> superficial things like the gamepad, that did not cause or contribute to the fault
In the prior dive, a passenger hit the sub into a rock. How does that not contribute?
In the prior dive, a passenger hit the sub into a rock. How does that not contribute?
Really I suppose it depends on how hard and where they hit the rock, was it a failure of of the gamepad that lead to the rock hit? that is, dead controls and drifting (those infernal radio gamepads, amiright) If I remember correctly the whole sub had an outer shroud anyway. how much damage to the outer shroud was done?
Anyway, I don't really want to be the guy defending oceangate, I think a carbon fiber submarine sounds like a monumentally ill founded idea in the first place, and the move fast and break things attitude they employed in their engineering process should have never gone anywhere near a passenger. but at first thought, at the speeds the sub moved I doubt a rock hit would damage the sub. if I had to bet, it was plastic deformation leading to delamination and fatigue.
Showing Rush tossing the controller while saying "it's bluetooth so I can hand it to anybody... it's meant for a 16 year old to throw it around and super durable" is powerful imagery for a jury.
The complaint specifically mentions Bluetooth, which I can't tell if it's an error. They switched from the DualShock controller used in Cyclops I, which does use Bluetooth. There is probably a reason they switched wireless technologies (Bluetooth is even worse than Logitech's 2.4 GHz wireless), which if not documented, could also show negligence.
Your carbon fiber hull fatigue theory is interesting.
I picture it sitting out in the hot sun and cold nights for months. It reminds me of the CNA building in Chicago, where windows fractured due to uneven sun exposure. The owners didn't replace them until one fell and killed a pedestrian, resulting in an $18 million settlement in 1975.
Be careful: are you trying to predict legal results, or find truth? Those are (unfortunately) rather different questions. If you're looking for truth, you don't care about what makes "powerful imagery for a jury".
BTW, the "carbon fiber hull fatigue" theory is not GPs, it's the extremely obvious top candidate for the failure.
Anyway, there is still no evidence that using a gamepad had any concrete negative effect. Letting passengers drive? Yeah, that's a problem. But it would be at least as big a problem with industry standard controls, which wouldn't even have the faint advantage of familiarity.
Anyway, the best sense I can make of your logic is that designedByStudents -> gamepad, and designedByStudents -> negligence, therefore gamepad -> negligence. In that case I believe your fallacy is "affirming the consequent", with a side of ad populum w.r.t other submarines. I don't see how changing the type of controller fits in.
This thread is about the gamepad. The lawsuit mentions it. It's relevant. Period.
So then the most important question relating to the gamepad remains: why do people keep mentioning it? The specific sub thread we're under started with a pretty good theory IMO.
In the meantime, the correct thing is in fact to dismiss the gamepad until any evidence appears relating to its role in the vehicle loss, and not to get to excited for that to happen.