4 ms·

Hint: The cables are often very close. If one breaks, the otherone also breaks :-)

by Moru 2y ago

gitaarik 2y ago
Why would cables close to each other break?
- leovingi 2y ago
  because if it's an accident and someone is dragging an anchor behind them, if the cables are only meters apart then they are going to cut both
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    Are they?
  - gitaarik 2y ago
    Wouldn't they notice after the first cable? I imagine it would be noticable
- 0points 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jeltz 2y ago
    No, because anchors can easily damage several cables close to each other. And that is how it almost certainly happened no matter if it was an accident or sabotage.
CrazyCatDog 2y ago
Right, if it’s a case interview, then higher accuracy ought to prompt the interviewee to ask: (1) Do the 200 cuts typically occur in clusters? (2) What’s the typical density, eg are they usually collocated? (as an alternative to the above) (3) Are there pathways that avoid the sea but connect Europe and North America (getting at density in the sea in question) Etc. That’s what makes this one so good—lots of opportunities to extend or roll-back difficulty.
- ValentinA23 2y ago
  I was surprised to see so many upvotes this morning and was disappointed when I realized it wasn't for another comment I made about the Anthropic Principle. My take is that in face of coincidences supporting the emergence of intelligent life, we should expect to observe coincidences unnecessary for the emergence of life too. An analogy: imagine you have lost the key to your mansion and try to cut one at random out of a metal sheet. If it can unlock the door, then chances are that you cut unnecessary notches (the analogy only holds for warded locks and the key you crafted is a master key). See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42178306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42178306 I'm wondering where I'm wrong in my reasoning because the implication is weird.
usrusr 2y ago
What are the chances that they break in close proximity spacially, but not temporarily? (I'm assuming that it would be headline material if the lines had disconnected within minutes) Tangent: an attacker trying hard to provoke that kind of accident would likely not have a very fast success feedback. "Let's try once more, for good measure"
- crote 2y ago
  Still pretty decent, given the right circumstances. For example, the 2011 earthquake in Japan resulted in damage to 7 cables[0]. But it wasn't the quake itself which instantly broke all 7 cables - they were destroyed by underwater avalanches triggered by the earthquake. Avalanches can occur hours after a seismic event, and some underwater avalanches go on for days. I highly doubt that's the case here, but if you're asking about chances it's not as unlikely as you'd think! [0]: https://www.theverge.com/c/24070570/internet-cables-undersea-deep-repair-ships https://www.theverge.com/c/24070570/internet-cables-undersea...

Hint: The cables are often very close. If one breaks, the otherone also breaks :-)

by Moru 2y ago

Hint: The cables are often very close. If one breaks, the otherone also breaks :-)

gitaarik 2y ago

Why would cables close to each other break?

leovingi 2y ago
because if it's an accident and someone is dragging an anchor behind them, if the cables are only meters apart then they are going to cut both
- dgfitz 2y ago
  Are they?
- gitaarik 2y ago
  Wouldn't they notice after the first cable? I imagine it would be noticable
0points 2y ago
[flagged]
- jeltz 2y ago
  No, because anchors can easily damage several cables close to each other. And that is how it almost certainly happened no matter if it was an accident or sabotage.

CrazyCatDog 2y ago

Right, if it’s a case interview, then higher accuracy ought to prompt the interviewee to ask: (1) Do the 200 cuts typically occur in clusters? (2) What’s the typical density, eg are they usually collocated? (as an alternative to the above) (3) Are there pathways that avoid the sea but connect Europe and North America (getting at density in the sea in question) Etc. That’s what makes this one so good—lots of opportunities to extend or roll-back difficulty.

ValentinA23 2y ago
I was surprised to see so many upvotes this morning and was disappointed when I realized it wasn't for another comment I made about the Anthropic Principle. My take is that in face of coincidences supporting the emergence of intelligent life, we should expect to observe coincidences unnecessary for the emergence of life too. An analogy: imagine you have lost the key to your mansion and try to cut one at random out of a metal sheet. If it can unlock the door, then chances are that you cut unnecessary notches (the analogy only holds for warded locks and the key you crafted is a master key). See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42178306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42178306 I'm wondering where I'm wrong in my reasoning because the implication is weird.

usrusr 2y ago

What are the chances that they break in close proximity spacially, but not temporarily? (I'm assuming that it would be headline material if the lines had disconnected within minutes) Tangent: an attacker trying hard to provoke that kind of accident would likely not have a very fast success feedback. "Let's try once more, for good measure"

crote 2y ago
Still pretty decent, given the right circumstances. For example, the 2011 earthquake in Japan resulted in damage to 7 cables[0]. But it wasn't the quake itself which instantly broke all 7 cables - they were destroyed by underwater avalanches triggered by the earthquake. Avalanches can occur hours after a seismic event, and some underwater avalanches go on for days. I highly doubt that's the case here, but if you're asking about chances it's not as unlikely as you'd think! [0]: https://www.theverge.com/c/24070570/internet-cables-undersea-deep-repair-ships https://www.theverge.com/c/24070570/internet-cables-undersea...