In and of itself, what is actually incorrect about that statement?
I think a lot of normal people are going to smugly harp on that statement, but in and of itself it seems perfectly reasonable to believe that there's a diminishing return to safety measures for anything at some point.
The issue with this sub thing seems to be that they made some really bad choices, including apparently having glass that wasn't rated for the actual depth they were going to, choosing a gaming controller that apparently had a history of wireless issues, and other dumb issues with the design of the sub.
I mean, if we're going to take it out of context, sure... At SOME point it's a waste. That sounds correct to me.
In context: The fact that the person making the statement was crushed into a marble at the bottom of the ocean, along with his passengers, suggests that the point at which safety becomes waste was much later than he thought it was.
+1- the statement as phrased seems to be correct.
The issue here seems to be one of dismissing legitimate safety concerns rather than that statement itself. They quit adding safety before they reached the "pure waste" point.
*the general concept insurance, not the disaster that is US health insurance.
I can't quite put my finger on it but there is something dubious about "insurance" or at least as it currently exists.
* Asymmetry of information. The insurance company has all the data on the statistics, costs etc.
* Insurance companies very happily take your money, but when it's their turn to do the thing you literally paid them for, they look for every possible reason to weasel out.
Careful analysis and engineering to make things as safe as possible and well characterized is incredibly rewarding and satisfying.
That said there's a lot of posers that put unsafe aftermarket safety items (e.g. 4 point belts without a HANS device, roll cages without helmets)
(There's a bit of irony here; Conservatives aren't the conservatives, anymore...)