“This is profiteering, not innovation.”
“This is profiteering, not innovation.”
Says the youtuber with an arrow in his thumbnail.
My “favorite” part was when he read from the (now deleted) Oceangate blog post that effectively said “we don’t bother with the mechanical certification process, since very few of the failures that occur in the world are due to mechanical faults”.
Really? Could that be because the mechanical certification process actually works?
“We don’t need regulations! Theres never a failure in regulated engineering!”
I feel the need to step in here. Certification != regulation. Regulation means there is a body that can enforce the requirements with monetary or other damaging repercussions. What Oceangate faced were certifications and their decision to side-step them were met with no repercussions except their reputation with those who wouldn’t ever want to step inside their sub anyways.
Point is - regulations would have prevented this, but there are none.
I get you’re point, absolutely. I didn’t mean to conflate them as the same thing.
However, at least what I thought - regulations would require certification before use (ie aeroplanes are regulated, and require certification)
In Oceangates specific case, they sidestepped regulations requiring certification by diving only in international waters? Their boat which took the sub out there would have been certified because of regulations?
That’s how I understand it