While the priors seemed to suggest it could float, the update step showed that was an outlier.
I’ll show myself the door.
No please stay, this joke was the only reason I clicked into the comments
Hard to answer that since I don't know which door was picked first.
Then again, I'm taking 3. Goats are cool.
At least you only have to sink one Bayesian Superyacht to update your priors. To get at population parameters you would need to sink many Frequentist Superyachts
Do they do the same diligence for the boats full of hundreds of poor people that sink in the Mediterranean every year? Or only when it's a couple of rich people?
It's pretty obvious why those ones sink.
They need more hulls and bulkheads?
Just less poverty
Best I can do is more ad banners on the side.
The front fell off.
I’d like to emphasize that this is not typical.
They don't mention the conspiracy theory: this vessel was owned by the founder of Autonomy software, which died in the accident.
The same day, the ex vice president of Autonomy software, was killed in a car accident.
They were related in a fraud case where HP acquired this company for $11B when actually was worth much less than that, writing off a $8B loss very shortly after. But HP is an expert in overvaluing acquisitions.
Now, I can't imagine a big HP shareholder like blackrock planning a revenge like this, but indeed is a weird coincidence that the two persons died in a mysterious accident on the same day
Had to look the car accident up. I mean that both are killed sounds suspicious, but in case it was by revenge it was planned very well. At least bbc wrote that the women which caused the car accident even stayed at the scene, so no hit and run. And my two cents regarding the Yacht are that even if it was a big boat, I would never underestimate the power of really, really shitty weather (Wasn't even a waterspoute mentioned somewere?).
Moreover, I'll never understand the people who think that shadowy cabals like this intentionally leave extremely obvious clues. Somewhere like Russia, sure, you want to have plausible deniability while still making it obvious that "I did it'. But why would someone wanting to kill these two people for some unspecified reason want to kill them both on the same day? That's the absolute last thing you want to do if you're trying to cover something up.
I mean, killing someone isn't going to bring their money back. Putin has his boyars thrown out of windows to send a message, that's why it's obvious.
The same day, the ex vice president of Autonomy software, was killed in a car accident.
It was not on the same day. Chamberlain died on 17/08. The Bayesian sunk on the morning of 19/08. I agree that it's a weird coincidence that the two cofounders died within days of each other, and only a short time after winning their lawsuit. But I can't imagine it's a conspiracy. You don't assassinate someone by sinking their boat in a storm. The road death is not suspicious either, the driver in question is a local woman who is cooperating with police, it's not like some anonymous driver struck the man down and then disappeared.
Honestly, this brings me comfort. Now I know for sure those parasites are dead, and not just on an island after faking their deaths and will sleep better. :)
"Billionaires should not exist". The people who died on the yacht were not quite billionaires, they were worth only nine figures rather than ten. But still, you don't accumulate that much wealth without exploiting others.
I think we need more empirical data, in the form of more rich people sinking on super yachts to determine whether this is a typical case or not.
A single case could be the outlier. We definitely need more superyacht sinkings to have a trustworthy dataset to draw conclusions from.
We simply cannot risk not knowing.
Science sometimes requires sacrifice for the greater good, we must be prepared to make a great sacrifice.
While we are at it, let's send more billionaires to the Titanic
From what I've gathered so far I'd say that every superyatch sinks quickly but I'm not super confident
i'm guessing these pleasure super yachts are not hardcore sea fairing vessels that might not handle sudden extreme weather at all well. also might not be captained by people that would do all the right things in those weather conditions.
obviously i have no idea if any of that is true
In this case they suspect there were a number of features on the yacht that contributed to its sinking. It had the world’s tallest aluminum mast, a retractable keel and large openings for windows and hatches all over the main deck that were most likely unsecured at the time.
They suspect she was knocked down by high winds or a water spout. Sailboats get knocked down all the time but all the factors I listed above may have contributed to her being unable to right herself quickly and subsequently filling with water.
It really would have to be willful negligence from the designer, the engineer and the insurance company not to have the keel and mast balanced so that if it gets knocked down even to the point the mast touches the water it will self right as long as the boat does not take on water. It's the whole point of a keel on modern sailboats, retracting or not.
On a boat this valuable the insurance company would want underwritten engineer reports about the seaworthiness of the boat and will only insure you for pre agreed areas based on said report. It might not be insured but with a commercial crew that is highly unlikely.
If the keel was up for shallow draft or it fell off, this happened to a number of oyster yachts a while ago so its not that unusual, then they would be fucked. If it took on water in large quantities so that the bilge pumps could not cope, they would be fucked. However it should be unlikely that the windows are open during a storm with commercial crew onboard.
My guess is that the keel either part or all of it came off, that will fuck you even in calm seas.
From what I read it was also anchored, which according to my very own unscientific and probably incorrect hypothesis helped with the tipping over when the wind hit the tall mast because it couldn't even try to float with the wind.
I've seen a clip about that. Many hulls are styrofoam with fiberglass. It's cheap, looks good, but doesn't do well with collisions and bad weather. If that's the case here is to be determined.
Go to any marina and 90% of the boats there are „styrofoam” and fiberglass. In this size range core fiberglass is a tested technology with many advantages over steel or aluminum hulls (those sink too when abused)
You see the Titanic was made out of steel and it didn’t handle collisions very well. Boats aren’t usually designed to hit things.
Well there’s extreme weather and there’s extreme weather. There have been reports that the yacht was struck by a waterspout, which is basically a tornado but over the water. I’m not sure if the strength of it has been reported or not, but given tornadoes have been known to throw trucks and train cars it doesn’t surprise me that it was likely powerful enough to capsize the yacht.
Unlike trucks & trains, a sailboat is designed to roll side-to-side. One current theory I’ve read is that the waterspout damaged the mast, causing it to unbalance the yacht (and possibly damaging the hull). The combination of being unbalanced and being slammed by the waterspout likely rolled the hull enough to flood it within seconds. Even if the mast wasn’t damaged, a tornado striking the yacht broadside would have likely been catastrophic depending on the strength of the storm. And waterspouts that powerful are still rather rare so I wouldn’t blame the captain for not anticipating it.
There are now some reports as well that the yacht sank in roughly one minute. If that’s the case then it means the yacht indeed rolled very quickly and took on a huge volume of water in very little time, so much that it was unable to right itself or that its bilge pumps could contend with it. Again, not something that could have really been anticipated.
Have they considered water? My guess is water.
The front's not supposed to fall off
It was outside the environment
That would be highly unusual
“At 3.55, a mini tornado arrived,” Cefalù said. “The docks of the port diverted it and it hit the sailboat head-on.”
That seems like the most freak of freak accidents.
I bet it has something to do with a crew member saying "hey, this is too dangerous" and a billionaire saying, "do it or you're going to lose your job". like when Virgin Galactic got its FAA whatever revoked for Branson's behavior on their first space flight
Karma.
Oh, so this billionaire died on his superyacht? Oh noooooo........
another one bites the dust starts playing on the radio
I'll never (with exceptions, but this isn't one) root for someones death. But I'm sure as fuck not going to shed a tear over him. The kid on the other hand? That's just awful.
He just wanted to see the Titanic but the orcas got to him first
Oh well
Y'all use this to remind yourselves about donating to Orca conservation.
Or else.
some dick opened the seacocks. duh.
orcas
Hearing a few thoughts about the adjustable keel being in the up position. If the ballast was lower that would have certainly helped with stability.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
