Just as a fun fact, it’s actually quite common for industrial machinery and the like to be controlled with a gaming controller. Like, a hundred things wrong with the submarine trip - but the PlayStation controller is genuinely one of the more legitimate aspects.
They’re simply made well, easy to use, and typically extremely durable and long lasting.
The Navy has some periscopes on subs that are controlled by an Xbox 360 controller. They cited familiarity with soldiers making training easier, and cost reduction vs the old hardware. It was an easy decision.
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 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.
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.
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.
I mean… most industrial machines have a stop button present on them (though not on the controller). I’m not sure that the sub having a “stop imploding” button on the inside of the hull would have done much good though
Just as a fun fact, it’s actually quite common for industrial machinery and the like to be controlled with a gaming controller. Like, a hundred things wrong with the submarine trip - but the PlayStation controller is genuinely one of the more legitimate aspects.
They’re simply made well, easy to use, and typically extremely durable and long lasting.
It is also sort of like the WWII US grenade being modeled on a baseball because every young American knew how to throw a ball.
Everyone has used gaming controllers, so it is a familiar control system.
It wasn’t actually a playstation controller though. It was a Logitech.
Yeah I know, it’s actually the same one I use on my CNC machine. The OP just said PlayStation as kind of a general purpose term
that controller was the jankiest shit on clearance at kmart.
Yes they’re used, but they’re not THE ONLY method of control as it was in this disaster of a sub.
The Navy has some periscopes on subs that are controlled by an Xbox 360 controller. They cited familiarity with soldiers making training easier, and cost reduction vs the old hardware. It was an easy decision.
And with batteries and wired it has power redundancy
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, they are good controllers.
But it shouldn’t have been the wireless one.
And it shouldn’t have been the only controls on board.
I bet all those industrial machines with controllers also have a physical emergency button build in.
I mean… most industrial machines have a stop button present on them (though not on the controller). I’m not sure that the sub having a “stop imploding” button on the inside of the hull would have done much good though