this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
231 points (99.6% liked)

News

19 readers
12 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 1 year ago
 

The sub went missing while carrying five people to the wreckage of the Titanic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 48 points 1 year ago (48 children)

Since I heard about this whole fiasco I'm more and more dumbfounded.

There was this guy, who invented a way to dive for cheap (he listens to the carbon, and if there is a suspicious sound then he quickly comes back to the surface), complaining about the regulations which were holding submarines back. He fired the whistleblower who made reports about the danger of the equipment. He was fired and escorted outside.

Make him a meme, let's call him the "I told you so" guy. Surely he will be invited in TV shows about this whole affair.

The equipment, a game console controller? Seriously? Gaming equipment is simple: It's about 3% return policy. Depends on the brand. The people who swear that game controllers are safe are among the 97% who never had a return. They are the people who answers "mine works" on a forum when someone ask why his controller failed. If your game controller is broken, the service is : we send you a new one under 48 hours.

--> This service policy doesn't work at 3800m under the water, folks! This is not the right equipment. What kind of person bets the life of 4 people on gaming equipment?? We all know why he did it, because he hates regulations and he hates paying a premium on redundant equipment. He is in for the money, nothing else. So let's cut the costs on the hardware, let's not listen to anyone and let's not purchase the product of the engineers who designed equipment specially with these constraints in mind.

From time to time there is always a guy who pops-up and believes that regulations are made by people with too much free time in their hands.

[–] 1bluepixel@kbin.social 49 points 1 year ago (44 children)

The game controller thing gets meme'd to death, but I don't think people focus on the right thing.

Xbox controllers are also used by the US Navy, among other branches of the military.

These are GOOD pieces of engineering, and they're tested by millions of users under pretty strenuous conditions. However, the controller the Oceangate was using was some shitty-ass third-party controller that you can get for peanuts off Amazon.

THAT, IMO, is the issue that this piece of equipment illustrates. A solid Xbox Series S controller is $60 on Amazon, and you're telling me you had to go for cheaper?

[–] Phanatik@kbin.social 17 points 1 year ago (31 children)

I don't think the fact that the controller was wireless gets highlighted enough. Bluetooth devices have a hard time working above sea level and you're expecting it to work 3800m below the surface. Delusional.

[–] pjoter@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (1 children)

BT devices got problems only when water is in between anetna1 and antena2. It does not matter at what altitude the devices are, just what is inbetween them.

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What if they command something in the water? Have you seen the design?

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

Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that's problematic.
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?

Don't put on me your burden of proof.

Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that's problematic.

Well, turns out they did. So now that we have established that they don't follow protocol, are you going to show us their design or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Source that they did? I've seen nothing to support that to date.

or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?
Wtf? Was that an attempt at condescension?

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

Source that they did? I've seen nothing to support that to date.

That's exactly my point, no one here has any source about the design. Why don't YOU ask the people above about THEIR source?

Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?

Don't act surprised when I answer you the same way you answer me. Now either you bring some source to support the question that was made by someone above you or I'm done. I'm not your source magic machine.

The person who started this chain of conversation is gone btw. I don't know the point you are trying to make.

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission. You can assume they used the tech in a way it can't (or nearly can't) be used if you want, I guess. I'm not going to go and prove that they didn't because that was your assertion, not mine. The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission.

I never said otherwise and we both know it.

I'm not gonna play the reddit game with you. I have no burden of proof. Find another strawman to play with.

The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.

The designer is dead.

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The designer is dead so the wireless didn't work?

Does that count as a coherent argument to you? I wouldn't make fun of redditors if you can't make a better argument than that...

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

The people who trusted the guy are dead. You take his logic as gospel, good for you.

Now I got from other sources that the wifi was commanding the propeller. Meaning that yes, the wifi signal was supposed to travel through the water.

No either you have something of value to the discussion and you post it, or you don't post and we're done.

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

You've been thoroughly unpleasant to chat with, so I think we're done either way.

Take care.

edit: Judging by your reputation points it seems the community already warned me. Guess I'll check that first in the future.

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This was your opener, "Mr Good Manners":

Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?

You kept insisting that I made an assertion when I didn't.

About my reputation, if this is a metric for you then maybe I should downvote you, right? I didn't downvoted you so far but maybe I should?

Let's try this!

HOOOOOO, look! you went from 2 to -4! It goes fast, right? Right? What a metric! You are a negative reputation now. And I only downvoted you in this thread! Now people will have a surprise when they look at your reputation.

I took the liberty of downvoting you more. You are now at -45. It's a good experiment on how flawed the reputation system works. Maybe you will, like me, refrain from smashing this downvote button and focus more on the content you write. You would see that you strawmen from the very beginning.

Have a fantastic day!

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

We know for a fact that wifi signal was not supposed to travel through the water, because the sub successfully reached Titanic several times before it was destroyed.

If someone had designed the sub in the bizarre way that you suggested, then it would never have completed a single mission.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you want to command something in the water, you run a wire from that something to a receiver in the cabin.

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Right, exactly. Or for a "sub" that only holds 5 people... maybe just spend the 10 cents and wire it lol.

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I mean, the sub had reached Titanic several times, right?

So even without the design documents, we know it was previously capable of operating at depth.

Which we means we know the hull wasn't made of cotton candy, we know it wasn't propelled under water by an internal combustion engine, and we know it wasn't controlled by a device that stops working in water.

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (41 replies)
load more comments (44 replies)