16 pointsby higginsniggins2 hours ago6 comments
  • stockresearcher5 minutes ago
    If you’re wondering:

    https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim...

    While that is federal law, the obligation to monitor radio traffic is federal regulation and we all know what the powers that be think of federal regulations. On the other hand, if the coast guard is trying to hail you and you don’t respond, things can get dicey fast

  • MiroslavPokorny10 minutes ago
    I thought Zuck was giving ALL his money to charity ?
  • rayineran hour ago
    > Even if he was not on his ship, the report is unlikely to boost public opinion of Zuckerberg

    It’s rare that a paper just admits that it’s slinging mud at someone for something it admits he didn’t do, but knows it will still have the intended effect because its readers won’t read past the headline.

    • quantifiedan hour ago
      It's his ship and his responsibility, or if nothing else his choice of captain and crew. Definitely reflects on him.
      • rayiner32 minutes ago
        The article even addresses that:

        > The yacht crew had been operating on a different radio channel, Baker told Forbes. “The assist was already under way” by the time they reviewed the broadcast, he said.

        It’s just naked propaganda.

  • tolerancean hour ago
    This reads like a story from the New York Post but for people who wear those sandals that cover each individual toe.
  • madhackeran hour ago
    they're waiting for federal subsidies before lending a hand
  • jmclnxan hour ago
    >But Brian Baker, a spokesperson for Zuckerberg and his wife, Priscilla Chan, told Forbes that the couple were not on board his yacht,

    It may very well be true, but who in this day and age believe that statement ? If true, I would say the Captain should be fired.