same word - just spelled differently. The only way this would work if we come up with new word for "death" every few months before our brains re-asocciate the synonyms but that's absurdly impractical and impossible to implement. I do think it's an interesting language phenomena tho and is fun to explore.
Now that I look yeah..your right. I fell for interwebs bullshit. But completely agree on you about the constant changing of words. And going going back to the original though....if you are so triggered by the word dead/death...im sorry but you just need to learn to live with that. Society cant abandon such incredibly basic words because of people like that.
I don't know, but to me "suicide" and "kill" seem like the words that would've been banned. Not "dead".
I think the slippage is going to increase. It's a full word not like "LOL", people will say it IRL.
like 8 years ago i worked with this girl who would fucking say hashtag. like someone would say something really crazy and she would be like "hashtag really?"
I.....really hated her....
I teach middle school. During the school year, I heard it two dozen times daily.
It's getting tiresome already.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Unironically go fuck yourself, this is a sociopathic perspective. I don't have much sympathy for Mister "safety is waste" himself but the people he lied to about the safety of his sub didn't deserve to die.
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.
Nah. Let the rich morons off themselves.
I am calling for even fewer regulations. Negative regulations.
Negative regulations
force billionaires on board sketchy-ass subs and send them a few miles down?
I like it.
I am calling for less. No billionaire should be stopped from going on an unregulated submarine.
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.
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.
The CEO bragged about building the submarine out of used parts and said that regulations were boring. He sealed his fate long before it happened.
To be clear, it wasn’t a “tourist sub”… so maybe the first regulation should be defining exactly what that is,
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.
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.
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.
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’.
The regulations come from the countries that the company is founded in. OceanGate is (was) as US based company.
Its international waters. What regulatory body is Cameron proposing has jurisdiction to enforce any regulations?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I honestly don't care much about this topic at all. If people want to go down and get imploded, they should be free to do so. It has zero effect on the rest of the world.
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.
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
I take the radical perspective that people dying horrible pointless deaths is a bad thing and should be prevented. Yes, even stupid rich people.
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.
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.
Those are the two I'm most familiar with in my profession, at least as far as civilian authorities are concerned. Can't really say "no" and, I'm pretty sure neither can you. On the other hand, feel free to prove me wrong with a counter example. :)
Difficult to prove a negative, but I would be surprised if there aren't at least a few third world countries with lax aviation rules.
The point, though, is that strong regulations in the countries that are inclined to regulate these things aren't actually going to stop persistent rich idiots from doing stupid things. The Titan was against regulations in every country that bothers to regulate submersibles, which is why it only operated in international waters. More regulations won't change that, there's still nobody to enforce them.
The port from which they launch and the country where the company is registered.
If it's all done incognito and they fuck up then too bad.
There are plenty of mutually agreed upon international regulations that ships, aircraft, etc. all abide by. It’s not rocket science (well there’s that too).
I work in aviation regulatory law but, a friend of mine does work in this arena. I did ask him if my analog existed in the nautical world and he was able to walk me through how he'd managed to avoid any regulatory oversight. There's SOLAS but, other than that, it's a gap that apparently needs to be closed.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems like the subs only operate in international waters. The ships carrying these deep sea submersibles dock at ports, but the subs themselves are cargo until you get out into the middle of nowhere.
I for one welcome more of these "catastrophic failures" if it means more billionaires will lose their lives. Worthless sociopathic assholes
The only disaster was that they didn't manage to squeeze a few more billionaires on board.
Only the gooberment can protect us from rich people getting killed private subs. Plz take more of my tax dollars.
James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron does for James Cameron. James Cameron does what James Cameron does because James Cameron is James Cameron!
At this rate, I can see a billionaire stepping on a lego and saying legos need to be regulated.