Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Yi Peng 3 crossed both cables C-Lion 1 and BSC at times matching when they broke

    (bsky.app)
    499 points perihelions | 15 comments | 20 Nov 24 06:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.213s | source | bottom
    Show context
    nabla9 ◴[20 Nov 24 08:15 UTC] No.42191758[source]▶
    October 2023 there was similar incident where Chinese cargo ship cut Balticonnector cable and EE-S1 cable. Chip named 'Newnew Polar Bear' under Chinese flag and Chinese company Hainan Xin Xin Yang Shipping Co, Ltd. (aka Torgmoll) with CEO named Yelena V. Maksimova, drags anchor in the seabed cutting cables. Chinese investigation claims storm was the reason, but there was no storm, just normal windy autumn weather. The ship just lowered one anchor and dragged it with engines running long time across the seabed until the anchor broke.

    These things happen sometimes, ship anchors sometimes damage cables, but not this often and without serious problems in the ship. Russians are attempting plausible deniability.

    replies(8): >>42191786 #>>42191808 #>>42191875 #>>42191880 #>>42192160 #>>42197213 #>>42197559 #>>42201843 #
    1. yett ◴[20 Nov 24 08:37 UTC] No.42191880[source]▶
    Yeah and this time they won't let them get away. According to Finnish Minister of Defence: "The authorities in the Baltic Sea region have learned from the mistakes of the Baltic Connector investigation and are prepared, if necessary, to stop a ship in the Baltic Sea if it is suspected of being involved in damaging communications cables."[1]

    And it looks like according to marinetraffic.com that the Yi Peng 3 is indeed at full stop surrounded by at least 3 Danish navy vessels.

    1. article in Finnish https://www.hs.fi/politiikka/art-2000010845324.html

    replies(2): >>42192708 #>>42192739 #
    2. dingdingdang ◴[20 Nov 24 10:57 UTC] No.42192708[source]▶
    Boarded according to: https://x.com/visegrad24/status/1859132263746744367
    replies(2): >>42192986 #>>42196268 #
    3. ◴[20 Nov 24 11:04 UTC] No.42192739[source]▶
    4. bananapub ◴[20 Nov 24 11:47 UTC] No.42192986[source]▶
    worth noting that twitter account is not the most trustworthy or independent.
    replies(1): >>42194558 #
    5. hersko ◴[20 Nov 24 15:11 UTC] No.42194558{3}[source]▶
    What have they posted that was wrong?
    replies(2): >>42194871 #>>42197175 #
    6. ceejayoz ◴[20 Nov 24 15:41 UTC] No.42194871{4}[source]▶
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visegr%C3%A1d_24#Content details a number of cases.
    replies(2): >>42197457 #>>42199071 #
    7. lukan ◴[20 Nov 24 17:32 UTC] No.42196268[source]▶
    Not confirmed by any mainstream newspaper. The danish forces only confirm, that they are there, but nothing more.
    8. ◴[20 Nov 24 19:17 UTC] No.42197175{4}[source]▶
    9. mistermann ◴[20 Nov 24 19:51 UTC] No.42197457{5}[source]▶
    It would be useful to have a site that logs all plausible issues of this kind, at arm's length from Wikipedia editors.

    Kind of a "Who watches the watchers?" type of thing.

    replies(2): >>42197585 #>>42200504 #
    10. squigz ◴[20 Nov 24 20:04 UTC] No.42197585{6}[source]▶
    Why would that not be prone to the same issue you think Wikipedia faces?
    replies(2): >>42197719 #>>42197722 #
    11. mistermann ◴[20 Nov 24 20:19 UTC] No.42197719{7}[source]▶
    Superior methodology (transcending numerous cultural / psychological / cognitive norms and obligations) is how I would go about it.

    For example: banning the conflation of opinion and fact, like what's going on (and always goes on) in this thread, a behavior that is protected (doing otherwise "is not what this site is for").

    If an imperfection is noted: log it, investigate, improve. Rinse, repeat.

    Also: best prepare one's will, life insurance, etc before undertaking such a project.

    12. zelphirkalt ◴[20 Nov 24 20:20 UTC] No.42197722{7}[source]▶
    Maybe it would not, but putting all your eggs in one basket has never been a good idea either.
    replies(1): >>42197742 #
    13. squigz ◴[20 Nov 24 20:22 UTC] No.42197742{8}[source]▶
    I don't think that's what we're doing, considering Wikipedia points to other 'baskets' as sources.
    14. wslh ◴[20 Nov 24 23:05 UTC] No.42199071{5}[source]▶
    Do you mean like other media organizations. For example [1] or [2]?

    [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_New_York_Times_con...

    [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera_controversies_and_c...

    15. LikesPwsh ◴[21 Nov 24 02:34 UTC] No.42200504{6}[source]▶
    If that list became popular it would be weaponised by military intelligence.