Comments by "ricardo kowalski" (@ricardokowalski1579) on "Sub Passengers Probably Signed Restrictive Waivers" video.

I find no shame in having people excercising their free will. What is shameful is the media circus around this. This event should not be more than a small note in page 12.
9
Keep in mind that half of the motivation to sue will be to force life insurance payments. These high paying customers have life insurance. If they engage in reckless dangerous activity, then insurance may refuse payment. The relatives need a court ruling of negligence to make the case that the death was not "reckless" Anything and everything may serve this purpose, whistleblower, window, design, testing, controller.
2
@lyianx what is the con? I am curious.
2
@johnw8578 wife, children. Not always recognized. Also companies would be affected if the "blessed golden leader" dies. So insurance would cover stock price risk. And remember that most of the net worth is unrealized gains. Estate tax would take a large chunk of it, insurance is taxed different.
1
@davidchristensen811 Once again. The "certification" of the window is meaningless . Please please stop parroting and repeating meaningless words. This was a prototype vessel, that ITSELF had no certification. None at all. Nor was this submarine subject to ANY requirements The window manufacturer rates his product for some depth. But oceangate took that part, took it deeper by biting into the safety margins. That is on oceangate, they have a different value of safety margin. Same with the controller, I am sure it was "certified" for UL and radio frequency. But that means jack-sh1t when taken so far away from use case. There is no "con" because they were very upfront on the disclaimer: this is dangerous and may kill you. The outcome was expected, but UN-predictable because there is very little public design and best practice data for these materials and these depths
1