Octopus Overlords

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 4:32 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:49 pm I’m convinced that modern people are just as stupid and ignorant as we think the ancients were. Rather than relying superstition to explain things, we are subject to conspiracies, making up reasons for events that just have normal explanations..

If you're referring to this dipshit, that's an awfully generous take. He's obviously trying to use this to score political points against the liberals for their overly aggressive COVID response. At least with a conspiracy, someone actually believes in the conspiracy as the cause of the event. Off-mic, this guy probably laughs at what he said during the interview.

But wait, there's more!

Bartiromo:

Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo has been slammed after she attempted to link the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore to Joe Biden’s immigration policy.

In an early morning broadcast on the right-wing channel, Bartiromo asked US Senator Rick Scott for his take on the bridge collapse, linking it to the “wide-open border.”

“Let me also get your take on what’s going on in terms of world affairs. The White House has issued a statement on this saying that ‘There’s no indication of nefarious intent in the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge,’” Ms Bartiromo said.

“The ship involved in the collapse of the bridge is 948 feet long, called The Dali, a Singaporean-flag container, but of course you’ve been talking a lot about the potential for wrongdoing or potential for foul play given the wide-open border. That is why you have been so adamant,” she added.

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 4:32 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:49 pm I’m convinced that modern people are just as stupid and ignorant as we think the ancients were. Rather than relying superstition to explain things, we are subject to conspiracies, making up reasons for events that just have normal explanations..

If you're referring to this dipshit, that's an awfully generous take. He's obviously trying to use this to score political points against the liberals for their overly aggressive COVID response. At least with a conspiracy, someone actually believes in the conspiracy as the cause of the event. Off-mic, this guy probably laughs at what he said during the interview.

I'm not referring to this guy because I'm pretty sure he doesn't believe what he is saying. I'm referring to the average Joe and Jo Anne who unthinkingly believe this stuff, who without reflection instinctively believe life is just one conspiracy theory after another.

It's a NewsMax clip. I'm pretty sure that audience is already far gone.

If you're watching Newsmax, you're either gathering info on idiots or an idiot.

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:49 pm

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 5:56 am The conspiracy theories are already beginning. I guess nothing major happens these days without an alternative explanation.

Like I said:



I’m convinced that modern people are just as stupid and ignorant as we think the ancients were. Rather than relying superstition to explain things, we are subject to conspiracies, making up reasons for events that just have normal explanations..

I truly believe time travel is possible and Idiocracy is a documentary sent from the future

jztemple2 wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 4:33 pm
I'm sure we'll see the media and the politicians turn this into a crusade. Of course, I'd like to see if someone like the local Baltimore Sun identified this as a potential hazard in their investigative reporting before the accident occurred.

The Baltimore Sun is now owned by the Sinclair Broadcasting guy. So I have no faith in their reporting these days. The upstart Baltimore Banner is my go-to for now.

The HAZMAT situation isn't quite as dire as it may sound. Yes, those trucks can't use either of the two tunnels, which are closest to the harbor. But the beltway is a major highway going around the north side of the city. Traffic will be worse, but it's not like there aren't some options.

They called off the search for the missing construction workers. I knew that was coming, but it's still sad.

Just over a month ago in China:



Reading the comments on that China's bridge video, some people seemed to be happy about the accident at China. Today some of the commenters are happy about the accident in US.

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 12:45 pm

UsulofDoom wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 10:22 am Last I heard 7 people are missing. Did they close the bridge down before it hit?

Why no tug boats in the picture if they were having problems? I would of thought they would always have tug boats on standby.

1). They were able to close the bridge due to SOS from what I read.
2). Why would they have tugs on standby for a one in a million accident? Are you going to pay crews for a couple of tugs for 24 a day? That’s a lot of money. And tugs do you no good if the accident is sudden as this one apparently was.

First the tugs did help them from the doc. It would not cost that much more to escort them out to sea. This will cost billions compared to a few millions to make sure ships are out to sea.

A few millions USD to prevent losing billions USD when the chance is 1 in million (if it is really that low) is probably a cost that not worth spending.

Victoria Raverna wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 10:51 pm A few millions USD to prevent losing billions USD when the chance is 1 in million (if it is really that low) is probably a cost that not worth spending.

Additionally, having those tugs remain with the ship means they are not available for other jobs, slowing down traffic. You could get more tugs of course, but again that's more money. And with a large container or other ship, you need tugs with enough oomph to maneuver the ship out of danger. Bigger tugs are more expensive, burn more fuel, (might) require a larger crew and would need more berthing space. And let us not ignore the possibility that one of those escorting tugs, "hooked up" to the ship, might have a failure of its own and pull/push the ship into a structure.

I seem to recall when the Exxon Valdez when ashore in Alaska and generated that big oil spill, part of the solution was to keep escorting tugs with a ship till it had reached open sea. But of course that was because it was a huge public fiasco and they had oil money to pay for more tug support. We might be seeing that as a solution now in some US ports. But someone will have to pay for it.

Ultimately all vulnerable structures will have to be assessed for probability of this kind of accident happening to them. Each locale will have to decide what measures might be needed to mitigate the risk. More tugs or barriers around a structure or something else.

There is an additional solution. Any ship operating out of a port with a vulnerable structure could be required to have a fail safe anchoring system. If the ship loses power (or at the tripping of a switch) one or more anchors are dropped, drastically decreasing the time and distance the ship will move before coming to a halt. Additionally the fail safe would have to ensure that the engine stops. Putting the engine astern (reverse) might be preferable, but then that opens up a whole new set of issues.

And assumes that tugs would have had enough time to see the problem, figure out the solution, get into position, and would have enough time to stop/change the course of a fully loaded container ship. The Dali wasn't a huge one, but it was at the start of the journey, looked heavily loaded (with fuel prices plus the current shipping issues, I can't imagine that they're leaving on international journeys less that fully loaded), and some quick research suggests it may have weighed as much as 250,000,000 pounds.

Tugs can adjust its course, but not quickly. And again, that's assuming that there are enough of then, and that they can get instructions and get into position fast enough. And if I'm not completely mistaken, they aren't really there to quickly change the course of large ships that are fully underway. Even if they had time to get a couple of tugs into position (probably stern and bow, from opposite sides), they may have had time to move the bow out of line, but not necessarily to change it's course by much (because inertia.)

Blackhawk wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:05 am And assumes that tugs would have had enough time to see the problem, figure out the solution, get into position, and would have enough time to stop/change the course of a fully loaded container ship. The Dali wasn't a huge one, but it was at the start of the journey, looked heavily loaded (with fuel prices plus the current shipping issues, I can't imagine that they're leaving on international journeys less that fully loaded), and some quick research suggests it may have weighed as much as 250,000,000 pounds.

Tugs can adjust its course, but not quickly. And again, that's assuming that there are enough of then, and that they can get instructions and get into position fast enough. And if I'm not completely mistaken, they aren't really there to quickly change the course of large ships that are fully underway. Even if they had time to get a couple of tugs into position (probably stern and bow, from opposite sides), they may have had time to move the bow out of line, but not necessarily to change it's course by much (because inertia.)

All of this is pretty much true, except that it would be the pilot who assesses the problem and comes up with the solution. Even ships significantly smaller than the MV Dali take a lot of effort to be stopped and maneuvered. When a ship that big is moving, pushing with a tug at the bow will slowly change its heading, but to pull to turn it and slow it down isn't going to be very effective. That why ships are stopped and then turned around by tugs.

There is also a command and control issue. Say you have two tugs "hooked up" (connected by lines to the ship). Those two tugs are on opposite sides of the ship, say on each side of the bow. An emergency occurs on the ship. The pilot needs information from the ship's captain as to the nature of the emergency. Is there a loss of control of the engine? Has the rudder stuck to port or starboard? That information has to be processed by the pilot so they can issue the correct instructions to the two tugs. That takes time, and maybe the initial info isn't accurate. And a ship that size is slow to react to the tugs. A bad initial decision can't be easily undone.

I think someone mentioned it here but didn't see a response.
What about dropping the anchor?

I wish my wife’s uncle was still alive to discuss this. He was close to the top of security on the New Jersey side of the New York Port Authority. He retired to the Delaware shore, and those bay bridges over port traffic are damn impressive.

Lots of contingency plans are made, and not all of them could be implemented. I’m pretty sure there was some assessment of the risks and costs that will be revisited.

Punisher wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:33 am I think someone mentioned it here but didn't see a response.
What about dropping the anchor?

Unless it is prepared as an emergency measure it take quite a lot of time to prepare an anchor to be released. On these ships with limited manpower the anchor chain is fed out from a winch through a hole in the bow. It is usually kept shackled to the deck to prevent putting a strain on the winch.

The anchor is lowered under control of the winch, so much chain is fed out based upon the depth of the water. Optimally, to use the anchor to help bring the ship to a stop it would be lowered to the bottom and then the winch would be slowly braked to take up the load as the anchor drags along the bottom trying to dig in. If one tried to simply hold the chain with the winch with the ship moving, something would most likely break.

Punisher wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:33 am I think someone mentioned it here but didn't see a response.
What about dropping the anchor?

They lost power and I suspect anchor winches require power these days, though maybe there is some sort of manual intervention available?

Grifman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:10 am

Punisher wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:33 am I think someone mentioned it here but didn't see a response.
What about dropping the anchor?

They lost power and I suspect anchor winches require power these days, though maybe there is some sort of manual intervention available?

Interesting...I'd assume bringing it up would but would have guessed that dropping it, especially in an emergency, would be manual. Maybe lowering slowly would require the winch but mot an emergency drop.
This is something I'm not familiar with though so could be super wrong.
Any ship experts on here?

Grifman wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 5:56 am The conspiracy theories are already beginning. I guess nothing major happens these days without an alternative explanation.

I called in the wrong stratagem on helldivers 2 last night. Sorry…

Punisher wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:52 am

Grifman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:10 am

Punisher wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:33 am I think someone mentioned it here but didn't see a response.
What about dropping the anchor?

They lost power and I suspect anchor winches require power these days, though maybe there is some sort of manual intervention available?

Interesting...I'd assume bringing it up would but would have guessed that dropping it, especially in an emergency, would be manual. Maybe lowering slowly would require the winch but mot an emergency drop.
This is something I'm not familiar with though so could be super wrong.
Any ship experts on here?

They did drop anchor but it takes time to catch.

When a massive ship lost power on its way out of the Port of Baltimore and headed toward a major bridge, the pilot ordered its rudder turned hard to the left and its left anchor dropped in an effort to slow the vessel and stop it swinging to the right, according to the head of a national association for ship pilots.

Punisher wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:33 am I think someone mentioned it here but didn't see a response.
What about dropping the anchor?

According to what I've read, the pilot dropped the anchor on one side to try to avoid the bridge support.

Again from CBS News, but this video has more analysis of what happened during the approach of the ship to the bridge. I've started the video at that point.

An anchor isn't a brake. They're designed to keep a stopped ship from moving, not to stop a moving ship. It may help slow it or slightly alter course (as BD mentioned) but it's a last ditch, desperation move more than anything else.

Punisher wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:52 am

Grifman wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 1:10 am

Punisher wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2024 12:33 am I think someone mentioned it here but didn't see a response.
What about dropping the anchor?

They lost power and I suspect anchor winches require power these days, though maybe there is some sort of manual intervention available?

Interesting...I'd assume bringing it up would but would have guessed that dropping it, especially in an emergency, would be manual. Maybe lowering slowly would require the winch but mot an emergency drop.
This is something I'm not familiar with though so could be super wrong.

The anchors of the size used on a cargo ship need to be lowered at a safe rate or risk serious damage to the ship. You don't just drop it as fast as it can sink. Having some sort of manual release would be dangerous given that nearly all instances were it would be used would do more harm than good.

Great thread on how effort and timing saved lives:

That's incredible efficiency. Four minutes from alert to closure. Someone should tell Charles about Bluesky.

I imagine the next step is to get the channel clear. Expect to see the Corp of Engineers there will divers to assess the wreckage.

You'll never guess what group people have found to blame this on.

Lot of nut jobs out there.
I blame the Covid Vaccine. I'm positive it caused stupidity.

I bet the new bridge gets a different name, and costs more than a billion dollars to build not even thinking of the financial impact of no bridge until then.

That container ship looked like it was moving pretty fast, I don't remember scale naval models in the wave tank moving that fast when we had to steer them for practice way back in the 80s. It almost looks like he'd have missed the bridge if he hadn't taken the radical last minute evasive action that he did. Looks like the stern starts to come around to the engine orders and moves to starboard making the impact just before he's almost clear.

But you still think DEI or Covid is most likely behind it?

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:05 am But you still think DEI or Covid is most likely behind it?

I think it is a delayed reaction to the Colts sneaking out in the middle of the night all those years ago, but then that's just me

em2nought wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:30 am I don't remember scale naval models in the wave tank moving that fast when we had to steer them for practice way back in the 80s.

More info please! Sounds interesting.

jztemple2 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:39 am I think it is a delayed reaction to the Colts sneaking out in the middle of the night all those years ago, but then that's just me

Or maybe Taylor Swift and the Chiefs. Swift... boat... Cargo Ships Kerry containers.

jztemple2 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:39 am

em2nought wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:30 am I don't remember scale naval models in the wave tank moving that fast when we had to steer them for practice way back in the 80s.

More info please! Sounds interesting.

I imagine most Navy ROTC used to have the same facilities on campuses across the country. I went on a lesser career path so all I got to drive totally myself IRL were some converted LCMs.

Here is the best video on the bridge that I've seen yet as posted over at simhq https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N39w6aQFKSQ&t=4s Seems like it wouldn't take much for those tugs to go ahead and take ships beyond that bridge.

Don't know if it's related, but all my gas station had was regular 87 tonight with most of the pumps being bagged.

It's been awhile, so I don't think our tanks for driving ship models around in actually had elaborate wave generators, and they were only about a foot deep. The ships did react correctly though as they took awhile to change course and speed.

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:05 am But you still think DEI or Covid is most likely behind it?

Do you realize how crazy you sound?

It's obviously AND not OR.....

Punisher wrote: ↑Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:20 am

hepcat wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:05 am But you still think DEI or Covid is most likely behind it?

Do you realize how crazy you sound?

It's obviously AND not OR.....

Jews. I have it on good authority that it was Jews.

I shouldn't be surprised when people come up with crap like this, and yet somehow I am.

em2nought wrote: ↑Thu Mar 28, 2024 11:12 pm Don't know if it's related, but all my gas station had was regular 87 tonight with most of the pumps being bagged.

Aren't you in FL? If you're getting your gas via Baltimore, you're paying too much.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 3:18 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Mar 26, 2024 9:52 am I'm also hearing that this bridge was designed without any barriers built around the support pylons.

I don't think there's a barrier that would be effective against a cargo ship this size.

Probably totally true. I think the lack of barriers only shows that this bridge collapse could have (without any fenders/defense) even happened with a much lesser ship. Additionally, it could have (even with this ship) resulted in a less catastrophic failure.

A car accident could be so horrific that no one was ever likely to survive, but if the car also had no seatbelts installed - you may wonder how they planned to survive something even less horrific.