Miscellaneous desk
< June 22	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 23

Nixon White House tapes

I try to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast, but only on days ending in -y. I am very particular in that regard. I recently learned one of the most impossible things: of the 3,000 hours of Nixon White House tapes, less than 5% has been transcribed and released into the public domain after 52 years. How can this be? Surely, the US government must have their own secret transcription stash, perhaps stored near the Ark of the Covenant in Warehouse 13? I kid, but isn't it a bit odd that after more than five decades, the general public still doesn't really know what was on the tapes? Which brings me to my question: what would need to happen in this new era of AI-assisted audio transcription, to complete the task? I know, for example, that the audio quality is quite poor compared to what most software has to deal with today, so the audio would have to be processed in some way to make it more amenable to transcription. Is this a task that the Wikimedia foundation could help accomplish? If not, who or what would be the best person/company for this enormous project? It's sad to me that this part of history is still unknown. Viriditas (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tapes are now accessible to researchers through the Nixon Presidential Library (this took a long time to happen), but only a small fragment of them are of enough interest to be worth accessing. The vast majority of their content is very mundane. The existing transcripts are notorious for containing all sorts of incomplete sentences, muffled words and so on, which often make them incomprehensible, or a very tedious read. I remember that some people were shocked at the time about how unsophisticated the speech revealed by the tapes was (of course, we have been erroneously conditioned by theatre and film to think leaders speak in memorable sentences). So I'm sure you could start a project transcribing them, but would find it difficult finding anyone interested in supporting you in this venture. --Xuxl (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m wondering if you are describing post-1971 tapes. I just listened to a random tape from the summer of 1971 and it was remarkable. Nixon was eloquent and spoke for a very long time about a great many topics. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely the post-1971 tapes. In addition to the issues mentioned, Nixon was not always sober when things began to get hot regarding the Watergate scandal. Xuxl (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of what this guy did?[1] He was working with 50,000 hours of podcast audio instead of just 3,000 hours of Nixon audio. Do you see why I'm a bit perplexed as to why this hasn't been done yet? Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OceanGate's operations

2023 Titan submersible incident#Safety says that "because the Titan operated in international waters and did not carry passengers from a port, it was not subject to safety regulations" (and another source I've read says OceanGate may be immune to lawsuits due to safety disclaimer that its clients sign before diving). However, as an apparently US-registered company headquartered in Everett, Washington running submersible business, isn't it required to have all of its submersibles certified by appropriate body/institution? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of thier devices, the Antipodes (submersible) is certified by the American Bureau of Shipping, but that was built by another company and purchased by OceanGate. The OceanGate article does not mention if the Cyclops and Titans devices were cerified or not. RudolfRed (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've seen indicates the Titan was not certified. And although they might be immune from wrongful-death lawsuits and the like, I doubt they're immune from having to pay a massive bill to the various rescuers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search for "OceanGate executives refused to certify Titan, arguing that excessive safety protocols impede innovation". I saved that quote when it was published a few days ago, but didn’t save the source. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The passengers had to sign a waiver which acknowledged that the Titan was "an experimental submersible vessel that has not been approved or certified by any regulatory body". These concerns had been previously raised in 2018.[2] Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hacker News just posted the original, 2019 archival blog post from the company which answers this question from their POV. Viriditas (talk) 23:44, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So if I read the above correctly, OceanGate was allowed to register as a company because their first submersible, Antipodes, was certified. And uncertified Titan came later, after the company's registration which is why they could continue their business. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The company definitely exploited various legal loopholes. The whole affair has brought their practices into light, and many people are now interested in closing these loopholes. For example, the experimental submersible was launched from a Canadian vessel, and legislators here in Canada are already talking about adopting regulations that would force any such device to be properly certified in the future, even if only used in international waters. Xuxl (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]