this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
498 points (94.8% liked)

World News

38965 readers
3492 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bearr@lemmy.world 89 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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

[–] SanndyTheManndy@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

This. Let them eat shit.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 51 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Nah. Let the rich morons off themselves.

I am calling for even fewer regulations. Negative regulations.

[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Negative regulations

force billionaires on board sketchy-ass subs and send them a few miles down?

I like it.

[–] ours@lemmy.film 5 points 1 year ago

Musk and Zuck next please.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 43 points 1 year ago (6 children)

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.

[–] EdibleFriend@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (10 children)

....please leave 'unalive' on places like tik tok.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Shard@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 13 points 1 year 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@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Silverstrings@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Human life has value, even when they're people you don't like.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I am calling for less. No billionaire should be stopped from going on an unregulated submarine.

[–] magnor@lemmy.magnor.ovh 10 points 1 year ago

Let them enjoy the deregulated world they created.

[–] scarabic@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Can we just have one law about them not taking their kids, maybe?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] jkmooney@kbin.social 23 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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 5 points 1 year 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.

[–] average650@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

I think if they were alive to sue and be sued... He'd be fucked.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Default_Defect@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] teolan@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I think they ignored standard testing, but this was never made mandatory

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Its international waters. What regulatory body is Cameron proposing has jurisdiction to enforce any regulations?

[–] SomethingBurger@lemmy.world 30 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 13 points 1 year 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 15 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] foggy@lemmy.world 25 points 1 year ago (4 children)

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 16 points 1 year 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

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] jkmooney@kbin.social 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Revan343@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Is that true in every country on the planet? Because I doubt it.

[–] jkmooney@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

United States Federal Aviation Administration, I believe EASA is similar.

load more comments (3 replies)

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

[–] Landmammals@lemmynsfw.com 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

They are operating in international waters. Who would oversee these regulations?

[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

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).

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

The only disaster was that they didn't manage to squeeze a few more billionaires on board.

[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[–] fidelacchius@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

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

[–] mojo@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago

At this rate, I can see a billionaire stepping on a lego and saying legos need to be regulated.

[–] Yearly1845@reddthat.com 6 points 1 year ago

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!

[–] seawoowaes@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

he is an expert on submersibles

load more comments
view more: next ›