PabloDiscobar comments on "Debris field" found near Titanic in search for missing sub, U.S. Coast Guard says

"Debris field" found near Titanic in search for missing sub, U.S. Coast Guard says (www.cbsnews.com)

submitted 3 years ago by Girlparts@kbin.social to c/news@kbin.social

189 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The sub went missing while carrying five people to the wreckage of the Titanic.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

What if they command something in the water? Have you seen the design?

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 3 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that's problematic.
Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?

Don't put on me your burden of proof.

Well yes, if they use something in a way specifically contraindicated by the nature of the technology then that's problematic.

Well, turns out they did. So now that we have established that they don't follow protocol, are you going to show us their design or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

Source that they did? I've seen nothing to support that to date.

or are you going to reddit your way out of this conversation?
Wtf? Was that an attempt at condescension?

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

Source that they did? I've seen nothing to support that to date.

That's exactly my point, no one here has any source about the design. Why don't YOU ask the people above about THEIR source?

Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?

Don't act surprised when I answer you the same way you answer me. Now either you bring some source to support the question that was made by someone above you or I'm done. I'm not your source magic machine.

The person who started this chain of conversation is gone btw. I don't know the point you are trying to make.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission. You can assume they used the tech in a way it can't (or nearly can't) be used if you want, I guess. I'm not going to go and prove that they didn't because that was your assertion, not mine. The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

The guy above is correct, altitude has no effect on the BT transmission.

I never said otherwise and we both know it.

I'm not gonna play the reddit game with you. I have no burden of proof. Find another strawman to play with.

The vessel had many successful dives before this happened, so logic would dictate that the wireless implementation was working.

The designer is dead.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

The designer is dead so the wireless didn't work?

Does that count as a coherent argument to you? I wouldn't make fun of redditors if you can't make a better argument than that...

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (3 children)

The people who trusted the guy are dead. You take his logic as gospel, good for you.

Now I got from other sources that the wifi was commanding the propeller. Meaning that yes, the wifi signal was supposed to travel through the water.

No either you have something of value to the discussion and you post it, or you don't post and we're done.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

You've been thoroughly unpleasant to chat with, so I think we're done either way.

Take care.

edit: Judging by your reputation points it seems the community already warned me. Guess I'll check that first in the future.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] PabloDiscobar@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

This was your opener, "Mr Good Manners":

Do you have evidence that this was the case, or are you moving the goal posts to the "no shit sherlock" zone for an easy win?

You kept insisting that I made an assertion when I didn't.

About my reputation, if this is a metric for you then maybe I should downvote you, right? I didn't downvoted you so far but maybe I should?

Let's try this!

HOOOOOO, look! you went from 2 to -4! It goes fast, right? Right? What a metric! You are a negative reputation now. And I only downvoted you in this thread! Now people will have a surprise when they look at your reputation.

I took the liberty of downvoting you more. You are now at -45. It's a good experiment on how flawed the reputation system works. Maybe you will, like me, refrain from smashing this downvote button and focus more on the content you write. You would see that you strawmen from the very beginning.

Have a fantastic day!

parent

[+] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago

[deleted]

parent

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago

We know for a fact that wifi signal was not supposed to travel through the water, because the sub successfully reached Titanic several times before it was destroyed.

If someone had designed the sub in the bizarre way that you suggested, then it would never have completed a single mission.

parent

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 2 points 3 years ago (1 child)

If you want to command something in the water, you run a wire from that something to a receiver in the cabin.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] GizmoLion@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago (1 child)

Right, exactly. Or for a "sub" that only holds 5 people... maybe just spend the 10 cents and wire it lol.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] FlowVoid@kbin.social 1 point 3 years ago*

I mean, the sub had reached Titanic several times, right?

So even without the design documents, we know it was previously capable of operating at depth.

Which we means we know the hull wasn't made of cotton candy, we know it wasn't propelled under water by an internal combustion engine, and we know it wasn't controlled by a device that stops working in water.

parent