Missing Titanic Submersible

[maoling]

Assuming you guys are familiar with the wife of the pilot CEO being related to victims of the titanic

Rush can trace her lineage as the great-great-granddaughter of Isidor Straus and his wife, Ida, both of whom were among the wealthiest individuals aboard the Titanic during its inaugural voyage. Born in 1845, Straus held a prominent position as a co-owner of Macy's department store.

I find the connections to the Uber rich more interesting than profit vs safety issues. It's like with trips into space. These seemingly scientific endeavors that become excursions for the rich

According to survivor reports, Ida Strauss was offered a seat in a lifeboat, but chose to stay with her husband. True love right there.

[D-train]

I can't believe they were talking about how much oxygen they had left. If they had just got stuck they wouldn't have lost communication. Obviously an implosion for the moment I first heard about it.

[Donn Beach]

Assuming you guys are familiar with the wife of the pilot CEO being related to victims of the titanic

Rush can trace her lineage as the great-great-granddaughter of Isidor Straus and his wife, Ida, both of whom were among the wealthiest individuals aboard the Titanic during its inaugural voyage. Born in 1845, Straus held a prominent position as a co-owner of Macy's department store.

I find the connections to the Uber rich more interesting than profit vs safety issues. It's like with trips into space. These seemingly scientific endeavors that become excursions for the rich

According to survivor reports, Ida Strauss was offered a seat in a lifeboat, but chose to stay with her husband. True love right there.

Yeah, they are depicted in Cameron's movie.

[D-train]

Assuming you guys are familiar with the wife of the pilot CEO being related to victims of the titanic


I find the connections to the Uber rich more interesting than profit vs safety issues. It's like with trips into space. These seemingly scientific endeavors that become excursions for the rich

According to survivor reports, Ida Strauss was offered a seat in a lifeboat, but chose to stay with her husband. True love right there.

Yeah, they are depicted in Cameron's movie.

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1GC ... 1q6-dGplQE

[gil]

This story has a great mix of technology, business, and human behavior ... so of course I have been fixated (when not dealing with these things for my day job).

First of all, RIP all the passengers and thoughts and prayers to their families and friends. None of what I'm going to write lessens that.

But one thing I find fascinating is how Stockton Rush, CEO of Ocean Gate and one of the deceased, was so confident of his design for the Titan submersible that he ignored warnings from others in the (very small) submersible community. I never met or correspond with Mr. Rush, but what I have read reminds me of a lot of other smart entrepreneurs I have known. He seems to have felt that he had a better understanding of things that others, and that regulations and standards were barriers to innovation.

The scientific method requires that your theories (in this case, regarding the integrity of the design of and materials used for the submersible) have to be "disprovable". That is, if I were Mr. Rush, an application of the scientific method would be "what would convince me that I need to change something, or delay something, or investigate something further?" If the answer is "nothing", you are no using the scientific method.

Instead, it seems to me that Mr. Rush was convinced he was correct, and that anyone criticizing him simply demonstrated that they were wrong. For example (this is hearsay from a scientist I know) when confronted with the arguments that the Titan submersible should go though more professional reviews, Mr. Rush responded that he would not do that until the professional review process caught up with his innovations. That is a lot of confidence; some probably will say hubris.

As I said, I think it is not uncommon among other brilliant entrepreneurs. Steve Jobs thought that he knew better that he doctors. We saw how that worked out. Obviously, tragedy does not cause the end of all (thankfully!) but I think it's an interesting cautionary tale.

[D-train]

This story has a great mix of technology, business, and human behavior ... so of course I have been fixated (when not dealing with these things for my day job).

First of all, RIP all the passengers and thoughts and prayers to their families and friends. None of what I'm going to write lessens that.

But one thing I find fascinating is how Stockton Rush, CEO of Ocean Gate and one of the deceased, was so confident of his design for the Titan submersible that he ignored warnings from others in the (very small) submersible community. I never met or correspond with Mr. Rush, but what I have read reminds me of a lot of other smart entrepreneurs I have known. He seems to have felt that he had a better understanding of things that others, and that regulations and standards were barriers to innovation.

The scientific method requires that your theories (in this case, regarding the integrity of the design of and materials used for the submersible) have to be "disprovable". That is, if I were Mr. Rush, an application of the scientific method would be "what would convince me that I need to change something, or delay something, or investigate something further?" If the answer is "nothing", you are no using the scientific method.

Instead, it seems to me that Mr. Rush was convinced he was correct, and that anyone criticizing him simply demonstrated that they were wrong. For example (this is hearsay from a scientist I know) when confronted with the arguments that the Titan submersible should go though more professional reviews, Mr. Rush responded that he would not do that until the professional review process caught up with his innovations. That is a lot of confidence; some probably will say hubris.

As I said, I think it is not uncommon among other brilliant entrepreneurs. Steve Jobs thought that he knew better that he doctors. We saw how that worked out. Obviously, tragedy does not cause the end of all (thankfully!) but I think it's an interesting cautionary tale.

Good summary gil. Sometimes thinking outside of the box is good and sometimes it isn't especially when you end up dead because of it.

[Sibelius Hindemith]

So you want more regulations on the free enterprise system and to have more bureaucracy and red tape to stifle innovation because "the system" is never corrupt or inefficient. Perhaps you would be happier in a place where government controls everything including what you think.

[D-train]

[gil]

So you want more regulations on the free enterprise system and to have more bureaucracy and red tape to stifle innovation because "the system" is never corrupt or inefficient. Perhaps you would be happier in a place where government controls everything including what you think.

I think what you wrote is a pretty extreme position, and not one I would advocate. I'm a free enterprise person, but I do think there are roles for government. Honestly, if someone wants to pay a quarter million to be bolted into a submersible and go 2.5 miles down, I'm inclined to say go for it and "caveat emptor." I lean more toward regulation of products and services that are "everyday"/"everyman" things where the consumer can't easily detect things like health problems. For example, I strongly favor inspection of meat. Even though I am sure there is some corruption and inefficiency there, I think regulation and inspection are net wins for the public. Also, with meat inspections and a number of other things, my opinion is that the regulation *encourages* innovation: innovating to protect health and make a profit at the same time.

Innovation is a good and I don't want to stifle it. So as I said, let 'er rip with submersibles. ... Except take note of the detail that we (tax payers) are now footing the bill for this free enterprise submersible failure.

[gil]

This story has a great mix of technology, business, and human behavior ... so of course I have been fixated (when not dealing with these things for my day job).

First of all, RIP all the passengers and thoughts and prayers to their families and friends. None of what I'm going to write lessens that.

But one thing I find fascinating is how Stockton Rush, CEO of Ocean Gate and one of the deceased, was so confident of his design for the Titan submersible that he ignored warnings from others in the (very small) submersible community. I never met or correspond with Mr. Rush, but what I have read reminds me of a lot of other smart entrepreneurs I have known. He seems to have felt that he had a better understanding of things that others, and that regulations and standards were barriers to innovation.

The scientific method requires that your theories (in this case, regarding the integrity of the design of and materials used for the submersible) have to be "disprovable". That is, if I were Mr. Rush, an application of the scientific method would be "what would convince me that I need to change something, or delay something, or investigate something further?" If the answer is "nothing", you are no using the scientific method.

Instead, it seems to me that Mr. Rush was convinced he was correct, and that anyone criticizing him simply demonstrated that they were wrong. For example (this is hearsay from a scientist I know) when confronted with the arguments that the Titan submersible should go though more professional reviews, Mr. Rush responded that he would not do that until the professional review process caught up with his innovations. That is a lot of confidence; some probably will say hubris.

As I said, I think it is not uncommon among other brilliant entrepreneurs. Steve Jobs thought that he knew better that he doctors. We saw how that worked out. Obviously, tragedy does not cause the end of all (thankfully!) but I think it's an interesting cautionary tale.

Good summary gil. Sometimes thinking outside of the box is good and sometimes it isn't especially when you end up dead because of it.

Thanks, dt. I think it's a matter of how we put the reins on out of the box thinking. I'm sure you've been in "brainstorming" sessions in work situations. The brainstorming is best when it's unencumbered. The problem is when no one says to the CEO "hey it's just an idea we got excited about; now it's time to take off our brainstorming hats and put on our analytical hats."