Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

nrk.no

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 264 posts

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#151

Post by doikor »

nradov wrote: post #127
varenc wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how much data per unit of time this is capable of transporting. The max throughput of fiber optic cables isn't exactly constant. As fiber optic modem and DSP technology improves you can get much higher speeds on 15+ year-old cables than were ever possible when they were laid. Recently I saw an article about researchers getting 300,000 Gbit/s over existing fiber optic cables (though I'm sure that's a long w…

You're referring to single continuous fiber optic cables on land. Long undersea cables incorporate powered repeaters. Those can't be upgraded in situ with improved technology.

They can just not really worth the hassle/money. You can pull the cable up and change them out if you want.

Pulling a cable up, cutting a damaged part out of it and putting a new piece in is done all the time to fix damaged cables.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#152

Post by thaumasiotes »

the_gipsy wrote: post #146
cjrp wrote: post #138

Russian trawlers going back and forth in that area… https://x.com/PerErikSchulze/status/1794828268480438514

While this looks alarming and makes an engaging tweet, I have no idea how regular trawling patterns look like. They might circle around fishing spot.

Dave Barry made a similar observation about antismoking PSAs, objecting to one that had someone throw a diseased lung on a table. He pointed out that you could present any random internal organ and it would look just as bad: "This is what will happen to you if you keep smoking. Look! A perfectly healthy goat kidney!"

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#153

Post by EnigmaFlare »

lazide wrote: post #81
cma wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the insurance would still pay but he loses his boat to the insurance company at that point, assuming carrying insurance was part of his fishing license.

Due to problems with moral hazard, insurance generally doesn’t cover anything illegal done intentionally or due to extreme (willful) recklessness/negligence. Hard to argue that wasn’t what the fisherman was doing at the point he was sawing a cable in half using a saw he’s already dredged up several times.

He apparently didn't realize that it was important:

"is in his 60s, has fished since he was 15. The courts were told that he had no formal training but picked his fishing grounds by experience"

"he saw a chart showing a line running through his fishing area with the handwritten notation “abandonne.” He concluded his underwater nemesis was fair game and when he snagged it again in June of 2006, he pulled it up and sliced through it with an electric saw."

"Vallee heard that police were looking for the culprit. He came forward and made a voluntary statement."

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#154

Post by consp »

charles_f wrote: post #141
lazide wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Due to problems with moral hazard, insurance generally doesn’t cover anything illegal done intentionally or due to extreme (willful) recklessness/negligence. Hard to argue that wasn’t what the fisherman was doing at the point he was sawing a cable in half using a saw he’s already dredged up several times.

Makes me wonder if car liability insurance covers the damages you can cause if you drive recklessly or even purposely hit someone's car

They do, they'll just come after you for the money and will not cover your costs since you acted reckless.

Where I live this is the minimum you MUST insure yourself for and they pay out no matter what (to the other party). If you acted in bad faith they will come for your money. If it's an accident or out of your control they pay the damages you caused for you and you are fine. Since everyone is insured by law what usually happens is the companies involved all pay out and then afterwards figure out among themselves if and from whom they can collect.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#155

Post by iopq »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #152
the_gipsy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this looks alarming and makes an engaging tweet, I have no idea how regular trawling patterns look like. They might circle around fishing spot.

Dave Barry made a similar observation about antismoking PSAs, objecting to one that had someone throw a diseased lung on a table. He pointed out that you could present any random internal organ and it would look just as bad: " This is what will happen to you if you keep smoking. Look! A perfectly healthy goat kidney!"

I think what had a big impact on me is they show both a healthy lung and a smoker's lung

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#156

Post by littlestymaar »

lazide wrote: post #81
cma wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like the insurance would still pay but he loses his boat to the insurance company at that point, assuming carrying insurance was part of his fishing license.

Due to problems with moral hazard, insurance generally doesn’t cover anything illegal done intentionally or due to extreme (willful) recklessness/negligence. Hard to argue that wasn’t what the fisherman was doing at the point he was sawing a cable in half using a saw he’s already dredged up several times.

The “moral hazard” argument is completely bullshit as usual, there's no moral hazard if there's consequences besides the damage, and it's always the case when doing something illegal (there's a fine, or jail time for instance).

But insurances' business is about finding reasons not to pay, so it's not surprising at all…

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#157

Post by HenryBemis »

mgoetzke wrote: post #149
the_gipsy wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this looks alarming and makes an engaging tweet, I have no idea how regular trawling patterns look like. They might circle around fishing spot.

[flagged]

Plausible deniability because it works. As for the fishermen in that boat.. yeah.. totally innocent fishermen, and on that very spot they hit a 'school' of that one fish they were looking for, so they are fishing this 'school' and nothing else sinister going on keep walking (omitting commas on purpose)

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#158

Post by ikekkdcjkfke »

resolutebat wrote: post #50
Scoundreller wrote: post #20

Had a case in Canada where a fisherman ignored the maps and kept picking up a fibre optic line with their fishing gear, and eventually cut it with a saw (twice): (I suspect it was a short-haul line, so carried no electricity for amplifiers) https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2011/2011fc494/2011fc49... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peracomo_Inc_v_TELUS_Communica... > In 2005, however, he managed to pull up the Sunoq…

TL;DR of the court cases: the fisherman was guilty of damages to the tune of $1.2M, and his insurance cover was voided because his act was so reckless. Funnily enough, the cable owners (Telus) tried to thread the needle of making the owner liable, but not so badly that insurance wouldn't pay for it. The judge didn't buy this, and obviously a sole operator crab boat can't pay over a million in damages (although he did…

Not even a down payment on the fine?

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#160

Post by Shrezzing »

iopq wrote: post #155
thaumasiotes wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dave Barry made a similar observation about antismoking PSAs, objecting to one that had someone throw a diseased lung on a table. He pointed out that you could present any random internal organ and it would look just as bad: " This is what will happen to you if you keep smoking. Look! A perfectly healthy goat kidney!"

I think what had a big impact on me is they show both a healthy lung and a smoker's lung

This was the big one for me too. The juxtaposed healthy versus unhealthy lungs resemble an uncooked chicken versus a roast chicken which was left in the oven for 30 minutes more than necessary.

https://www.scotsman.com/webimg/legacy_elm_28724349.jpg?crop...

Post reply on HN