This kind of philanthropy is quite amazing to watch: this guy has the means to pursue his passion, and we, the humanity, benefit from his stubbornness :)
The Musashi is an important part of naval history. If Allen has, indeed, found it, studying it or even displaying parts of it in a museum would immensely help preserve the memory of those days. It was also a remarkable feat of engineering, and I think there was only one other ship like it.
> The Musashi is an important part of naval history.
There still is little to no benefit. The Yamato wreck was found 30 years ago and is significantly more accessible (under ~340m under the surface versus >1km)
> It was also a remarkable feat of engineering
Meh. Japan had actually planned for a Super-Yamato class (design A-150), but demand for carriers and cruisers diverted resources and the project was killed after Midway.
> I think there was only one other ship like it.
3-ish, Shinano was initially laid down as a Yamato-class battleship before being remodeled into an aircraft carrier.
And of course they weren't actually useful ships at that point (the US canceled the Montana class without laying a single keel)
Even if it's never retrieved (which is likely, given how difficult it is to access), I think the mere fact that it was spotted, marked, and can be explored, is an important milestone. People ought to remember these things.
> I think the mere fact that it was spotted, marked, and can be explored, is an important milestone.
An important milestone of what? It's not like that wreck is likely to contain anything of interest, anything which would change our understanding of the pacific theatre let alone the war. And we have extensive traces of more or less the entire history of the Musashi (including a rough location of the sinking) so its eventual fate has never been in question.
> People ought to remember these things.
I'm reasonably certain the activities of one of the biggest navies of WWII is remembered reasonably clearly. By opposition to, say, the Porajmos.
> An important milestone of what? It's not like that wreck is likely to contain anything of interest, anything which would change our understanding of the pacific theatre let alone the war.
The battlefield at Agincourt also contains nothing of interest, and the famed forest isn't there today, either. And yet, there's still a plaque there that commemorates the event, just like there is on every memorial house. Even if it didn't add any information, the mere fact that the ship was found is important. A pile of metal on the bottom of the sea is a far stronger reminder.
> A pile of metal on the bottom of the sea is a far stronger reminder.
1. A pile of metal a kilometer under the surface is no reminder, an invisible reminder reminds nobody.
2. 30 ships and 500+ planes were lost during Leyte Gulf, it's not like one more wreck nobody can see unless they've bought themselves a $200m yacht and an ROV is going to change any reminding.
If you find rich people playing with their toys cool that's fine, but don't pretend they're doing anything other than playing with their toys.
color me impressed when someone like him finds MH370 or other truly extraordinary disappearances. there are so many other things go searching for than the twin of another ship we already have found.
Yes, it's a hobby that generates some marine archeology which is very nice.
Probably not the equivalent cost of building and running what was the largest yacht in the world. Probably not the most sensible process for choosing projects to pursue. Clearly not as efficient as simply taxing that amount and devoting it directly to more systematically chosen research projects by people familiar with the field. Saving, for example, the whole yacht part.
But certainly a great deal better than funding political campaigns to drive down wages. So kudos!
> But certainly a great deal better than funding political campaigns
It's better than this by sole virtue of having anything coming out of it. Political campaigns are zero-sum games for wasting infinite amounts of money.
The idea that his money should be taxed instead of spent as he wants is a bit disgusting. He's already paid taxes on the money he has earned, and if he wants to spend it on something you find lacking in efficiency and sensibility that's his business. So kudos for derailing this thread about an interesting archaeological find.
The "toys" could be purchased more coherently and consistently by teams who know the field if they had equivalent funding. And used for projects of significantly more historical and scientific value (though probably less media value).
Although it's better than nothing, I'm not sure relying on arbitrary funding from wealthy hobbyists on projects they happen to find fun is the best way to decide the direction of research.
>it's certainly more worthwhile than trolling around HN/reddit.
Once you squeeze enough on wages there's not enough disposable income to do much else.
Yeah, there's always some guy who says this. Well, then do it. Raise the funds and get the team or convince taxpayers to to fund it. The team looking for Amelia Earhart, for example, has been at it for a long time by raising private funds.
There's nothing unusual or evil about Paul Allen in particular. But there is a disastrous trend at reducing public funding for research and education and pretending that that a few volunteer enthusiast or fund raisers can compensate for it. Or that the amusement of and for the increasingly super rich are adequate technical compensation.
Such much so that a company devoted to amusement rides into sub orbit is often called the superior of NASA and the word philanthropy now, incredibly, applies to the subject mater of this article. With a posting worded as over the top as this one, it's an opportunity to clearly point out this silliness.
Calls to additional action are quite right as you say. But likewise, pointing these issues out here does not preclude other action.
Yeah, telling HN readers that we should spend more on science and technology is really attacking the status quo.
Saying "There's a better way..." is like saying "I've got an idea for a company." Sure, it would be better that Allen didn't have to spend $300 million on brain research but until you convince the right audience to spend the taxpayer dollars, I don't see you adding any value to the conversation.
Execution really is important. I'd love to see other ways for people to fund real science, etc in a big way.
Yes execution is important. But failing to discuss a problem does not improve execution, surely it is always the first step.
So where would the right audience be? If perhaps there were some corner of the web where technologist, scientist and innovators gather (albeit mixed with plenty of crackpots). A place so influential that it is flooded by astro-turf when subjects involving large industries come up and so ugly that ordinary people are afraid of it. Maybe there.
>Yeah, telling HN readers that we should spend more on science and technology is really attacking the status quo.
Well I also denigrated a tech billionaire, criticized space-x, called for higher taxes and said this site was ugly. On HN that's not a gadfly as so much an invitation to be lynched.
More likely to simply be called out as an idiot or crackpot yourself. Think about it, you think the American public would fund searching for WW2 Japanese battleships?
I never could understand why people pride themselves in being Armchair Generals:
But since when did the public decide every archeology project? Did this one have any merit?
Even so, they did pay for it. Just not with normal taxes but instead with the exorbitant expense of supporting an empire built on unscrupulous business practices. Some surplus was spent on whimsy now sycophantically called "philanthropy". An even more bizarre word misuse.
So the web should be a place solely for advertisement, astroturf and ludicrous self-aggrandizement? No one should criticize bull when they see it?
You should have told this guy http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ Then he could have had a deeply meaningful career writing apps.
I didn't realize Paul Allen was advertising, etc. sounds like you're conflating as much shit as possible and hoping that it sounds like you've got some higher purpose, and you've thought all this though. Well, I've gotta say it's not really working
What R&D? In 2015 Paul Allen found a 1000m deep 70000t wreck whose rough location was known. RMS Titanic is a 50000t wreck in two parts 3700m deep and was found in 1985. Bismarck's 45000t wreck was found in 1989 under 4800m of water.
Salvage rights, potentially - although I doubt, unless there's a secret stash of bullion aboard (no idea why there would be), that recovering anything is going to be economically viable, due to its depth.
I thought the exact same thing. It might be unfair of me to judge what he does with his money but all I see is just a rich guy having fun. Not that there's anything wrong with it. But consider that these battleships once fired on Americans, helped enslave Asia. If he found a German U-boat my response would be the same. Here we are celebrating the artifacts of a perverted imperial force that is responsible for countless crime against humanity.
If only your average rich guy would have similar definition of "having fun", the world would be a much better place. His "fun" is at least actually useful, even if you could find better uses of that money.
I start to wonder, if this is why rich people don't do useful things with their money more often? I mean, reading some comments here, I think I'd feel like this:
- Hey people, I found you a battleship of historic importance! Cool, isn't it?
- Oh you rich guy, wasting money on fun. How about spending it on malaria?
- You know what? Fuck you, you ungrateful, entitled assholes. Go die in your own dung. I think I'll be spending my money on a platinum golf club set instead.
No. You're free to ignore it. But please don't join the cavalcade of armchair philanthropists who think they can fix the world if only they could control enough of someone else's money.
> I disagree with the characterization of people who think he could have used his means more effectively than this as "ungrateful, entitled assholes."
Not everyone is, of course, but I imagine this is how it feels to be on the receiving end of those complaints.
> Are we required to celebrate everything a wealthy man does with his money as long as it's not overtly bad?
Of course not. But what I see is that the default reaction is almost always whining. I wonder how wealthy people cope with that - whatever they do, they get to read a ton of crap written about them. And particularly, Paul Allen does a lot of really useful stuff with his wealth.
In this case, I think it's because the general perception is that we're expected to praise him for this (Twitter announcement, press releases) and there is a backlash against that expectation.
Also I got downvoted for my first comment. I can't even imagine who took offense or why.
History and the preservation of artefacts is not about celebrating. It's about remembering and learning why people did what they did. It's incredibly important for future generations to know what happened in the two World Wars otherwise there will always be a danger that people might do it again.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
And finding the Musashi wreck reminds us of that… how? Wouldn't it have been a much better reminder if Allen had put his yacht money towards, say, improving the Unit 731 Museum or conserving/improving the east-european camps ruins?
oh boy, you sure have an issue with what hobbies people choose :)
why don't you have an issue with people going bowling & drinking beer on saturday night, just to pick an example out of gazillions more?
this one has more outcome than just joy of participants, everybody here except you accepts it and is happy about that... just sad trolling around?
> oh boy, you sure have an issue with what hobbies people choose :)
Not at all, and I find it sad that you can misread clear comments to such an extent :)
> why don't you have an issue with people going bowling & drinking beer on saturday night, just to pick an example out of gazillions more?
Because I don't have an issue with people's hobbies. Here's the difference: nobody is pretending that people going bowling and drinking beer is somehow "incredibly important for future generations" :)
> this one has more outcome than just joy of participants
What outcome :)
> everybody here except you accepts it
Yes, I'm here with a dozen sockpuppets pooping your party, of course :)
There might be some interest in a german u-boat wreck: it might tell us where that specific u-boat disappeared and how. There's no such thing from the Musashi wreck since we already knew where the and the how.
