[bouchard]

Looking at interview footage of Stockton Rush, it seems he really wanted to be a disruptor and accomplish something which everyone else (i.e., experts) deemed impossible. He thought he could do what SpaceX did for space, but for underwater exploration.

[zarzavat]

> He thought he could do what SpaceX did for space

Even SpaceX, with unlimited resources, tried carbon fibre, couldn't get it to work, and switched to stainless steel. Different application but still. It's not a budget material.

[firesteelrain]

Problem is anyone can make a boat and kill themselves in it. Hard to hide a Falcon 9 rocket and get astronauts to go on it. It's highly regulated. You can put anyone on a dingy in the ocean and die.

[avgDev]

Rush could be placed in Wikipedia under hubris.

His hubris killed people. He ignored experts. He ignored warnings. This outcome was predictable.

[xeromal]

The problem is that SpaceX was told the same and it succeeded despite the ods. History is harsh to people who fail.

[avgDev]

SpaceX did not send manned missions for a while.

If the hull failed without people it would be no big deal. However, Rush was running out of money so he felt rushed and got reckless.

[jjmarr]

That's every startup founder to an extent.

What differentiates a good founder from a bad one is being right.

[nathan_compton]

This is a weird way to think of it, making it seem as thought its just a matter of chance whether the founder is right or not. The difference, if there is one, is that some founders can pivot when they see their approach won't work or, at least, throw in the towel before people die or too much many is wasted.

Maybe that makes them bad startup founders? I don't know. In my opinion "Startup Founder" is a role which should play second to "ethical human being."

[eptcyka]

Nah, it is about finding ways to fail an experiment without failing the whole business, bonus points for not killing anyone in the process.