Titanic sub

[Puja]

I also never said that I would bar them from being saved because they were rich, merely that I was appalled that the rescue of 4 billionaires was given such priority when people dying by the hundreds is oftimes just a political inconvenience.

I’m not the one ... not wanting certain people rescued because they happen to be rich.

[morepork]

Nek minnit....

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66045177

what a complete waste of time and resource.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Nek minnit....

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-66045177

what a complete waste of time and resource.

I disagree. At least there is some science going on here. And this is taking a different approach to the standard rocket launch.

Obviously it's a jolly for the super-rich but until they are taxed to extinction anything they blow their money on is likely to be a complete waste of time and resource. The problem here is ultra-riches not an innovative approach to spaceflight.

(not that is it strictly spaceflight though . . . arguably it's just a high altitude rocket plane)

(Of course, once they start blowing up or crashing the appeal will fade a little)

[morepork]

90 seconds to study the effects of Zero G on biologics....what a load of shit.

[Son of Mathonwy]

90 seconds to study the effects of Zero G on biologics....what a load of shit.

90 seconds is the thrust phase - after that there's 4-5 minutes of zero g. I've no idea about the science being done on the flight - the science I'm talking about is the space tech.

[Numbers]

I note that you have no sympathy because to ey are rich people which speaks more of your attitude to human life and not in a good way. You’re a rich person compared to many on this planet- if you had suffered a life threatening injury on a rugby pitch, voluntarily taking part in a risky sport, should we have not bothered sending the ambulance? Or should you have been means tested first?

What about those kids stuck in a flooded cave a few years ago. Was it ok to mobilise a multinational rescue operation or should have just left them there to rot because, well they were a bit daft going down there? I seem to remember them being fairly poor so presumably that’s ok with you?

Personally I’m all for leaving ship wrecks alone you are correct that graves should be respected. But I’m not ok with judging people by the size of their bank balance before deciding to try and rescue them.

I want to note a few things here. Firstly, you have misread my post - I said I had no sympathy because they were engaged in a wicked act, spending frivolous amounts of money to play looky-loo at a mass grave, not that I had no sympathy because of their bank balances. I also never said that I would bar them from being saved because they were rich, merely that I was appalled that the rescue of 4 billionaires was given such priority when people dying by the hundreds is oftimes just a political inconvenience.

That being said, it is not possible to be both a good person and a billionaire. That amount of wealth cannot be earned - it can only be got by exploiting people. If you had a job where you earned £10,000 per day (so £3,650,000 per year) and didn't get taxed and didn't spend any of it and just saved your entire pay packet, it would take you 274 years to earn £1bn. The only people who have got to be a billionaire have got there by hurting other people - union busting, crushing wages, strongarming governments to bring down labour laws, using unsafe working practises, allying with dictators, corruption, killing the planet. People have died to make each billionaire and not a small number of them.

In addition, to actually want the status of billionaire is a special kind of evil. It's a perverse desire to have more money than anyone could possibly need and to keep accumulating. You cannot spend £1bn in a lifetime - if you were to get it at 20 and live to be 100, you would have to spend over £90,000 each day to keep ahead of the interest and spend enough that you might run out on your deathbed (and that's assuming a return of 2.5% which is pessimistic to say the least). To have acquired that amount of money, you would have to have passed a level of obscene richness - let's say £250,000,000 (where you'd only have a paltry £25k to spend each day before you ran out of money in 80 years' time) - and to keep going, rather than literally giving away everything extra that you earn. Or, hells, here's a wacky notion - pay the workers that have provided you that wealth a fair share? Stop engaging in the shitty business practices that are giving you this money? Stop actively avoiding tax? Loads of ways to stop yourself from becoming a billionaire.

Also worth noting that your comparison of billionaires to me or anyone else is specious. People can't conceptualise the concept of a billion - it's too big for most minds and just gets lumped into the category of "a lot" and conflated with people who have £10m+, but it is such a large amount of money that it dwarfs pretty much any comparison whatsoever.


capture.png


I am on the first step, if you're curious, and that's only because I had a mother willing to lend me the money to get on the property ladder 10 years ago (and because the UK housing market is B R O K E N). That definitely does make me rich compared to some in the world, by a distance. However, when we plot billionaires on the same chart, we're all statistical noise together at the bottom.

Being a billionaire is an unequivocally evil act. They were unequivocally wicked people, who have looked on at people starving and decided they would like to continue to acquire more money. I'm not going to celebrate anyone's death, but I'm also not going to mourn them.

Puja

All billionaires are evil. Right oh. So where do people stop being good and become evil on your money scale?

And if comparing you to a billionaire isn’t fair well I’m not the one suggesting that no one gives a shit about rescuing migrants in the Med (proven bollocks) or not wanting certain people rescued because they happen to be rich. Envy isn’t a great emotion.

It was posited that they were offered rescue earlier in this thread, is that accurate as how come they drowned in that case? Were they offered rescue prior to getting into to trouble? In which case that sort of evades the whole purpose of them boarding the boat in the first instance?

[morepork]

Billionares have privilege that is not afforded to non-billionaires. If the market dictates the motivation for service, the market can absorb the cost of recovering billionaires from the bottom of the fucking Atlantic Ocean. I'd like to smoke a joint on the top of Everest , but just because I paid for that privilege, should local search and rescue have to foot the bill when I collapse from altitude sickness? Foot the bill and put other people in harms way for a jolly that was a manifest safety risk? It's an absurdly crude trickle down metaphor. These people aren't contributing to knowledge, they are on a qualified immunity jolly. Inequality writ large. Suck it up and accept regulation of health and safety is there for good reason, because some landlords are cunts.

[Sandydragon]

I want to note a few things here. Firstly, you have misread my post - I said I had no sympathy because they were engaged in a wicked act, spending frivolous amounts of money to play looky-loo at a mass grave, not that I had no sympathy because of their bank balances. I also never said that I would bar them from being saved because they were rich, merely that I was appalled that the rescue of 4 billionaires was given such priority when people dying by the hundreds is oftimes just a political inconvenience.

That being said, it is not possible to be both a good person and a billionaire. That amount of wealth cannot be earned - it can only be got by exploiting people. If you had a job where you earned £10,000 per day (so £3,650,000 per year) and didn't get taxed and didn't spend any of it and just saved your entire pay packet, it would take you 274 years to earn £1bn. The only people who have got to be a billionaire have got there by hurting other people - union busting, crushing wages, strongarming governments to bring down labour laws, using unsafe working practises, allying with dictators, corruption, killing the planet. People have died to make each billionaire and not a small number of them.

In addition, to actually want the status of billionaire is a special kind of evil. It's a perverse desire to have more money than anyone could possibly need and to keep accumulating. You cannot spend £1bn in a lifetime - if you were to get it at 20 and live to be 100, you would have to spend over £90,000 each day to keep ahead of the interest and spend enough that you might run out on your deathbed (and that's assuming a return of 2.5% which is pessimistic to say the least). To have acquired that amount of money, you would have to have passed a level of obscene richness - let's say £250,000,000 (where you'd only have a paltry £25k to spend each day before you ran out of money in 80 years' time) - and to keep going, rather than literally giving away everything extra that you earn. Or, hells, here's a wacky notion - pay the workers that have provided you that wealth a fair share? Stop engaging in the shitty business practices that are giving you this money? Stop actively avoiding tax? Loads of ways to stop yourself from becoming a billionaire.

Also worth noting that your comparison of billionaires to me or anyone else is specious. People can't conceptualise the concept of a billion - it's too big for most minds and just gets lumped into the category of "a lot" and conflated with people who have £10m+, but it is such a large amount of money that it dwarfs pretty much any comparison whatsoever.


capture.png


I am on the first step, if you're curious, and that's only because I had a mother willing to lend me the money to get on the property ladder 10 years ago (and because the UK housing market is B R O K E N). That definitely does make me rich compared to some in the world, by a distance. However, when we plot billionaires on the same chart, we're all statistical noise together at the bottom.

Being a billionaire is an unequivocally evil act. They were unequivocally wicked people, who have looked on at people starving and decided they would like to continue to acquire more money. I'm not going to celebrate anyone's death, but I'm also not going to mourn them.

Puja

All billionaires are evil. Right oh. So where do people stop being good and become evil on your money scale?

And if comparing you to a billionaire isn’t fair well I’m not the one suggesting that no one gives a shit about rescuing migrants in the Med (proven bollocks) or not wanting certain people rescued because they happen to be rich. Envy isn’t a great emotion.

It was posited that they were offered rescue earlier in this thread, is that accurate as how come they drowned in that case? Were they offered rescue prior to getting into to trouble? In which case that sort of evades the whole purpose of them boarding the boat in the first instance?

My understanding is that the vessel was adrift and other vessels, passing merchantmen I think, offered support and it was refused. The Greek coastguard also offer help which was refused until the coastguard insisted at which point the vessel capsized whilst under tow.

The fault here is with the bastards who put 500 or so people on a vessel capable of holding far less, not providing life jackets to all passengers and indeed locking some below deck. Tragedy would have been averted if the vessels captain had taken help when offered and not been a twat.

[kk67]

I'm guessing I'm not the first person to mention Walter Kronkite's cameo on Airplane the Movie...?

[Puja]

I'm guessing I'm not the first person to mention Walter Kronkite's cameo on Airplane the Movie...?

Hah, I hadn't thought of that! That's a solidly obscure reference.

Puja

[kk67]

I say, " let them die"