New missing submersible thread...

[4Q Basket Case]

I'm not too sure about that. It might (except for the current obstructive congress) stimulate some sensible regulation. If you advertised "I have this experimental airplane made of materials uncertified by any body and joined together in a novel way, so you can't get out without outside help. Oh, and it's controlled by a Play Station controller. And I want to charge people a small fortune to ride in it." See how far you get...

Good point.

I’m generally in favor of a free market. So I used to think I was against regulation in all but the most dangerous circumstances.

I now think I’m really in favor of full disclosure — precisely so the free market can figure it out. But over a lot of years, my definition of “full disclosure,” has gotten a lot more rigorous.

IOW, within a broad range, you can do pretty much what you want. But you have to disclose, in excruciating detail, what you’ve done, how you’ve done it, who you’ve done it with, who has certified the physical safety and/or financial prudence of the end product, and what protocols they used to reach that conclusion.

Certainly applies in the submersible case, but also in myriad other circumstances and totally unrelated industries. Especially true in financial industries where the downside is exponentially greater than the upside.

But I’m getting off-topic. Bottom Line: More disclosure is better.

 

[Padreruf]

Good point.

I’m generally in favor of a free market. So I used to think I was against regulation in all but the most dangerous circumstances.

I now think I’m really in favor of full disclosure — precisely so the free market can figure it out. But over a lot of years, my definition of “full disclosure,” has gotten a lot more rigorous.

IOW, within a broad range, you can do pretty much what you want. But you have to disclose, in excruciating detail, what you’ve done, how you’ve done it, who you’ve done it with, who has certified the physical safety and/or financial prudence of the end product, and what protocols they used to reach that conclusion.

Certainly applies in the submersible case, but also in myriad other circumstances and totally unrelated industries. Especially true in financial industries where the downside is exponentially greater than the upside.

But I’m getting off-topic. Bottom Line: More disclosure is better.

A key issue is the ignorance of the consumer on any given matter. I would not know the questions to ask if I were signing up for this trip. I would assume that since the head of the corporation is going as well that all the relevant safety questions have been answered. Obviously that was not the case. As I have aged I have come to the place where I don't even like to ride roller coasters. Why? I don't want to "buy the farm" because someone forgot to properly tighten a key bolt/nut.

 

[JDCrimson]

Sounds like a lot regulatioon to me. This much disclosure leads to decision paralysis for a lot of people who simply ignore it. Simple straightforward communication or prohibited activity is the best course of action imo.

Good point.

I’m generally in favor of a free market. So I used to think I was against regulation in all but the most dangerous circumstances.

I now think I’m really in favor of full disclosure — precisely so the free market can figure it out. But over a lot of years, my definition of “full disclosure,” has gotten a lot more rigorous.

IOW, within a broad range, you can do pretty much what you want. But you have to disclose, in excruciating detail, what you’ve done, how you’ve done it, who you’ve done it with, who has certified the physical safety and/or financial prudence of the end product, and what protocols they used to reach that conclusion.

Certainly applies in the submersible case, but also in myriad other circumstances and totally unrelated industries. Especially true in financial industries where the downside is exponentially greater than the upside.

But I’m getting off-topic. Bottom Line: More disclosure is better.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

Sounds like a lot regulatioon to me. This much disclosure leads to decision paralysis for a lot of people who simply ignore it. Simple straightforward communication or prohibited activity is the best course of action imo.

In a perfect world, I’d agree. But companies in all industries have shown time and time again that they push the envelope to dangerous extents when left to their own devices.

As you imply, the key is regulation that incents the desired prudence without stifling innovation or day to day operations. The problem I see is that it’s about impossible to prohibit all the stupid stuff they can and will do.

To quote Run With The Horsemen, one of my favorite books of all time, “I just can’t think of enough things to tell them not to do.”

Which is why I agree with you on prohibiting the really nasty stuff, and identifying key risk points and requiring detailed disclosure on them.

Veering into the banking world, there’s an article in today’s WSJ regarding the inadvisability of raising capital requirements for banks, largely in response to the Signature / SVB failures. A great example of well-intended regulation with massive unintended and undesirable consequences.

It’s likely paywalled, but for those with a subscription, here’s a link:

Opinion | Regulators May Sink America’s Banks

A credit-tightening increase on capital standards won’t help the American economy.

www.wsj.com

 

[CrimsonNagus]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/us/submersible-titanic-oceangate-search-thursday/index.html

Not sure why that didn’t come out earlier and save millions of dollars for search and rescue.

The article says "A senior Navy official told CNN the Navy detected an acoustic signature consistent with an implosion on Sunday in the general area where the vessel was diving and lost communication with its mother ship.

The Navy immediately relayed that information to on-scene commanders leading the search effort, and it was used to narrow down the area of the search, the official said Thursday."

yeah I get it, but Occam’s razor and all. Could have dropped a remote sub on the area days ago and saved the us and Canadian tax payers millions.

The French ship only arrived on scene Thursday morning, and it had the only ROV capable of reaching the sea floor at the depths needed. The other ROVs in use couldn't reach the bottom.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

Oh, and it's controlled by a Play Station controller.

People keep trying to make a big deal about this, but I don't understand why. Game controllers are compact and have many buttons that can be quickly accessed at one time. They are also cheap input devices that many people growing up today are really familiar with. I don't see an issue with a game controller being used, they are used by the military, NASA and plenty of others. The media trying to make this an issue just shows how out of touch they are.

Beyond missing Titanic sub, handheld gamepads are a common military interface

US Army, NASA, and more piggyback off years of familiar game controller design.

arstechnica.com

 

[Go Bama]

Yeah as soon as things went bad they were dead in any scenario it seems, I hope the crew and passenger’s families can take solace in the fact their minds and bodies never knew that.

It seems I read somewhere up thread that the sub was trying to resurface. I’m not sure how that would be known unless it was communicated before the implosion. I’m assuming communication was lost at the moment of implosion.

At any rate, I’m not sure the crew didn’t have some warning before the final implosion. Just thinking out loud, but the psi increases the deeper the sub gets. If they had started to resurface, they didn’t start soon enough, and enough damage had already been done to allow catastrophic failure.

I would like to see a log of the communication between the sub and the surface.

 

[Go Bama]

People keep trying to make a big deal about this, but I don't understand why. Game controllers are compact and have many buttons that can be quickly accessed at one time. They are also cheap input devices that many people growing up today are really familiar with. I don't see an issue with a game controller being used, they are used by the military, NASA and plenty of others. The media trying to make this an issue just shows how out of touch they are.

Beyond missing Titanic sub, handheld gamepads are a common military interface

US Army, NASA, and more piggyback off years of familiar game controller design.

arstechnica.com

It’s a quality issue. I suspect the electronics on a PlayStation controller are not military grade.

 

[AWRTR]

Sounds like a lot regulatioon to me. This much disclosure leads to decision paralysis for a lot of people who simply ignore it. Simple straightforward communication or prohibited activity is the best course of action imo.

If their is more transparency and disclosure in different industries and it is ignored or not looked at them

It’s a quality issue. I suspect the electronics on a PlayStation controller are not military grade.

I bounced a few controllers off the ground in my younger days playing games and they were surprisingly resilient.

 

[AWRTR]

Good point.

I’m generally in favor of a free market. So I used to think I was against regulation in all but the most dangerous circumstances.

I now think I’m really in favor of full disclosure — precisely so the free market can figure it out. But over a lot of years, my definition of “full disclosure,” has gotten a lot more rigorous.

IOW, within a broad range, you can do pretty much what you want. But you have to disclose, in excruciating detail, what you’ve done, how you’ve done it, who you’ve done it with, who has certified the physical safety and/or financial prudence of the end product, and what protocols they used to reach that conclusion.

Certainly applies in the submersible case, but also in myriad other circumstances and totally unrelated industries. Especially true in financial industries where the downside is exponentially greater than the upside.

But I’m getting off-topic. Bottom Line: More disclosure is better.

Even with these disclosure laws, which I think is a really good idea, can we trust government regulators to make sure that everything is being disclosed? I have lots of questions about if our financial regulators are actually doing what the laws on the books now says they should. Can I really trust the FDA? I’m sadly not sure I can in all cases.

Disclosure laws paired with trustworthy accountability would give a consumer the opportunity to make a real informed decision. If a consumer doesn’t care to be informed that’s on them.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

I bounced a few controllers off the ground in my younger days playing games and they were surprisingly resilient.

Damn right. I don't care what the military has, I can guarantee you they have nothing as indestructible as an old Atari 2600 joystick. I'm reasonably certain those things could survive an atomic blast and still function.

 

[CrimsonNagus]

It’s a quality issue. I suspect the electronics on a PlayStation controller are not military grade.

But even the military and NASA use game controllers. They use them to control weapons systems. Game controllers are durable, (they have to survive being abused by young and old kids) and reliable and easy to use. I just don't see an issue with the game controller, it was the least worrisome part of this sub.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

It seems I read somewhere up thread that the sub was trying to resurface. I’m not sure how that would be known unless it was communicated before the implosion. I’m assuming communication was lost at the moment of implosion.

At any rate, I’m not sure the crew didn’t have some warning before the final implosion. Just thinking out loud, but the psi increases the deeper the sub gets. If they had started to resurface, they didn’t start soon enough, and enough damage had already been done to allow catastrophic failure.

I would like to see a log of the communication between the sub and the surface.

I also read about the attempt at resurfacing. Does anyone know where that came from?

 

[crimsonaudio]

It’s a quality issue. I suspect the electronics on a PlayStation controller are not military grade.

I know for a fact they are not - I build (and spec builds) for my custom gear using milspec parts and that routinely means use of switches that each cost multiple times what a gaming controller costs.

For all the pushback the government gets for 'overspending', the MTBF specs for milspec parts are an order of magnitude better than typical 'high spec' parts.

IOW, it's not that they used a 'game controller', but rather that they chose - knowing that their very lives were at stake - a cheap controller built in china for about $3 worth of parts. As soon as I saw that I knew they had cut other corners.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I know for a fact they are not - I build (and spec builds) for my custom gear using milspec parts and that routinely means use of switches that each cost multiple times what a gaming controller costs.

For all the pushback the government gets for 'overspending', the MTBF specs for milspec parts are an order of magnitude better than typical 'high spec' parts.

IOW, it's not that they used a 'game controller', but rather that they chose - knowing that their very lives were at stake - a cheap controller built in china for about $3 worth of parts. As soon as I saw that I knew they had cut other corners.

He was proud of it, in fact. My remark has to be examined in context. I explained all the other parameters and then added the Play Station remark. And I stand by that remark. If you proposed new commercial aircraft with all the methods used in this vessel and proposed an off the shelf game controller, the FAA would die laughing and then throw you out the door...

 

[92tide]

I know for a fact they are not - I build (and spec builds) for my custom gear using milspec parts and that routinely means use of switches that each cost multiple times what a gaming controller costs.

For all the pushback the government gets for 'overspending', the MTBF specs for milspec parts are an order of magnitude better than typical 'high spec' parts.

IOW, it's not that they used a 'game controller', but rather that they chose - knowing that their very lives were at stake - a cheap controller built in china for about $3 worth of parts. As soon as I saw that I knew they had cut other corners.

it seems like a lot of folks equate cutting corners with disruption/innovation

from the ceo's wiki

In a 2022 podcast with CBS reporter David Pogue, Rush discussed his attitude toward what he perceived as excessive safety precautions: "You know, at some point, safety just is pure waste. I mean if you just want to be safe, don't get out of bed, don't get in your car, don't do anything. At some point, you're going to take some risk, and it really is a risk/reward question. I think I can do this just as safely by breaking the rules."[21]

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I also read about the attempt at resurfacing. Does anyone know where that came from?

James Cameron mentioned it in the video. Said that they had jettisoned their descent weights and were attempting an ascent.

I don’t know where he got his information.

 

[crimsonaudio]

it seems like a lot of folks equate cutting corners with disruption/innovation

Case in point:
"Here you see the difference between the interiors of the Eyo Explorations submersible as shown in National Geographic's "Back to Titanic" documentary (top) vs OceanGate's Titan. (bottom)"

 

[92tide]

Case in point:
"Here you see the difference between the interiors of the Eyo Explorations submersible as shown in National Geographic's "Back to Titanic" documentary (top) vs OceanGate's Titan. (bottom)"

View attachment 34391

just damn.

 

[Go Bama]

James Cameron mentioned it in the video. Said that they had jettisoned their descent weights and attempting an ascent.

I don’t know where he got his information.

That's probably where I got it then. I watched that James Cameron interview.

Thanks.