I have some sympathy for the tourists in the sub, but I can't find any for the owner. Anyone who considers safety regulations as an obstacle deserves nothing more than to see exactly why those regulations exist.

The only one I have any sympathy for is the French diver/explorer guy, the billionaires doing this for a thrill put themselves in this situation and it is extremely amusing (plus, what you said about the sub company owner/CEO or whatever he is).
 
the sub it seems like the type of toy you take around coral reefs and stuff close to the surface, not something at that depth
plus I'm hearing its steered with a video game controller-type device...
 
This is interesting, if you're into the social sciences:

Fortune, 17 June 2023 - "Pew Research Center is tired of blaming Gen Z and millennials for everything—it’s retiring the whole concept of generational framing"

Ah, shoot. That's behind a pay-wall. I read it earlier, but now it's all blurred-out. I can't cut & paste anything. Well, here's the press release:

Pew Research Center, 22 May 2023 - "How Pew Research Center will report on generations moving forward"
BTW, 12 foot ladder works for this site.
Spoiler Content :

Millennials and Gen Zers have been stereotyped in many ways—they’re lazy quiet quitters, immature freeloaders who live with their parents, and spend too much on avocado toast. Usually, a poll or survey is used as evidence of the generational trend.

Now one of America’s oldest research organizations, Pew Research Center, an arm of the venerable 75-year-old Pew Charitable Trust, says it will no longer provide the ammunition. It says it will largely stop putting a generational framework on its well-known polls and surveys that highlight the thinking and lifestyles of different U.S. demographic groups.

“Our audiences should not expect to see a lot of new research coming out of Pew Research Center that uses the generational lens,” Pew’s social trends director Kim Parker wrote in a blog post last month. “We’ll only talk about generations when it adds value, advances important national debates and highlights meaningful societal trends.”

Take the trend of “job hopping,” ascribed by a Gallup report to the supposedly disloyal millennial generation. For its part, Pew previously found that millennials and their seniors, Gen X, jumped jobs at the same frequency.

More infamously, millennials became the “avocado toast generation,” originating from a 2017 interview in which a billionaire asked young adults to cut seemingly frivolous food expenses so they could afford a new home. That stereotype was an oversimplification of the entire generation’s spending behavior, and inspired counterpoints explaining that any financial woes of millennials could be blamed on their extraordinarily bad economic luck compared to previous generations.

Why now?
The reason Pew decided to change its system is that the research about generations wasn’t an apples-to-apples comparison. For instance, comparing the behavior of Gen Z, currently 11 and 26 years old, to that of millennials, who are between 27 and 42 years, isn’t fair. The two age groups—which collectively span 30 years in age—could be in vastly different stages of their life. (Those are Pew’s former generational-marking years, although other sources group generations into 20-year brackets.)

“In our publications, we’ve pointed out that these rules aren’t hard and fast and they’re kind of there to put together these groups that we think would share certain characteristics or experiences.. but they’re not scientifically based at all,” Parker told Fortune. She referred to a 2019 article by Pew titled “Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins,” which was frequently used as a reference—but that was unintended.

“People turned to us for these definitions, which frankly, made us a little uncomfortable because we didn’t really want to be in the business of defining generations,” Parker said.

She told Fortune that Pew was receptive to some of the critiques of its generational research and spent a year reassessing its methods.

Indeed, the research organization’s end to using generational categories comes after many social scientists and researchers criticized the approach because it pigeon-holes people into brackets that they don’t necessarily identify with or relate to. From a research standpoint, the age categories could lead to generalizations that aren’t always true of people’s personal experiences, even if they belong to millennial or Gen Z groups on paper.

John Quiggin, who writes the leftist economics blog Crooked Timber, celebrated the decision by Pew, writing that he had campaigned against the use of generational framing “since the beginning of the millennium.” He reminded readers that he had lobbied against them in an opinion piece for The New York Times in 2018, saying, “Dividing society by generation obscures the real and enduring lines of race, class and gender.”

Pew has previously published research based on generation segments, including each group’s educational levels, financial standing, and racial diversity. One report from 2021 found that Gen Z and millennials are among the loudest climate change activists, while another looked into the state of the economy that members of generations such as Gen Z inherited.

Some of the other changes Pew made include examining vast amounts of historical data to come up with stronger comparisons between generations and making sure its analysis accounts for “period effects,” or events that impact all age groups.

Does this mean that Pew’s past research along generational lines is no longer meaningful? Not at all, according to Parker.

“We definitely stand by all our previous research,” she said. “So, I think it’s just more of an evolution than anything else, but we’re definitely not taking down any of our previous research or distancing ourselves from that in any way.”

What are the experts saying?
One of the most notable voices against generational labels is University of Maryland sociologist Philip Cohen. In 2021, he drafted an open letter to Pew signed by demographers and social scientists urging the organization to give up on labels such as Gen X, millennial and Gen Z because they were “arbitrary” and had “no scientific basis.”

“With the exception of the Baby Boom, which was a discrete demographic event, the other ‘generations’ have been declared and named on an ad hoc basis without empirical or theoretical justification,” Cohen wrote in the letter. “Pew’s own research conclusively shows that the majority of Americans cannot identify the ‘generations’ to which Pew claims they belong.”

Research by organizations outside Pew agree. For instance, a YouGov survey in 2021 commissioned by The Atlantic found that only 39% of Gen Z respondents felt like they could relate to the generation label they were given. That figure is highest among Baby Boomers who, as Cohen highlighted, shared a defining event—the baby boom following World War II.

“Once word gets out (through research or other means) about a particular trait or practice associated with a ‘generation,’ like avocado toast or student debt, it gets processed and reprocessed reflexively by people who don’t, or do, want to embody a stereotype or trend for their supposed group,” Cohen wrote in a 2021 blog post.

Pew’s Parker responded to Cohen’s arguments in a 2021 Washington Post op-ed by acknowledging the limitations of generation as the basis for analysis. But she added that it could still sometimes be useful for understanding public opinion on topics and to react to different experiences.

The pushback against generation stereotypes has become louder in recent times. Gen Z employees are often type-cast as lazy and with a dwindling corporate loyalty. But people in those age groups have dismissed the thinking, arguing that it’s a misconception since younger individuals have a different perspective about flexibility and work-life balance.

Even business consulting firm McKinsey pointed out earlier this year that social science experts have found that research focusing on generations can confuse people about where they stand individually and warned against treating such an approach as the “gospel truth.”

“Generational research has become a crowded arena,” Pew acknowledged last month. “The field has been flooded with content that’s often sold as research but is more like clickbait or marketing mythology.”
 
A Logitech F710. I have this controller. It's a wireless PC controller based on a DualShock that runs on AA batteries. I stopped using it as it had problems with staying connected.

From what I've seen of interviews with this guy and his attitude to safety, I wouldn't even trust him to pack spare batteries. Let alone spare controllers, a manual way to control the critical systems in case something went wrong with the wireless connection, or any of the other things you'd need to make this less of a terminally stupid way to control a submersible.
 
Using a video game controller isn't itself a bad idea. They're easy to use, can handle the multiple degrees of motion a submersible has and are familiar to a lot of people. Using a cheap wireless one on the other hand....
 
It looks like they have all died.
 
Somebody on Facebook earlier today accused me of "BEING FINE with killing them because I'm salty that I'm broke"

I said first of all, I'm not broke, second, I'm fine with LAUGHING while they KILL THEMSELVES out of hubris and stupidity. "Screw the rules, I have money" doesn't work when the rules are physics.

Anyway the fact that a debris field was found likely means they were dead as soon as the sub lost contact, which I guess is nice insofar as it means some of the more nightmarish situations probably didn't happen.
 
Somebody on Facebook earlier today accused me of "BEING FINE with killing them because I'm salty that I'm broke"

I said first of all, I'm not broke, second, I'm fine with LAUGHING while they KILL THEMSELVES out of hubris and stupidity. "Screw the rules, I have money" doesn't work when the rules are physics.

Anyway the fact that a debris field was found likely means they were dead as soon as the sub lost contact, which I guess is nice insofar as it means some of the more nightmarish situations probably didn't happen.

Has the debris field been positively identified as Titan? I haven't heard that yet.

As for me....the CEO got what he deserved, to be honest, but he took four other people with him. That is a tragedy.
 
Well, hopefully they will bring the remains up and figure out what happened. Learning from one's mistakes is part of breaking new ground.
 
I believe there will be a statement at 3:00 EDT.
 
Has the debris field been positively identified as Titan? I haven't heard that yet.

No, details are lacking. Obviously as more information comes out I could be proved wrong.

As for me....the CEO got what he deserved, to be honest, but he took four other people with him. That is a tragedy.

The three billionaires got what they paid for. The one I feel slightly bad for is the French explorer guy but he probably knew the risks better than any of the others. He may have been misled as to the sub's safety but I doubt it, the guy who built it wasn't exactly secretive about considering safety something he was too rich to worry about.
 
I was wondering whether it would have been possible to rescue them in case the submarine had been found intact and found out the deepest underwater rescue was at a "mere" 480m:
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/67811-deepest-rescue-underwater
The deepest underwater rescue ever achieved was that of Roger R. Chapman and Roger Mallinson from the Pisces III, in which they were trapped for 76 hours when it sank to 480 m (1,575 ft), 241 km (150 miles) south-east of Cork, Republic of Ireland on 29 August 1973. It was hauled to the surface on 1 September by the cable ship John Cabot, after work by Pisces V, Pisces II and the remote-control recovery vessel Curv (Controlled Underwater Recovery Vehicle).

50 years is a long time ago, but attempting a rescue at 4000m would be an order of magnitude harder
 
The details of the corners this guy cut are just painful. Sucks for the kid.
 

Titanic director James Cameron: 'I felt in my bones what happened' to sub​

Hollywood film director James Cameron, who helmed the 1997 movie Titanic, has told the BBC he predicted the loss of the Titan submersible days earlier.
Cameron has completed 33 dives to the wreck of the Titanic.
He said he was on a ship on Sunday when the sub went missing, and did not hear about it until Monday.
When he learned that the sub had lost both its navigation and communication at the same time, he said he immediately suspected a disaster.

"I felt in my bones what had happened. For the sub's electronics to fail and its communication system to fail, and its tracking transponder to fail simultaneously - sub's gone."
The director went on: "I immediately got on the phone to some of my contacts in the deep submersible community. Within about an hour I had the following facts. They were on descent. They were at 3500 metres, heading for the bottom at 3800 metres.

"Their comms were lost, and navigation was lost - and I said instantly, you can't lose comms and navigation together without an extreme catastrophic event or high, highly energetic catastrophic event. And the first thing that popped to mind was an implosion."
On Thursday, an official from the US Navy told the BBC's partner CBS News that the navy detected "an acoustic anomaly consistent with an implosion" shortly after the Titan lost contact with the surface.
The official said the information was relayed to the US Coast Guard team which used it to narrow the radius of the search area.
Cameron told BBC News the past week has "felt like a prolonged and nightmarish charade where people are running around talking about banging noises and talking about oxygen and all this other stuff".
"I knew that sub was sitting exactly underneath its last known depth and position. That's exactly where they found it," he continued.
He added that once a remotely controlled underwater vehicle was deployed on Thursday, searchers "found it within hours, probably within minutes".
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65994707
 

Modern Physics Can’t Explain Life—But a New Theory, Which Says Time Is Fundamental, Might​


[IMG alt="Sara Imari Walker"]https://singularityhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sara-imari-walker-96x96.png[/IMG]
BySara Imari Walker
April 13, 2023

Over the short span of just 300 years, since the invention of modern physics, we have gained a deeper understanding of how our universe works on both small and large scales. Yet, physics is still very young and when it comes to using it to explain life, physicists struggle.

Even today, we can’t really explain what the difference is between a living lump of matter and a dead one. But my colleagues and I are creating a new physics of life that might soon provide answers.

More than 150 years ago, Darwin poignantly noted the dichotomy between what we understand in physics and what we observe in life—noting at the end of The Origin of Species “…whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”


The entire article is here:
 

Modern Physics Can’t Explain Life—But a New Theory, Which Says Time Is Fundamental, Might​


[IMG alt="Sara Imari Walker"]https://singularityhub.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/sara-imari-walker-96x96.png[/IMG]
BySara Imari Walker
April 13, 2023

Over the short span of just 300 years, since the invention of modern physics, we have gained a deeper understanding of how our universe works on both small and large scales. Yet, physics is still very young and when it comes to using it to explain life, physicists struggle.

Even today, we can’t really explain what the difference is between a living lump of matter and a dead one. But my colleagues and I are creating a new physics of life that might soon provide answers.

More than 150 years ago, Darwin poignantly noted the dichotomy between what we understand in physics and what we observe in life—noting at the end of The Origin of Species “…whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being evolved.”


The entire article is here:
That is interesting, but I am not sure where the "Explain Life" comes from. It certainly allows maths to be applied to the requirements for life, or at least natural selection, but I do not see how that "explains" life.

For example, it seems it totally would include viruses as life, as they experience selection, but I do not see it convincing someone who thinks they are not alive because they do not grow.

I guess the final figure of the (non-peer reviewed) paper gives an idea of what this paper is saying, defining regions in which selection can usefully occur:

 
It feels to me (a non-scientist) that, if this approach is valid, if things at assembly-index 13 are non-living, then above 13 are living, they could "create life" by creating the circumstances where a "chemical soup" gets that last needed bit.
 
It feels to me (a non-scientist) that, if this approach is valid, if things at assembly-index 13 are non-living, then above 13 are living, they could "create life" by creating the circumstances where a "chemical soup" gets that last needed bit.
I am sure they are trying.
 
No, it doesn't sound from the article as though that's the direction they're going with it. They just want to revise our idea of time.

That made it feel to me like the equivalent of journalists burying the lede.

Like if you've really got life vs non-life pinned down to this relatively precise tipping point, proof of concept would be . . . create life!
 
Top Bottom