this post was submitted on 06 Apr 2024
496 points (97.9% liked)
196
16710 readers
3159 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Sure...where the failure of the device does not lead to inevitable death.
In a situation where my life is 100% dependent on a device, said device must have gone through appropriate design and testing procedures.
I mean. Yeah. It does. The controller didn’t fail during the submarines trip lol. It was perfectly fine the whole time.
Trying to over engineer a specific entirely new device when incredibly developed options already exist is kind of an engineering mindset failure that would only lead to more problems.
Well you're clearly better informed about the status of the sub than i, but I'm just saying it's unusual for a life support device to be something not designed for such a purpose.
The controller is not a life support device. It’s an input device. It is designed with the express purpose as being an input device.
Again, any one million dollar “special submarine input device” they could have manufactured would be less tested and more prone to failure than a simple controller already subject to decades of research and both hands on and automated testing.
I’m not trying to be mean to you and I hope you don’t take it as such, it’s just really standard practice.
In this context it absolutely is a life support device - if it fails, the occupants are dead.
Do you have any other examples of a time where such a device is used in such circumstances?
The best anology I can think of is planes, and none of them are using entertainment input devices AFAIK?
As a scuba diver I have a buoyancy control device, which I am totally reliant on for life and thus I take 2. Did they even take spares with them? If they did then i can see this being a legit way of being safe.
Not taking it as being mean - its an interesting conversation, hopefully you feel the same.
Hundreds of millions of people using it daily isn’t enough for you?
Hundreds of millions of people is likely an overestimate given the PS5 has sold only 50m and while there are likely sometimes multiple users per device, and likely some PC users, it's unlikely there are anywhere near 200m. Additionally most of these users will be using Sony controllers - which I believe was not the case here.
Further: all of those users are not expecting to rely on this device for their personal safety and continued existance.
So just in the same way I don't use a straw for breathing underwater, I also don't get on deep sea submersibles controlled by a PlayStation controller that, at the point of design and manufacture, did not have life support anywhere near its specification.
So to answer your question - no, an imaginary "hundreds of millions" of users using a device for an entirely different purpose is certainly NOT enough for me to entrust my life to. But that's just me - you feel free to do you.
The controller didn’t cause the implosion.
And?
The discussion is around what the controller tells us about the approach to the design and development of the vehicle.
The fact that there are people readily defending the use of an entertainment controller to navigate at the limit of human endeavour tells me how they managed to find people to sign up for this death ride.
Nothing to do with tension vs compression of carbon fibre?
Look I get it, you want to argue about the cause. You go ahead and do that...but I'm here discussing the merits of inference in order to make judgements that may well affect longevity.
Good day.
Sounds like you just read the thesaurus.
Thank you
Well, bring 4 more controllers and play some multiplayer games while waiting in the sub, you'll know exactly which controllers you should reach for if the main one fails.