Poll of the Day > A lot of people talking about the missing submarine

(+) Yeah! (+)

Do not know what they are talking about. And its strange the deaths people joke around about versus sensitive subjects that people wouldnt let others joke about without everyone pulling the plug on them. Death should never be joked about no matter wealth religion how bad someone or good. There might be a lot of disagreements about that. Stay safe everyone

Well it's because it's a bunch of '1%ers' on the Sub, so ppl are having their opinions about it, plus it's a relatively 'new' way of touring underwater.

But the reality is, anyone can die in any vehicle at any time, even riding a bike or skateboard.

Yeah im no fan of billionaires but that's a horrible way to die and there was a 19 year old on board. Pretty horrific and it is kinda fucked up how a lot of people are laughing at them

Well they could have solved world hunger with their money.
Could have saved those 700 migrants that drowned.
Could pretty much donate every weapon Ukraine needs.
Could build renewable energy for the entire planet.

Nope, spent their money on a submarine to visit an old wreck under the ocean.

SinisterSlay posted...

Well they could have solved world hunger with their money.
Could have saved those 700 migrants that drowned.
Could pretty much donate every weapon Ukraine needs.
Could build renewable energy for the entire planet.

Nope, spent their money on a submarine to visit an old wreck under the ocean.

And, worse than that, they've now tied up many millions of dollars trying to rescue them, which would be highly questionable even if there were a significant chance of success. That money could have saved a whole lot more than 5 lives.

Somehow I expect more of a slow leak than an implosion.

SinisterSlay posted...

Somehow I expect more of a slow leak than an implosion.

At those pressure differentials, you don't get slow leaks. If water starts coming in, there stops being an "in" very, very quickly, unless you've got an unfathomably strong hull (at which point, bouyancy becomes a real issue). It's basically the inverse of a balloon popping.

this is why Ive learned to say never say never, because anything can happen at any time. with all the money they had, they had to know the risks involved, but still went ahead with it. very horrible way to die, but I dont feel bad

People assume that when they're paying a high price tag everything must be legit

OhhhJa posted...

People assume that when they're paying a high price tag everything must be legit

Except this guy did interviews basically bragging he was cutting costs because safety regulations are too stringent in his opinion.

OhhhJa posted...

Yeah im no fan of billionaires but that's a horrible way to die and there was a 19 year old on board. Pretty horrific and it is kinda fucked up how a lot of people are laughing at them

it's a far quicker way to die than slowly suffocating to death

Jen0125 posted...

Except this guy did interviews basically bragging he was cutting costs because safety regulations are too stringent in his opinion.

aka pwnd. it's like when 'Mad' Mike Hughes died. Yes, it's sad. It's also hilarious.

Jen0125 posted...

Except this guy did interviews basically bragging he was cutting costs because safety regulations are too stringent in his opinion.

Oh I'm not making not making excuses for them. Just saying that a lot of people feel that way when they're paying lots of money

OhhhJa posted...

Oh I'm not making not making excuses for them. Just saying that a lot of people feel that way when they're paying lots of money

those people are dumb assholes. if you're willing to pay 'a lot of money' you should be willing to pay twice as much if it's something as dangerous as this. I'm definitely more sad for the people that didn't know this stuff going into it - although I don't know how transparent Mr. Skimp-on-Safety was with the folks. It might be on them too.

OhhhJa posted...

Oh I'm not making not making excuses for them. Just saying that a lot of people feel that way when they're paying lots of money

If I am paying 250 thousand dollars for a ticket, I better not see that my life is in the hands of a Logitech controller.

ArvTheGreat posted...

Death should never be joked about

Lol

LonelyStoner posted...

Lol

Makes people no better than the narcissistic invincible rich people

ArvTheGreat posted...

Makes people no better than the narcissistic invincible rich people

my grandma joked about death for at least 20 years preceeding it

ReturnOfFa posted...

it's a far quicker way to die than slowly suffocating to death

I believe he said that before it was confirmed that the sub imploded, in reference to the idea of slowly suffocating in a cramped space with minimal hope of escape. As I said, that's why real subs carry cyanide pills for everyone on board: if they end up with a life support failure, it's really only humane to make sure everyone has an easier out than that.

With more recent information, yeah, their deaths were probably near-instantaneous. Humans can't remain conscious through such rapid pressurization as that, even if they somehow managed not to be crushed by the walls of the sub as it collapsed. So at least they probably didn't suffer.

When a submarine implodes, especially at that depth, the effect is basically like an explosion. It's nearly instant, like stomping on an empty soda can. They never knew what hit them.

Indeed. Pretty much the only way they might have suffered is if it lost power and only imploded after falling for some time.

it's one thing to make memes about the utter ridiculousness of the submarine's setup and the deadly hubris of the OceanGate CEO
it's entirely another to say "it's okay they died because they were millionaires, good riddance"
The latter just puts a bad taste in my mouth.

AltOmega2 posted...

it's one thing to make memes about the utter ridiculousness of the submarine's setup and the deadly hubris of the OceanGate CEO
it's entirely another to say "it's okay they died because they were millionaires, good riddance"
The latter just puts a bad taste in my mouth.

What about the 'you get what you deserve' perspective? It's like these untrained dolts decide to go on a tourist trip to summit Everest and end up as one of the bodies on the mountain.

AltOmega2 posted...

it's entirely another to say "it's okay they died because they were millionaires, good riddance"
The latter just puts a bad taste in my mouth.

Billionaires*. There are plenty of millionaires that are fine people. Billionaires, however, don't exist without doing many, many terrible things, not least of which is waking up every morning and choosing not to solve any of the countless societal problems that they could solve with zero impact to their quality of life.

On top of that, this was an extremely risky endeavour, which everybody knew going in. That doesn't necessarily mean they deserved to die from it, but it's also not tremendously surprising, and it's hard to feel really bad about that extreme risk coming to fruition.

nah the memes are amazing. i feel really bad for the teen that didn't wanna be there but honestly the others guys were asking for it. everything about this screamed red flag.

and main dude was a fuckin piece of shit narcissist that gave no fucks about human life. his death is legitimately a net gain for humanity.

adjl posted...

Billionaires, however, don't exist without doing many, many terrible things, not least of which is waking up every morning and choosing not to solve any of the countless societal problems that they could solve with zero impact to their quality of life.

even Bill Gates?

ReturnOfFa posted...

What about the 'you get what you deserve' perspective?

No one deserves death. Clown on them for being stupid, that's fine. But to say they deserved is going a bit too far.

AltOmega2 posted...

even Bill Gates?

No one deserves death. Clown on them for being stupid, that's fine. But to say they deserved is going a bit too far.

I mean, they don't deserve to die obviously...but the saying basically comes across the same as 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'. I suppose it would be more polite of me to say 'you reap what you sow'.

AltOmega2 posted...

even Bill Gates?

I mean, Gates has been an ass for decades.

Gates pretends to care about global issues as long as he can line his pockets

AltOmega2 posted...

even Bill Gates?

Bill Gates didn't become a billionaire by being a good person. He's now making a quasi-earnest effort to use his billions to do good things, which is good (how that balances out with his previous misdeeds is a complicated moral judgement, but there isn't a ton of point in trying to judge people overall like that), but what he's doing is still a drop in the bucket compared to what he could do. 100 billion dollars is really an absolutely staggering amount of money, far more than any one person will ever be able to spend on themselves without making a genuine effort to piss it away on nothing (like buying Twitter for $45 billion to shitpost without consequence or taking joyrides to space). Meanwhile, paying $1500/month in rent for every single one of the ~585,000 homeless people in the US (which is a very generous estimate for what housing them would cost, given the potential to house families together and find further savings by operating on a large scale) would cost about 10.5 billion per year. Even with no other income, Gates could fund that for 10 years continuously and still have more money left than he could ever spend on himself.

The fact of the matter is that reducing any billionaire's fortune by 99% - an unfathomable loss for any one of us - would still leave them with a minimum of $10 million to their name, more than enough to live the rest of their lives without wanting for anything. Everyone in the $100 billion plus club could have that happen twice and still be in that position. That they give away a couple billion a year is nothing compared to what they're actually capable of, a potential which they resist realizing solely because they like the big number.

adjl posted...

Bill Gates didn't become a billionaire by being a good person. He's now making a quasi-earnest effort to use his billions to do good things, which is good (how that balances out with his previous misdeeds is a complicated moral judgement, but there isn't a ton of point in trying to judge people overall like that), but what he's doing is still a drop in the bucket compared to what he could do. 100 billion dollars is really an absolutely staggering amount of money, far more than any one person will ever be able to spend on themselves without making a genuine effort to piss it away on nothing (like buying Twitter for $45 billion to shitpost without consequence or taking joyrides to space). Meanwhile, paying $1500/month in rent for every single one of the ~585,000 homeless people in the US (which is a very generous estimate for what housing them would cost, given the potential to house families together and find further savings by operating on a large scale) would cost about 10.5 billion per year. Even with no other income, Gates could fund that for 10 years continuously and still have more money left than he could ever spend on himself.

The fact of the matter is that reducing any billionaire's fortune by 99% - an unfathomable loss for any one of us - would still leave them with a minimum of $10 million to their name, more than enough to live the rest of their lives without wanting for anything. Everyone in the $100 billion plus club could have that happen twice and still be in that position. That they give away a couple billion a year is nothing compared to what they're actually capable of, a potential which they resist realizing solely because they like the big number.

Rich people get rich by not spending money

SinisterSlay posted...

Rich people get rich by not spending money

That's axiomatically false. Rich people get rich by spending money on things that make them more money. Simply not spending money just prevents you from running out of money.

OhhhJa posted...

Gates pretends to care about global issues as long as he can line his pockets

This, and this is kinda only the modern Gates that people are familiar with.

He was very unscrupulous in Microsoft's early days, although you could say the same for a lot of companies in the 80s.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I mean, they don't deserve to die obviously...but the saying basically comes across the same as 'play stupid games, win stupid prizes'. I suppose it would be more polite of me to say 'you reap what you sow'.

I'm actually fine with those. I would call that clowning around rather than wishing death on someone. I actually agree with what others are saying about the CEO basically being a murderer via negligence.

AltOmega2 posted...

I actually agree with what others are saying about the CEO basically being a murderer via negligence.

One can argue whether or not the CEO actually deserved death for his recklessness and misleading claims, but I think we can all agree that he needed to be stopped, and I'm perfectly fine with death being what stopped him.

AltOmega2 posted...

I'm actually fine with those. I would call that clowning around rather than wishing death on someone. I actually agree with what others are saying about the CEO basically being a murderer via negligence.

Appreciate the self-reflection prompt :).

captpackrat posted...

When a submarine implodes, especially at that depth, the effect is basically like an explosion. It's nearly instant, like stomping on an empty soda can. They never knew what hit them.

Tbh that sounds terrifying in its own right. One second you're alive, the next you're dead. You're entire existence and sense of self vanishing in an instant.

Very creepy to think about.

SinisterSlay posted...

Rich people get rich by not spending money

People who say this baffle me.

LonelyStoner posted...

People who say this baffle me.

Yeah it's the exact opposite lol

adjl posted...

$10 million to their name, more than enough to live the rest of their lives without wanting for anything

That is a lot of money huh. Even if you spent a maximum of 100k a year, you'd still be set for 100 years. You probably couldn't afford a mansion on that budget, but I'd imagine you could still find a very nice house.

LonelyStoner posted...

People who say this baffle me.

It's more like they spend other people's money and make a fortune off it without ever paying back the people whose funds they'd used.

The thing about rich people is, they make awful financial decisions all the time. People may say a rich person who still cuts coupons got rich because of that mentality, but they say nothing when they buy a 500,000 dollar brand new Rolls Royce which could be purchased for a fraction of the cost 5-10 years later, because they absolutely do not retain value.

Entity13 posted...

It's more like they spend other people's money and make a fortune off it without ever paying back the people whose funds they'd used.

This is true too. The more money you have the more institutions will just funnel money your way for whatever bullshit idea you have

OhhhJa posted...

This is true too. The more money you have the more institutions will just funnel money your way for whatever bullshit idea you have

There's a club mentality going on, and no one here is in that club.

OK, let's get unpopular.

3,000 15-19 year-olds die every day. Either I need to feel sad about each and every one of them or I am able to react however I like depending on the situation.

In this case I feel a little bad, but I feel no worse for this one than I do for the other 2,999 that died on the same day.

And I really don't feel bad for the older people who were responsible for choosing to do this. I don't celebrate their deaths, but I don't feel much of anything and don't feel bad about that.

As for billionaires/etc, can I say that I would start giving 99% of my money away upon earning it to ensure I would never be obscenely rich if I were in their situation? No, I doubt I would if I'm being realistic. That said, I DO believe I would not waste it on yachts and other wasteful status symbols and hope I would give 99% of it away by the end of my lifetime so as not to fund an entitled and pointless line of family successors. Buffet has talked about doing this, but...we'll see.

The bigger problem is a political and cultural system that allows individuals to collect this much money. It's hard for them to effectively donate that much money even if they wanted to.

So there you go.

It's more expensive to be poor than it is to be rich. Terry Pratchett mentions it in his book Men at Arms.

The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.

I've noticed this myself. I was buying cheap walking shoes because I could easily afford $20, but they would wear out in just a few months. I finally bought an expensive pair of shoes costing $150, a price that was a bit harder to swallow, and they barely have any wear on them after 2 years. I'd have spent well over $150 buying cheap shoes in that time, and I'd have to keep buying them, while the expensive shoes will be good for several more years.

MabinogiFan posted...

Tbh that sounds terrifying in its own right. One second you're alive, the next you're dead. You're entire existence and sense of self vanishing in an instant.

Very creepy to think about.

It's scary to think about, but the actual experience would be over too quickly to be frightened by it in the moment.

It's also worth noting that that's how a non-trivial number of road fatalities happen. Sometimes, people don't even have a chance to notice that anything's wrong before they're killed by the impact.

MabinogiFan posted...

That is a lot of money huh. Even if you spent a maximum of 100k a year, you'd still be set for 100 years. You probably couldn't afford a mansion on that budget, but I'd imagine you could still find a very nice house.

More than that, invest that $10 million at a modest 5% return, and you get $500,000 a year for free, which is more than enough to live comfortably on indefinitely.

argonautweakend posted...

The thing about rich people is, they make awful financial decisions all the time. People may say a rich person who still cuts coupons got rich because of that mentality, but they say nothing when they buy a 500,000 dollar brand new Rolls Royce which could be purchased for a fraction of the cost 5-10 years later, because they absolutely do not retain value.

The thing is, those decisions simply don't affect them like they do us. I was talking with my girlfriend about the whole sub thing, and she mentioned how ridiculous it was to spend $500,000 on a father's day present (two tickets). For somebody with 1 billion dollars to their name, that's 0.05% of their money (1/2000). To scale that down, for somebody with $100k (which already puts them quite a bit ahead of most of America), that would be $50, which that person would never think twice about spending for a special occasion. It's a testament to the baffling scale of a billion dollars to realize that, but that's the reality of the situation (and most billionaires have more than just 1 billion).

It's also not strictly a linear comparison like that, since how disposable wealth is depends more on how much is left afterwards than what percentage it comprises. If you have a million dollars and spend $500,000 of it on some frivolous luxury, you're still in pretty good shape. If you have $100 and spend $50 of it on some frivolous luxury, you're an idiot.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/5/1/7/AAcpmVAAEmUN.jpg

People always confuse networth as being a vault of money that they dive into like Scrooge McDuck.

captpackrat posted...

It's more expensive to be poor than it is to be rich. Terry Pratchett mentions it in his book Men at Arms.

I'm not rich and I live by that same mentality. I always consider the long term benefits when spending money. I almost never buy games at full price. On average, games cost me less than $15 USD a piece, and I'm not just buying indie games but plenty of AAA titles as well. I also own nearly two thousand games. I wait for sales.

I've been wearing the same pair of boots for well over a decade now, and they cost my grandfather $100 CAD (It was a gift). He had the same kind of mentality as me, at least when it came to clothing. This mentality was handed down to his son, my father, who in turn handed it down to me. My grandfather saw me wearing a cheap pair of boots (bought by my mother when I was a young teenager) that weren't waterproof anymore due to wear. He was a shoemaker when he was young, so those old boots were an insult to him.

I've never been in debt and I'm not a big spender. I buy things that will last me a long time. I still wear clothes I wore as a preteen. Because I was thinking in the long term even then, I made sure to pick larger sizes that I would grow into. There's also the fact that I was obese, and losing so much weight later in life expanded my wardrobe. Some of my old clothes also grew in size overtime. I only ever stop wearing an item when it's damaged beyond repair. I don't like being seen in public wearing t-shirts full of holes, so I only wear those at home. People tend to tell me that I dress well. I'm into cardigans, chesterfield coats, fedora hats, pinstripe shirts, etc.

I barely make anything due to health issues preventing me from doing steady 9 to 5 jobs, but my financial decisions allowed me to secure a good safety net. I currently make a little over $18K CAD a year and I have well over $50K in my bank account. I know people who make five times that much and who still live paycheck to paycheck. Life currently costs me $1K per month, although it used to be $750 last year. I can thank the 1% for that. I use some of the leftovers to buy games and other "uneccessary" stuff, then invest the rest.

If I was born rich, I would have certainly grown up becoming one of those asshole billionaires. I already have an asshole father who fucked me up. It took me forever to work on my behavior. I don't think I would have put the effort to not become an entitled prick if I was born rich and encouraged by the system to be even more terrible. Just imagine what would have happened to Donald Trump if he wasn't born in the 1%. He'd still be a dumbass, but no one would be giving a shit about a high school dropout who flips burgers. He'd be much less of a narcissistic asshole though.

adjl posted...

The thing is, those decisions simply don't affect them like they do us. I was talking with my girlfriend about the whole sub thing, and she mentioned how ridiculous it was to spend $500,000 on a father's day present (two tickets). For somebody with 1 billion dollars to their name, that's 0.05% of their money (1/2000). To scale that down, for somebody with $100k (which already puts them quite a bit ahead of most of America), that would be $50, which that person would never think twice about spending for a special occasion. It's a testament to the baffling scale of a billion dollars to realize that, but that's the reality of the situation (and most billionaires have more than just 1 billion).

I bought my father a $1,000 CAD gift once, which was worth 0.25% of the cash I had to my name at the time, not counting assets (mostly furniture, electronics, and games) I could sell. The fact that I'm more generous toward my asshole father than a billionaire is to their own speaks volumes to how ridiculously cheap those asshole billionaires are. If you're wondering about the gift itself, it was a 55" LED 1080p HDTV. I was tired of seeing him use a 19" CRT 480i SDTV.

TomNook posted...

People always confuse networth as being a vault of money that they dive into like Scrooge McDuck.

In the case of those idiots, the vault they dove into literally imploded.