[miracle2k]

> This controller is a metaphor for something that needs to immediately be regulated so that people like this can never get away with it again.

There is something to be said for protecting people who would sign up for such an experience while misjudging the risk, or assuming that some government agency does provide oversight. Though, customers seem to have been informed that this is not the case: https://twitter.com/FridaGhitis/status/1671120043126423553

But apart from that, if someone wants to build a lego submarine and use it to dive to the Titanic, they should have every right to do so. It is their risk to take. Asking others to pay to join does not change this moral calculus. And yes, the people left on the surface have an ethical responsibility to not unreasonably refuse to rescue them when things to awry.

[Eisenstein]

Sorry but that doesn't work in a reasonable society. You can't let just anyone do anything they want with the repercussions being 'they don't get rescued'. A few points:

* You can't let rescue services decide who deserves to be rescued -- for so many obvious reasons it would be patronizing to list them

* People with a lot of money and no sense can fuck things up on a massive scale if we let them do whatever they wanted

* Human society is not a free-for-all. As much as the civil libertarian tendencies in me want to say 'sure, do whatever you want, just don't mess with anyone else's stuff', it really isn't that simple

Shame and societal norms are a big deal in keeping people in check. Just getting yelled at in public for doing something objectionable is enough to keep most people from spitting indoors or pissing on crowded subway platform or what-have-you.

When shame doesn't work we rely on laws. Laws must be universally enforced and they must be fairly enforced and they must be seen to be enforced.

If we allow idiots with stupid ideas to get lucky enough times then they become looked up to and the shame goes away.

To the same end if the shame doesn't stop them we need to physically stop them or take away their ability to do the societally harmful thing they want to do.

People need to re-learn that you should be embarrassed for failing when what you strove to do was stupid and destructive.

[belorn]

In the general case that is more or less accurate. There are however a bunch of exceptions in the extreme case.

Rescue services do have a point where they will decide not to continue. During the Tham Luang cave rescue (the thai football boys that got stuck in a cave) there was a period where the rescue services decided that continuing was just too dangerous. It was only because of a handful private cave divers was crazy enough to try a exceptional dangerous idea that those children got out there alive, and had it failed then those cave divers would have basically received all the blame.

The case do illustrate how far into the extreme we have to go. The local rescue services gave up and gave the job to nation service. The national service gave up and gave it to the military (with international support). The military gave up, and then through almost a backdoor, a few individuals tried a Hail Mary attempt which against all odds worked well enough to get everyone home.

There are activities where people has to accept that rescue is limited or zero. If you go hiking in no man land then there is a real risk of rescue service not being able to locate you. People who attempt sailing around the world has the risk of being "lost to sea". Cave explorers both dry and wet has to accept that rescue attempts are done based on what is feasible. Same goes for wreck divers.

We could argue that those risky activities should be illegal (or shamed), but the counter argument is that a lot of activities are just inherently risky. Sports generate a huge amount of injuries. Motorcycles are viewed by health professionals as organ donor generators. Extreme sports are extreme, but they tend to also follow more rigorous training and certification in order to address those risk.

[Eisenstein]

> We could argue that those risky activities should be illegal (or shamed), but the counter argument is that a lot of activities are just inherently risky.

There are always going to be distinctions. We allow motorcycles but we don't allow motorized wheelbarrows, or unicycles that can go 60mph. Why? History and tradition, practicality -- whatever the reason, it doesn't necessarily have to make sense and it surely wasn't designed that way. No one makes the standards to which we hold people -- but we are allowed to complain when we don't feel they are in line with a healthy society.

[CamperBob2]

motorized wheelbarrows

I've heard dumber ideas, such as....

unicycles that can go 60mph

A hand-guided mecha-wheelbarrow would be incredibly helpful for people who would like to do more of their own gardening and landscaping but who don't have the physique for it. I'm now going to spend half a day thinking about how something like that could be built to work reliably, economically, and safely, while other people on HN have probably already spent half a day thinking about how to prohibit it.

Then, back to that unicycle thing. Your "bad ideas" make fascinating engineering challenges. Gotta give credit where it's due.

[Eisenstein]

You obviously weren't paying attention to anything I wrote besides looking for things to criticize. I was saying that those things are all bad ideas but we allow some and not others for reasons that go beyond 'bad' and it is not for us to judge or change.

[CamperBob2]

I seriously want a motorized wheelbarrow now, though. That's your fault.

[CamperBob2]

I suspect this loss will be as effective as any regulation. Nobody will get on board one of these subs without doing a lot more due diligence than the present customers did. And if they do, well, that's on them.

Believe it or not, new laws aren't always the answer. You can't bubble-wrap the world and you will make it a worse place for everyone if you try.

[Eisenstein]

I didn't say anything about making new laws. I am proposing that our society is heading in the wrong direction by lionizing people who take stupid risks and win.

[CamperBob2]

Yeah, I'm mostly addressing truemotive's knee-jerk post above.

Let's at least wait for the failure analysis reports before calling for congressional hearings. In other words, don't send a lawyer to do an engineer's job.

[MockObject]

Life is becoming very safe, but we evolved under conditions of deadly risks around every corner. What we can and should ask is that the risk takers only jeopardize their own lives.

[darkerside]

This is the wisest comment I've read in a while. Trump, depending on your politics, is either the beginning or end state of that particular problem.

[civilitty]

That’s nonsense. “Reasonable society” has been building and using commercial submersibles going on nearly a century and suddenly, after less than half a dozen people die in a dumb vanity stunt, we suddenly need to create a suite of brand new regulations? Our legislators and regulators have much better things to spend their bandwidth on.

What’s next? Are we going to start patrolling for DSVUIs, breathalyzing submarine captains at random?

[Eisenstein]

> What’s next? Are we going to start patrolling for DSVUIs, breathalyzing submarine captains at random?

Are you saying that commercial marine pilots should not be held to be sober when operating a passenger carrying vessel?

[civilitty]

I'm saying it can be enforced the same way it is in most industries that rely on dangerous equipment: via insurance policies, civil lawsuit, and criminal prosecution for negligence.

We don't breathalyze pilots when they board the plane, despite them being responsible for hundreds of people at a time, and millions of flights complete every year just fine.

[Eisenstein]

No one suggested doing mandatory DUI checks except you, in order that you can argue against regulation. Regulation is requiring the pilot to be sober. Mandatory breathalyzer checking would be an example of a type of enforcement (which no one is arguing for).

[mrweasel]

Just watched the video in the Twitter post... What's the point of diving to the Titanic if all you have to observe it is that tiny window?