---
title: "Adam Croston From what I've seen, OceanGate's CEO was reckless, and..."
date: 2023-06-22
source: facebook
type: comment
context: "Archer T. Ships replied to Adam Croston's comment."
fb_link: "https://www.facebook.com/dyi/l/?l=AYMYmeMBeBoYUTvvG06075Bsyfu5YKyMe4qdSbrD5ywBYn39rsvYy89mMuI1jpsDxE9JUQgyW6lOPIv3RX4ou69XRMYCFCbfSKnrOCwzkP1EZU9icJpaF1tVjdrjs2_JUrmjo0-0FlnR2TipmOu-3cLYWQg69RQSUeqyaJMJ9Hh58tLueuFgx_Cu72IthMjDqMMB4RYFIz4&s=519"
---

# Adam Croston From what I've seen, OceanGate's CEO was reckless, and...

*June 22, 2023 — Comment Archer T. Ships replied to Adam Croston's comment.*

Adam Croston From what I've seen, OceanGate's CEO was reckless, and deliberately avoided advice from seasoned engineers: https://www.informationliberation.com/?id=63826 That said, many so-called safety regulations are actually moats put into place by existing companies to protect themselves from competitors, or rentseeking by vendors who want to force everyone to buy their product / service in the name of "safety". https://cei.org/blog/cataloging-regulatory-costs-of-cronyism-and-rent-seeking-in-a-self-interested-administrative-state/ IMO, it's not a bad thing to skirt/avoid regulatory barriers of dubious merit.  But it's hard for external observers to know when that's the case vs when a company is skirting truly important safety principles.  (There's also a certain amount of inherent risk in any activity like this--even the most solidly engineered equipment can fail under harsh conditions.)