At what point do we start taking the "talking points" from the so called conspiracy theorists seriously? For all we know they did hire sub par individuals and because it was under the guise of DEI or ageism no one wants to touch it with a 10 ft pole.

The impulse to bring "DEI" into this. Sigh.

The kind of people who think to add a backup aren't inspirational: https://nypost.com/2023/06/21/why-stockton-rush-didnt-hire-5...

This is such obvious PR spin from a guy who was just looking to save a buck, but the "anti-woke" crowd is eating it right up.

Then let's find these employees and audit their credentials. Let's see all oceangate emails. Let's check all their internal testing reports and every single document. Let's pick it apart in the open.

If it's PR spin and fake outrage, then it'll be obvious.

It's obvious even from the facts that we already have: long before he claimed to hire young people for being "inspirational," he'd already tried to recruit plenty of older, experienced men, and only rejected the ones who told him he was going to kill someone. Paul-Henri Nargeolet hardly qualifies as a DEI selection, he was just ok with dying at the bottom of the ocean. https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/the-titan...

I don't feel any need to at all, in fact, I think the way you're doing the burden of proof here absolutely sucks and is part of the problem.

Which is today, it's very obvious to me that idiot rich dudes are very capable of doing idiot rich dude things without the "help" of theoretically incompetent minorities.

I'm very comfortable assuming the idiocy is coming from there. I demand proof in the other direction. It was probably rich white guy idiots. Prove to me otherwise.

The world makes a little more sense when you consider just how prolific the worship of rich white idiot guys has always been. What we’re seeing is almost business as normal. Just can’t forget to shift the blame to a boogeyman and we’re golden, apparently.

I'm referring to the reporting making the outrage rounds that cited DEI comments by the CEO. I'm not trying to bring it in, but comments here are saying stuff that really makes it hard for me to ignore that these people were, to put it nicely, doing sub par work.

People (including a now-dead comment) are trying to blame this on "wokeness" due to a fluffy statement about hiring "inspirational" young people, ignoring the facts that a) he was trying to cut costs wherever possible, and b) he did try to rrecruit experienced "old white guys," but most of them told him he was going to kill somebody: https://www.newyorker.com/news/a-reporter-at-large/the-titan...

He fired the engineer that told him it was unsafe (circa 5yrs ago) and need more testing. He gave that engineer ultimatum to sign it as safe or be fired. Rush fired that engineer on that refusal-to-lie-unsafe ground. He never had the intention to hire "old white guys" because of lacking budget to hire but simply prefer no one qiestion his lacknof sub experience and decision making. As for no money, it is CEO job to ensure enough funding coming in to make the venture profitable. It is HR and COO to ensure they got the right people to operate. He overstep his duty boundary in a very inexperience and lack of good business sense. Meanwhile Cameron a film director descended twice deeper than Rush EVER could while making profit and still growing his submersible company. If it is incompetent say it so. Cutting cost to the point plane felling from the sky is no excuse.