Hacker News Reader

I think you're reaching a bit.

I'm not seeing very many people "celebrating their death". I am seeing people making fun of the complete absurdity of the situation: a couple of billionaires are spending the equivalent of two Starbucks coffees to visit a mass grave in an untested discount submarine known to have safety issues, fully aware that it could mean their death and just... not caring?

When you are a minimum wage worker, seeing people spend several years' wages on something as silly as this, it just feels like you are living in a completely different reality. It is so absurd that I wouldn't have believed it if it was written in a science-fiction book. It is so detached from normal life, it just doesn't feel real.

> I always thought it was sort of a joke when people said "eat the rich"

It is both a joke, and not a joke. Some people are literally starving, and wealth inequality is worse than it was during the French Revolution. I don't know anyone who wants to literally "eat the rich", but it is getting increasingly obvious that the status quo isn't sustainable either.

> you would have killed them yourself if there was no consequence

No, that's not how it works. Very few people actively want other humans to die, but that doesn't mean they will mourn the death of every single stranger either.

>fully aware that it could mean their death and just... not caring?

The reality is that these people have ZERO proper understanding of risk, because they've never actually been allowed to fail in life, so they regularly make stupid choices and dumb mistakes that normal people with normal experience would not, because many normal people have functioning risk management.

Then also remember that "for some reason" these kind of people run everything.

normal people who are allowed to fail die doing stupid things all the time. people die climbing or skydiving or any other number of ways. the fact is people are just really bad at risk assessment.

More likely they just have a different value system from yours. Some people see life more as a resource to be used than a treasure to be protected. For some people boredom is a fate worse than death. Some people value intensity of experience over duration of existence; a higher risk of injury or death is acceptable in service of a more satisfying life.

As a cave diver it just pissed me off when people take completely unnecessary risks and then after they die we can't discuss that they were idiots after the fact. I've read so many accident reports of people dying while scuba diving on dives that should be easy.

James Cameron has been down on the Titanic 33 times. It can absolutely be explored safely over and over by human submersibles.

The only reason for this entirely avoidable accident is the hubris and overconfidence of the OceanGate CEO.

The fact that it imploded on a dive to a monument to engineering hubris is almost like Nature is trying to put a period on the end of the sentence here.

And there's a lesson to be learned here about silicon-valley-esque "move fast and break all the rules" counterintuitive/contrarian decision making. The blog article on why Titan isn't Classed is a good example of this kind of thinking, which has now been decisively marked-to-market:

https://web.archive.org/web/20230619161930/https://oceangate...

And there's a lesson here about the fact that otherwise smart and intelligence people (which he must have been to found the company) can be utterly stupid at times, and even over the long-term. There's a very common fundamental attribution error / correspondence bias / actor-observer asymmetry going on here where people cannot decouple someone's traits from their actions. You see this as well in some of the recent discussion around Prigozhin where people assert that he is not a stupid man (okay) therefore it is impossible that the whole explanation for the recent coup-attempt-whatever was that he got angry and make a dumb mistake--so it must be some kind of overly-complicated ruse. Also that buying Twitter could be really dumb, and that invading Ukraine could be really dumb. Lots of intelligent men being royally stupid in public lately.

I understand if you criticized their decision but saying they deserved to die or that it was a good thing or even wishing more rich people would have the same fate is what my comment is about.

It's not as much as "celebrating someone's death" (you can't really celebrate the death of someone you didn't know even existed) as much as pointing out the idiocy of paying 250k dollars to see the Titanic in what can be only described as a MacGyvered cylinder of death, ignoring regulations, advice from experts, and even basic engineering. People being killed by their own hubris has usually been a source of comedy.

> This stuff combined with sentiment/hatred towards people who are politically hostile/disagreeable paints a picture of a bleak future for this society.

Well, something that might add context for you is that a lot of people already think the future for society is very, very bleak; and they think that the ones to blame are just like the ones in the submarine, specially the CEO. So it's no wonder there's not much empathy going around for them.

> It's not as much as "celebrating someone's death" (you can't really celebrate the death of someone you didn't know even existed...

I have seen many posts wishing elon and zuckergerg would also make a similar trip in this same context, not just celebrating but begging for more bloodshed.

> Well, something that might add context for you is that a lot of people already think the future for society is very, very bleak; and they think that the ones to blame are just like the ones in the submarine, specially the CEO. So it's no wonder there's not much empathy going around for them.

B.s.! Everyone making such posts is living in the best time to be alive in human history and most of them in developed countries which at a global scales makes them the filthy rich people! To me these are all spoilied rich brats with iphones whining about billionaires because they hate their shitty lives. In a way they earn their misery by showing their true hateful and pessimistic nature. Their parents voted badly and they vote badly and then blame anyone but themselves in this democracy. Can't even blame billionaires controlling the media because everyone has a smartphone now. They all stay in their bubbles and hate each other and everyone outside that bubble and blame anyone but themselves.

> Their parents voted badly and they vote badly and then blame anyone but themselves in this democracy. Can't even blame billionaires controlling the media because everyone has a smartphone now. They all stay in their bubbles and hate each other and everyone outside that bubble and blame anyone but themselves.

That does seem like a very simplistic take. How do you fit climate change into that? Or rising inequality? Or opaque lobbying? Or, in the US, an electoral system that just gives two options to people? Or the housing market going bonkers almost everywhere?

I don't undersrand why that is simplistic. The solution may not be simple but we live under rule of law and law makers are elected and therefore voters are ultimately responsible. I don't recall billionaires literally deciding elections. They may influence who runs and donate money but even that is a matter of laws that were loosened or can be passed to fix them (e.g.:citizens vs united), but by all means please educate on why that is too simplistic in this context of "blaming" someone.

It's simplistic because "voting wrong" assumes that voters can vote right and ignores problems such as limited party systems (see the US, where a lot of people feel their only choice is between "bad" and "worse"), lobbying, limited information, media influence... Not to mention that even if you "vote right", other people might "vote wrong" and thus your efforts are void.

It also assumes that everything can be realistically changed by "voting", as if legislation wasn't a slow process that's error prone and subject to manipulation, and also sometimes limited. See climate change, for example. Shell knew about climate change in the 70s and kept that information hidden. How could someone in the 70s could have realistically voted against that?

And finally, it assumes that people can vote in the countries that are doing "the bad things". I don't live in the US so I had no way to vote against the US pulling out from the Paris agreement, even when that decision will affect me. Someone in a sweatshop can't vote in western countries to force companies to stop using forced labor overseas.

So yeah, dismissing the influence of the ultra-wealthy in how the world is run and what future is going to be left for us because "you could have voted right" is incredibly simplistic.

> They may influence who runs and donate money but even that is a matter of laws that were loosened or can be passed to fix them (e.g.:citizens vs united)

So wait, citizens can be blamed for "voting wrong" but billionaires can't be blamed for influencing who runs and with how much money? Specially when those politicians supported by billionaires will definitely stop by all means necessary those laws that would take away some of their power? That doesn't seem fair.

> Their parents voted badly and they vote badly and then blame anyone but themselves in this democracy.

Careful you don't break your arm with all that reaching you're doing.

I honestly haven't seen much of that on HN at all.

There's really three things that make this a hugely curious story. One is that it's relatively unique. The same way that car crashes don't make the news but plane crashes do - effectively, this is to plane crashes, as plane crashes are to car crashes.

Next, it's frankly interesting from an engineering point of view. Especially as it doesn't need to be your wheelhouse to understand the enormity of 2.7 tons per square inch. It's On with an 'n' that's obviously enormous.

And thirdly, the fact that the CEO appears to have ignored the experts and YOLO'd it, is hugely vindicating to anyone who considers them an expert in their niche. That's the closest this gets to schadenfreude for me.

The only thing really interesting about the people inside, is that it removed said CEO from the story so he can't answer for himself.

> I honestly haven't seen much of that on HN at all.

I read the parent comment as more a general commentary on the overall internet-wide reaction to this rather than being specifically about HN.

I agree with all your points. You summed up why this is interesting, relevant to this audience and worthy of analysis to see what we can learn from it.

I also agree with the parent that many (online and in media) seem to be showing very little respect for the deaths of fellow humans, based on arbitrary labels/assessments, when most of these "commentators" had never even heard of these unfortunate individuals before last week.

> it removed said CEO from the story so he can't answer for himself.

Yes this is worth repeating too. We're getting one side of the story from what has been rather sensationalist reporting all round. It looks on the face of it like he made some pretty terrible mistakes, but we don't know all the facts yet. I think inquiry is appropriate at this stage, but assassination of character before they've even finished recovering the debris [0], not so much.

[0] I would have said "buried the dead" but of course the families and friends have nothing to bury. If people can't feel empathy for the dead, perhaps they could at least spare a thought for their families.

> I honestly haven't seen much of that on HN at all.

dang is an excellent moderator :)

I'm not sure about celebration. But not being particularly sympathetic when few ultra-rich die by essentially playing russian roulette for entertainment...

There are each day huge number of bigger tragedies. From people starving to death or more rarely by being murdered by someone. Like for example drone-strikes. Both of those should be considered infinitely larger disasters than this.

> Celebrating someone's death means you would have killed them yourself if there was no consequence, am I wrong in saying that?

Yes, I think that you're wrong -- I do find some of the memes amusing, but I'm not celebrating a person's demise. I find humor in the absurdity of it all. Most, but not all, of the memes that I've seen have been making fun of the sub itself and not the passengers. Yes, I find a photo of a ps2 controller attached to a propane tank amusing, but that's about the sub and not the passengers.

HN is a a bubble, and the people here live in a different world than a lot of the rest of the world. On the same page, the ultra wealthy live on a different plane entirely. Surely you can see how a person struggling to make ends meet might laugh at the short-sightedness of a person willing to spend as much as they earn in years on a deadly weekend excursion?

> Surely you can see how a person struggling to make ends meet might laugh at the short-sightedness of a person willing to spend as much as they earn in years on a deadly weekend excursion?

No. That is hypocrisy. I guarantee 99% of people if they had the same amount of money they would something adveturous. Maybe a balloon trip in the alps, a visit to antarctica, sailing the pacific whatever. And if an accident befell them they wouldn't want people to treat their memory and their loved ones who are survived by them this way.

Honestly, I look at shit like this and I absolutley do not want to help anyone in need in this society at all except maybe children. The people who are not scammers pretending to need help are hateful and bitter. Well good luck, you earned your position life by hating on others simply because they are not helping you because they can.

Don't get me wrong, I get the sentiment that if it was I, I would give a lot more and help people but the idea that simply because you have lawfully earned money you owe people shit? How ridiculous! That is theft! These people want to steal money that isn't theirs simply because they are many and that person is one and they can take that money that does not belong to them. And why exactly should a bunch of theif-at-hearts be helped?

I don't hear any starving third world kids demand americans "struggling" with obesity owe them food. Even post-colonial countries at most demand debt forgiveness not an outright transfer of wealth.

Well this is certainly a passionate response, bordering on off-topic. My comment was about laughing at those with more money than common sense, and you've rambled on about people trying to steal your money.

> No. That is hypocrisy. I guarantee 99% of people if they had the same amount of money they would something adveturous. Maybe a balloon trip in the alps, a visit to antarctica, sailing the pacific whatever.

Yes. This is why lottery winners, famously, go on arctic expeditions and other risky endeavors.

> Don't get me wrong, I get the sentiment that if it was I, I would give a lot more and help people but the idea that simply because you have lawfully earned money you owe people shit? How ridiculous! That is theft!

I never suggested anything about this, and I'm not sure why you're bringing it up. With that being said, are you sure that it was lawfully gained? I've personally earned a lot through the stock market and part of that was definitely facilitated through both wage theft and slave labor. I don't directly see that, of course, but pretending that it doesn't exist is foolish.

You should see what the newspapers of the time looked like after the Titanic sank. Jokes around rich people dying are a classic source of humor in the English language.

Generally the easiest way to be obscenely wealthy and avoid having people celebrate your demise is to make your vanity projects acts of public good. A few of the billionaires of the previous century figured that one out.

Then those people back the sucked too.

Are you familiar with the fable of the fox and the grape? That's what these people are like, the bitter fox who hates grapes only because it believes it can't have it.

It's a different type of humor is all.

> Celebrating someone's death means you would have killed them yourself if there was no consequence, am I wrong in saying that?

The right word is probably contempt. For example, contempt towards the rich and corporations for being responsible 1/2 of the inflation in the EU, while people are struggling.

I feel like every English speaker has seen or read one of the versions of "A Christmas Carol", so you'd think the idea that a wealthy miser would be hated by his community would be a fairly fundamental idea.

Hate and dislike are different things. Hate means you wish harm on them imo. In this case people are not only glad someone died, they are joking about more people like them dying. And i guarantee the majority are not even joking.

You can disapprove of people's decisions and dislike them for it but life is sacred and loss of it is not a cause for celebration.

I don't know where you get the idea that life is sacred, but that hasn't been my experience. I also wonder if maybe there's a lesson you can take from learning how despised these men are in much of the world.

I think the problem is that you all have a poor understanding of death maybe? When someone dies, that person including their whole life from childhood to time of death is removed. Never to come back again. Have you ever been in a situation where you were sure you were gonna die or someone you love a lot suddenly pass away? That's why life is sacred because for all humans, there is nothing more valuable than their lives and if not theirs then it is the life of someone else that is most valuable to them. Everything else you can value is meaningless if you are no longer around to do something with it. Therefore, for anyone who can exhibit emphaty towards others, life is more sacred than all else not just sacred. Because you can appreciate the impact it will have on their loved ones or appreciate how you would want others to treat your death, you should extend that value of life to others in form of empathy. Even to the most despised, unless you have completley dehumanized them as creatures you can't possibly relate to in any way, shape or form. I think that grouping and dehumnaizing is what is affecting you and others.

They did the same thing with the jews, rohinghy, uyigjhur, tutsi,black americans,etc... and no, the fact that billionaires are a small portion of society that are "terrible" people does not change the fact that they are human. And if you disagree, look at how many millions literally starve to death around the world while we have full bellies and excess money and food. I sure as hell don't want to be judged by that measurement to avoid becoming a hypocrite.

> Celebrating someone's death means you would have killed them yourself if there was no consequence, am I wrong in saying that?

No it does not mean that, obviously. In your quest to righteous anger you have just wrote nonsense.

Totally agree with you. I've found this very surprising too. (Perhaps I was naive).

Edit: The {at the time of writing} downvotes of your comment kind of further illustrates your point, sadly.

Agreed, the amount of hatred and us vs them mentality between groups that is forming online is really saddening. Different groups have their preferred target- "immigrants," "boomers," "billionaires," etc. to justify dehumanizing people, and blaming them for things based on some arbitrary category, rather than judging people by their own actions, and having empathy for people even if they did something you don't like.

Rush was arrogant, and made some big mistakes, but I don't wish death on him or his passengers. I do hope this example will serve as a warning for engineers in the future to be less arrogant, and more safety conscious.