There is a certain amount of empathy I want to have about the situation. Because at the end of the day, someone lost a loved one.
But there is also a bit of poetic justice when someone visits the wreck of a ship that played a large role in making sure ships were safer in case of catastrophic failure.
Only to ignore those procedures and end up right next to it.
FFS can't they let people live in peace? Did it occur to them that if the answer to "Do my actions make the world a kinder place?" is "no - the opposite" they might need to stop?
Anyone who doesn't think Israel is willingly and consciously committing genocide is living under a rock. This has been their standard operating procedure since at least the 70s. The strategy is to boil the frog just slowly enough to avoid international outrage, and continue to get western aid. But not too quickly as to enrage other Middle Eastern powers.
Yup, that’s what I’ve been saying since the beginning too. It’s kinda good news that they met a probably very fast death, instead of the slow suffocation people were talking about.
The people involved with the search had assumed this was the case all along. Sudden loss of both navigation and communication strongly indicates a catastrophic event.
Not to be callous, but why? We have four people here who willingly signed up for this knowing what the potential consequences could be and one who just threw caution to the wind as far as safety was concerned. I am sure more people have died on the roads while I was typing this. Besides, they were in international waters where according to all the news stories I read nothing you could pass would apply. I feel like this should just be a cautionary tale for others and thats as far as it needs to go. Oh, and let what's left of the company pay back the people who went out searching, assuming there are any funds left. I mean they obviously spent money on nothing but the best equipment.
I don't know what the right level of risk is, but I do agree that if you're engaging in extreme tourism, you have to understand that there's going to be a level of risk associated with it. You want to visit Antarctica, you're going to inevitably be exposed to more risk than if you visit the park down the road. Same thing with space travel. Same thing with deep undersea stuff.
Risk conservative, maybe. Political conservatism is usually gung-ho about this sort of thing.
I see the logic of that, but then again people can be real idiots when it comes to things they haven't been trained about (ask anyone that interacts with the general public for work). I also see the logic in things like mandating seatbelts. Especially if you have a situation where medical treatment will be provided at great public expense for the outcome of whatever stupid decision.
Before someone gets mad at me, I have no actual opinion here.
I think it becomes a question of what well back up and ‘insure’ as a society. Because we’re willing to back people up and insure against the risk of driving in a vehicle, we require certain safety standards, levels of training, etc.
I think people should and need to be able to make all the stupidest decisions they can possibly make. I also don’t think it’s society’s role to absorb that risk. I don’t think a major search and rescue operation should have been undertaken for people doing something that was incredibly risky and dangerous. It’s an edge that should stay sharp, and have real consequences. But I also strongly believe we shouldn’t be regulating people’s behavior to not also take that risk. That’s their business and the whole point of living in a liberal society. As a society we get to decide which corners to pad and which edges to soften. I’d like to see us padding the corners and reduce the risk for an immigrants voyage on an over packed boat to try and better themselt rather than some dipshit billionaires obviously stupid hobby.
I think both of them having the right to take that risk is a fundamental human right. But we as a society get to decide which risks well offer some cushion to.
That’s what needs to change. If there was enough support internationally, the UN could facilitate a treaty being signed between nations with uniform regulations on submersibles. Then it wouldn’t matter if it was international waters.
The company is registered in the US. US law can therefore apply. In fact USA claims jurisdiction where it's very shady to do so (for example just for payments made in USD)
I read the company skipped a load of safety and redundancy checks. Thats crazy...if it's true. Cutting corners to save a few bucks .
I'm not surprised due the greed that exists in the world but this should require the same level of regulation as a plane or a rocket . Not some metal cylinder with a $30 controller duct taped inside it.
It's actually astounding that this company seemingly gave zero fucks and was just allowed to go through with this. Like, I assume there was some permitting/process that needed to be obtained to go dive to the Titanic. I have to write overblown safety memos at work when just dealing with simple pressurized inert gas cylinders. How did this happen? Lol I wouldn't even use a logitech wireless controller to game on my PC.
They operated in international waters, so no regulation applies really. This is exactly what the less government people want - you choose of your own free will to contract with this company knowing the risks. I imagine it's similar to lots of dangerous recreation out there like the sub orbital flights. That said, I would have noped out of it based on the one article describeing the legal processes and forms you had to sign.
They operate in international waters but the company is based in the US and I'm sure the trip was contracted in the US as well. I'm no lawyer but I imagine that might give the government some leverage.
you choose of your own free will to contract with this company knowing the risks.
But that’s just the problem with free market/small government, isn’t it? You can’t know the risks because there is no oversight to prove people aren’t cutting corners and selling bullshit.
As long as it is more profitable for people to deceive and cut corners, they’re gonna do it.
People in China say it’s a democratic country that represents their interests, but I’m sure a western chauvinist who’s never been to China knows a lot better than people living there.
Yogthos cited nine sources and summarised the main theme running through them. Those sources included esteemed Western outputs. How is that shilling for China?
You mean to say that the system that led to the Iraq war, the 2007-9 housing crisis, the unpreparedness for a predictable pandemic, and myriad other events of this kind – with no option for the 'represented' publics to prevent said events – is unstable? You might just be on to something.
In unrelated news, the Bank of England has raised interest rates with the stated intention of making homeowners poorer. About 20% poorer, I'm told. The board of the bank is unelected and the electorate have zero control over its decisions. The (unelected) Prime Minister appears to disagree with the decision but also has zero control over the board's decisions.
The bank hopes that by making people poorer, inflation will come down – after two years – and workers will become so desperate that they are too scared to go on strike for a pay rise! This is all public knowledge because several interested parties said the quiet part out loud.
Don't worry, though, Britain is a liberal democracy so the Brits can vote for different representatives in a year's time. Well, those who survive will be able to vote. And nobody will be able to vote for the Bank of England board. But it's still a democracy.
The board of the bank is unelected and the electorate have zero control over its decisions. The (unelected) Prime Minister appears to disagree with the decision but also has zero control over the board’s decisions.
This is more feature than bug in a central bank. Let’s say the US president had direct control over fiscal policy. The president says print money and drop the interest rate, the central bank says how much. It gets really tempting when reelection comes around to juice the economy. The negative consequences - inflation - take enough time to do their damage that people will already be going to the polls before they get hit.
The way the Bank of England gets its board does seem less than ideal, but not terrible as these things go. It’s kind of a run of the mill technocratic structure.
I'll upvote this as it's fair point, but my point was that liberal democracies cannot claim to be democratic if there is no real democratic oversight over such significant political decisions. The fact that this can be dismissed as part of a technocracy illustrates the point well, I think. So many people will lose their homes and hundreds of thousands/millions will see a dip in their living standards and no amount of the 'democracy' on offer (periodic voting) can change that. It makes a mockery of the concept and, as you say, it's a feature not a bug of liberal democracy. We're in full agreement about that!
Adorable that you think west isn’t authoritarian. Every government is fundamentally authoritarian because the government has the monopoly on violence, that’s where its authority comes from. And when people in western countries don’t behave the governments unleash their security forces on them as they did during George Floyd protests in US and they’re doing in France right now.
No, I mean it, they really have taken the models of the British Empire and the American Empires and expanded them in a way neither at their heights could ever justify nor imagine. Surveillance system sales to authoritarian governments? Selling surveillance in other countries?! Like the CIA look like idiots spending money to get surveillance in other countries on that one. Plus they get to support the dictators keeping the peasants sending raw resources to China!
Purposely loaning money to countries with bad credit histories for leverage to get them to build ports for the Chinese empire’s trade network?! Britten spent so much time and money fighting wars, and colonizing just to be our shined on that.
And let’s not even get to started on the levels of control business have over workers there. The US robber barons use the State here looks like child’s play to the anti-union, anti-solidarity work done by the CCP. A giant union ran by the largest capitalist in the country? With authorities able to crack down on grassroots organizing on the opposite side, and the ability to send slaves from regions in need of “reeducation” all around the country. Makes the US look practically socialist on some fronts (we aren’t and have a good way to go).
They aren’t loaning out money to have ports built? They don’t have a state run union? Their government isn’t filled with some of their richest? They don’t have a program reducate certain peoples that includes shipping them accross the country? Like come on, some of these are just established public facts that even the CCP doesn’t deny.
They aren’t loaning out money to have ports built?
The myth of Chinese debt trap has been thoroughly debunked, just a few examples
In Dec 2021, BBC Interviewed Dr. Deborah Bräutigam About the Debt-Trap Story in Africa. BBC Then Made It Look Like She Agreed With Them During the Broadcast. Corrections Were (Obscurely) Published Eight Months Later in July 2022 But Without Any Change to the Broadcast. archive.is/e0BYg
They don’t have a program reducate certain peoples that includes shipping them accross the country?
A weird framing for programs to provide people with jobs and education.
Like come on, some of these are just established public facts that even the CCP doesn’t deny.
As I said, every single claim you made is disinformation. Also, no idea what CCP is. It’s called the Communist Party of China, CPC. The fact that you can’t even get that straight says volumes.
Yes, these are actual sources. This whole narrative that official Chinese sources are somehow unreliable isn’t actually based on anything other than pure chauvinism. This is no different from linking about a US government site talking about US government. And it’s the height of absurdity to claim that National Congress or the Central Committee don’t hold any power. I love how you just make things up and state them confidently as a form of argument.
Official Chinese sources are unreliable when they spout bullshit like saying the rubberstamping meetup that happens once every blue moon that solely consists of party selected individuals is who holds the power instead of the much smaller group that actually actively controls legislation.
But I guess political science is also exclusively western propaganda so there’s no choice but to believe a choppy power point presentation.
Who told you that official Chinese sources are unreliable, was it the “reliable” western sources that continuously lie about everything regarding China by any chance? 😂
Do you think that the only choices are between Chinese and US state propaganda?
You don’t even need independent research to realize that a parliament that only meets once in a while to verify the work of a much smaller group can’t be the one that’s actually in power.
If you look a bit more into it, you see that the members are replaced in fixed time spans, are all part of the same party, are picked from the top down and so it goes on.
I was messing around with this like sub warfare simulator game a while back and I blew up a whale with a torpedo because it showed up on my sonobuoy network as an unidentified contact 😅
Similar things have happened in other underwater rescue situations and it almost always turns out to be equipment involved in the search. The sonar bouys dropped by the planes are extremely sensitive pieces of equipment.
If I had to guess, every 30 minutes or so a boat running a grid search pattern would get close enough to one of the bouys that it was able to pick up sounds from the boat. As the grid pattern took the boat further away from the bouy it wasn't able to continue to pick up the noise, and the "knocking" stopped after about 4 hours and wasn't heard again until a few days later. Then the search pattern changed, and boats started getting close to the bouys again.
It was a fish knocking on the window and saying, 'here, billy, billy, billy, billionaire'.
It was intermittent because an orca kept swimming past and saying, 'don't do that, it's bad for them, but if you like the sound of that you're better off knocking on the bottom of the big ones up top'.
Who downvoted this? Conservatism has always been an ideology that's opposed to progress, democracy and freedom. It holds back society to preserve tradition and "family values" while promoting xenophobia, bigotry, and unquestioned submission to authority. The most conservative states in the United States are also some of the poorest, with the lowest standards of living, and also the most backwards. It isn't much different in other countries. The Nazis were conservative. Islamic countries with Sharia Law are conservative. And right now, American Conservatives are trying to implement a Christian-flavoured Sharia Law.
This isn't true, though; politics is in the driver's seat, and capital is at the mercy of government. We can see this even in the US where the Biden administration is pushing decoupling/deglobalization for geopolitical and domestic reasons, to the discomfort of US-based multinationals. On the other side of the aisle, the business-friendly cosmopolitan arm of the Republican party has lost ground to the Trumpian populist wing. You see a similar story elsewhere in the world. In the case of Russia, a lot of people thought that Putin was a tool of the oligarchs, so you can change his behavior by putting pressure on the oligarchs. Surprise, it turned out that the oligarchs have to do what Putin tells them, not the other way round.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, are the democrats not friendly with ANY big businesses? Is the extreme right wing of US conservatives not motivated by money (Donald Trump is often thought of as a successful venture capitalist, the amount of money funneled out during his presidency, etc...)?
Russia is one of the most inequal countries in the world in terms of wealth distribution, and for decades now oligarchs in Russia have gone hand in hand with the state in eroding any form of democracy and exploiting what freedom those citizens do have.
So, can you really say democracy can exist with money?
This is ridiculous. “Politics” cannot be in the driver’s seat because “politics” is not an entity. Domestic capital legally falls under the jurisdiction of the government, but that does not mean that it is actually at the mercy of the government. Capital since before the country was even founded has owned the vast majority of politicians and dictated the way that the government is organized and the laws it passes. That’s why people without land couldn’t even vote at first and why we still retain a senate, which is 100% just a body for checking the power of people who do not own land versus those who own a lot of land.
Speaking as a Marxist, this is false. Capitalism was once the historical progressive force against feudalism. This was already waning two centuries ago, but it was not always true.
Glad another Marxist said it. The problem isn't that capitalism was always the wrong choice, it's that we're clinging to it long beyond its best before date.
Yes, it did, though vestiges still remain. That’s what the French Revolution overwhelmingly was, the bourgeoisie claiming power over the old feudal nobility and the monarchy (as anything but a figurehead). Also the American revolution and many others.
They resemble each other because they are in all cases the “owning class” claiming the seat as the “ruling class”, just as the slaveholders of classical antiquity and the patriarchs of pre-historical agrarian/pastoral societies.
It’s kind of a tangent, but in explaining the concept of equality, Lenin discusses some of the differences between feudalism and liberal capitalism in a letter here.
There are places such as Thailand and Bhutan where the struggle is still alive between the two modes of production, but those are the very rare exceptions to the global order of liberal capitalism (in various forms) vs whatever you want to call the theocratic capitalism of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. vs the state socialism of the PRC, Cuba, etc.
Genuine question re: US conservative states, what came first, poverty or conservativism? As in, what caused the other? If not a little of column A and B…
There are a lot of conservatives here thanks to Reddit. Tankie hysteria allows them to speak in parallel to the radlibs and anarcho-bidenists without too much dispute, so they have blended in. Funny how that works.
Vaush claims the anarchist label (in contravention of any evidence that he practices anarchist principals in his daily life), he simped hard for Biden during the 2020 election, and disingenuous Marxists use that as a box to stick practicing anarchists in.
In what the labor department described as “among the most shameless” efforts to intimidate workers that investigators have seen, the owners of Garibaldi also brought in a fake priest to conduct confession sessions with employees. Once employees sat with the “priest” they were peppered with work-specific questions and asked whether they had any ill feelings toward their employers or had spoken negatively about them to anyone, including investigators.
This is wild. Owner should go to jail for fraud. Employees should take ownership of the restaurant.
From what I heard they had two bottles for urine and a bag to deficate in. It would have been freezing and extremely humid inside after even a day as well.
A implosion would be way better than days cramped together suffocating and starving in a inescapable freezing stench filled coffin.
But isn’t the asphyxiation here on the levels of, you end up falling asleep and don’t wake up again. It’s not to the degree of you’re choking to death and can’t do anything about it.
I don’t think so. You’d feel the carbon dioxide building up in your muscles over time, it would be awful. That and the mind-destroying existential terror. I’d take the sudden crush depth exposure, thanks.
The peaceful death you are talking about is from lack of oxygen, but when you’re in an enclosed space, there is CO2 buildup, and when you get too much CO2 it makes your blood slightly more acidic, which makes you feel an intense urge to breathe and you’ll die before running out of oxygen. That’s a terrible way to die.
Question... why wasn't this an unmanned, remotely controlled submarine with a front-mounted camera? If it had been destroyed, that would have been a lot of money up in smoke, but no lives lost.
worldnews
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.