What the damaged Svalbard cable looked like

Longer history can also imply complexity. A 2024 Honda Civic is way more complicated than a Model T.

Though ultimately yea a smartphone extremely complex. I’m just saying being able to have a high level understanding is very different than knowing how to maintain or design something.

I just gave you a paper showing that is not the case. I even provided the quote.

There is no inherent limit from physics, only from engineering. History provides ample evidence were a given medium had it's "Shannon Limit" broken via new signaling methods over the same medium. The terms you used, "bandwidth" and "noise" are technological, not physical. "Bandwidth" increases each time we invent better methods to pack and decode it. Most of the old concepts are based on old Fourier Analysis, whereas a better modern framework is wavelets or even their successors. Fourier is a very simple way to think of signals, missing plenty of useful things, which is exactly what led to the development of wavelets, to enable more powerful signal analysis.

Note in particular there is no single "bandwidth" when dealing with photonics, since photons can be physically stacked arbitrarily without interference. Simply google for breakthroughs in photonics bandwidth to see decades of advances beyond what was previously thought to be "the bandwidth".

The Shannon limit is a *model* of the system. That model is necessarily incomplete, since there increasingly advanced technology. Those models almost always use simplifications to make the math tractable, such as gaussian noise, independent errors, and a host of other things that are not true physically. Even the concept of noise requires either a non=physical abstraction to math or some details of the engineering used to measure it. Simply saying there "is gaussian noise" is a gross model used to simplify math. It is non-physical.

A simple example that leveraging quantum has created a new field of quantum shannon theory, which has better bounds. Under shannon's theory and his understanding of information, quantum key distribution would not be possible, yet it is, and companies have offered commercial versions for 20+ years. I would not be surprised if more and more pieces of physics not currently used for communication get used in the future, changing the "limits" again and again.

Before MIMO transmission, single channel over the same medium had a shannon limit. MIMO surpassed it. Many channels, especially where light is used, allow stacking more and more information into the same medium, subject to technology ability to decode, which is an engineering feat, not a physical one.

The world of information theory has moved past shannon, just like orbital mechanics moved past Newton. Both Newton and Shannon have uses, but they're not valid for modern techniques.

Two of many such changes are compressed sensing, which was a major discovery, that routinely beats Shannon-Nyquist sampling theory, and the discovery of what is called generalized sampling developed around 2000-2010 (and still making it's way through image processing). Both are fundamental theory changes that allowed breaking previous "limits".

So please read the paper, and if you claim there is still some inherent limit, publish the paper countering the one above.

That's the thing though, at the time it wasn't supplying gas. Gazprom said it was having 'technical difficulties' (that the German equipment manufacturer denied) and had reduced the flows over time to zero to put pressure on the Europeans through high winter gas prices and low supplies.

Your broader point is correct though, admitting to blowing it up would be bad press to any party.

The underlying thing is it doesn’t necessarily matter in illustrating the point, especially in a discussion about moral hazard. This is because having insurance means the owner now has a strong incentive to see the place burn down (as long as it happens in a way that doesn’t stop a payout) because someone else will pay him if that happens. Assuming that payout is ‘worth it’ compared to the alternative of it not burning down.

It could be from leaving the door open ‘accidentally’ so someone ‘breaks in’ and does it (actually, or intentionally) or it could be hiring someone to do it - as long as they don’t get caught in a way that stops the payout. Or ignoring that pile of cardboard boxes near the oven, or the weird smoke smell near the electrical panel. Or not hiring security when they know they have angry protestors threatening to burn the place down. Or pissing off the local unstable homeless dude, and then not doing anything when he threatens to burn your place down. It doesn’t have to be a rational or conscious decision for it to be a problem for the insurer.

Moral hazard is a fundamental problem with insurance, because insurance by design and necessarily by definition removes loss/creates payouts for events that would otherwise leave the owner solely on the hook. Which if not done carefully, can alter behavior significantly.

It’s usually mitigable, or no one sane (or able to remain solvent long term!) will write such a policy. The early days of insurance, there were plenty of examples of people abusing it or weird edge cases causing insurance companies to go bankrupt. These types of Risks are so obvious though, and the industry so much more mature, that in modern history it’s usually due to corporate incompetence or the like.

For example, good luck getting a huge life insurance policy on a random homeless person and having it pay out if they die (regardless of if you had anything to do with their death).

Or not having a serious investigation if a friend gets in a car accident with you and gets lifelong disability injuries.

Insurance fraud is a crime created for the insurance industry to help protect them, and in theory reduces insurance costs and helps society.

Because this issue is always on their mind for a good reason.

They’re also a business in it to make a profit, and will happily exclude reasonable things and refuse to payout for reasonable claims if they think they can get away with it. Hell, I can’t think of any insurance company that likes paying out for anything.

But that doesn’t change the nature of moral hazard.

Your argument is weird because you’re essentially saying moral hazard isn’t an issue because there are laws making some of the more obvious damaging behaviors illegal.

But that’s like arguing it’s never dangerous to drive a car because there are laws making reckless driving, driving without a license, drunk driving, vehicular homicide, etc. illegal.

When actually, those laws are because at a fundamental level, it’s always dangerous to drive a car, these problems are common, and we’re attempting to mitigate them somewhat because we think (at a societal level) it’s worth it.

Again though, you can't do "Starlink from the satellites, so we don't rely on a specific ground station" unless all of the satellites support talking to Starlink, which they don't. That means they'd have to be replaced.