Hacker News Reader

Comment by logicalmonster | Hacker News Reader

> The late CEO of OceanGate told David Pogue last fall, “at some point, safety is just pure waste.”

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.

View on HN

> > The late CEO of OceanGate told David Pogue last fall, “at some point, safety is just pure waste.” > In and of itself, what is actually incorrect about that statement?

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.

> In and of itself, what is actually incorrect about that statement?

+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.

It's waste the same way insurance* is waste. The difference between something certified and something not is exactly this instance, when the uncertified thing fails unexpectedly. The rest of the time, the difference is a "waste". Insurance is a waste until the accident happens and you get value from insurance.

*the general concept insurance, not the disaster that is US health insurance.

> Insurance is a waste until the accident happens and you get value from insurance.

I can't quite put my finger on it but there is something dubious about "insurance" or at least as it currently exists.

I have two potential reasons for this:

* 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.

They were pretty far from that point when he said that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com