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

201–210 of 264 posts

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#201

Post by IndySun »

IndySun wrote: post #170
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!"

Related, I was struck by a comment made by the respiratory specialist doctor Martin Tobin, during the George Floyd murder court case. He said less than 10% of smokers actually go on to get 'issues'. He was pushing back on the line that as a smoker, George Floyd was more prone to react badly to 'having a knee on his windpipe...' you know the rest. I did rewind and listen again then look up what he was saying and indee…

For anyone curious, I found the relevant sentence. An astonishingly counterintuitive almost throwaway remark by a world's expert sent me on a deep dive on what else can and does cause lung problems. Dr Martin Tobin says it at 3h 02m 40s...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?510467-1/derek-chauvin-trial-d...

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#202

Post by amarant »

chtitux wrote: post #196
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starlink can act as a backup for the ground station utilizing the laser links.

Maybe just use Starlink from the satellites, so we don't rely on a specific ground station. Starlink Ground Station Network is global, spread in many different countries and look more resilient than a single one.

It's a good idea for future satellites, but upgrading existing satellites is probably not feasible.

And these polar orbit satellite typically live a lot longer than the relatively short lived starlink satellites, potentially opening you to a (perhaps unlikely?) scenario where starlink moves to new and incompatible hardware for inter-satellite communications, and your satellite is then made obsolete.

Vertical integration is not cheap, but it does have it's upsides.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#203

Post by timeon »

0xedd wrote: post #143
mschuster91 wrote: post #33

Let's assume that these incidents actually were accidents, there's still a bigger question open: why is trawler fishing still allowed? Imagine it's not a fiber cable that ends up being crushed by a trawl door... but all the other marine life: Fish can swim away (or not, being the point of getting fished), but plants, corals, bugs? Trawler fishing is devastating for the local ecology, we just don't see the damage - to…

Cool. Will you pay the cost difference afterwards? I kinda don't like the taste of bugs.

Cool. How about you paying cost of the wildlife?

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#204

Post by ViewTrick1002 »

tedivm wrote: post #199
ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're talking backup vs. primary. Of course the backup is not going to be as good.

Starlink has an upload speed between 5 and 20 Mbps. The Svalbard cable is a 10Gbps link. It's still a major difference. That said apparently they do have a satellite backup, just not through Starlink.

For a consumer grade connection. Why on earth would an enterprise contract be limited to those speeds??

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#205

Post by sandworm101 »

ViewTrick1002 wrote: post #194
tedivm wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're grossly underestimating the bandwidth needs of the site. You're not going to replace a cluster of fiber optic cables with Starlink.

We're talking backup vs. primary. Of course the backup is not going to be as good.

>> We're talking backup vs. primary. Of course the backup is not going to be as good.

Then it isn't really a backup. A lower-bandwidth failover capacity is properly described as an alternative or degraded pathway. To be a proper "backup" a thing has to actually do the primary job at least temporarily.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#206

Post by bell-cot »

mortb wrote: post #177

What kind of international law can we expect in the future? A law that is constantly broken by various maleficent actors? Of course we've heard them complain that the current order is run by the west and harmful to others. What are the alternatives? A hundred cables?

"constantly broken by various maleficent actors" is a pretty good description of the past of international law. There is no reason to expect the future to be any different.

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#207

Post by everyone »

dagss wrote: post #171
staplers wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would the russians care to have a cover story? They're in an open hot war with the west.

If there was an open hot war, would US congress debate for months whether to approve the military package to Ukraine?

Maybe, the USA's governance system seems to be malfunctioning. The 6 month gap in supply to Ukraine has made all of the USA's defense partners around the world, (eg. asia pacific) go "what the fuck!?! The USA doesnt actually honor it's defence pacts!?"

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#208

Post by ThalesX »

mortb wrote: post #177

What kind of international law can we expect in the future? A law that is constantly broken by various maleficent actors? Of course we've heard them complain that the current order is run by the west and harmful to others. What are the alternatives? A hundred cables?

> According to Johnson the US has never endorsed the ICC because it's a "direct affront to our own sovereignty. [...] We don't put any international body above American sovereignty and Israel doesn't do that either," he added.

God I have developed such a distaste for political opinions. Everyone thinks they're right and everyone sees the various maleficent actors in others.

[0] https://www.jpost.com/international/article-802290

Re: What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

#209

Post by littlestymaar »

lazide wrote: post #195
littlestymaar wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Imagine a scenario - a restaurant owner is insured for $3 million dollars for the business and structure (not atypical). Business isn’t doing great. The place catches on fire and burns down. All the business assets and the structure are lost, so the business needs to shut down. If arson wasn’t an exclusion; 1) why would anyone look closer to figure out if it was intentional or not? Assuming no one was injured. Who ha…

I don't understand your example because from your description I can't tell who set the place ablaze.

If it's the owner, then it's insurance fraud, and it has nothing to do with moral hazard.

If it's not the owner but say a random crackhead, then I also fail to see how it qualifies as moral hazard, and if the insurance doesn't not cover them nobody will (because the arsonist is insolvent and will never be able to pay $3M) and the business owner is screwed, which is a terrible outcome (and is exactly what happened here).

In any case the answer to 1) clearly is “the insurance company” exactly as if arson is excluded.

> Without insurance, the owner is the one who bears the costs directly no matter what,

Which is exactly what he's trying to avoid when paying for an insurance in the first place.

And like with health insurance, there's actually very little link between the fact that you're insured or not and the risk you're taking (Like nobody gets hurt because their injuries get reimbursed) because the harm goes far beyond the economic loss you're insuring yourself against.

Post reply on HN