←back to thread

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

(bsky.app)
588 points perihelions | 10 comments | 20 Nov 24 06:56 UTC | HN request time: 2.35s | 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 #
cabirum ◴[20 Nov 24 09:27 UTC] No.42192160[source]▶
After the Nordstream pipeline attacked and destroyed, its reasonable to expect shortened lifetimes for undersea cables and sattelites.
replies(5): >>42192401 #>>42194448 #>>42197215 #>>42198095 #>>42199025 #
nradov ◴[20 Nov 24 14:58 UTC] No.42194448[source]▶
Yes, this is why having a prompt satellite launch capability to replace attrition losses is now a strategic imperative. We need to be able to put up new ones in a matter of hours, not months.
replies(5): >>42194640 #>>42194810 #>>42196625 #>>42196917 #>>42197964 #
littlecranky67 ◴[20 Nov 24 18:10 UTC] No.42196625[source]▶
Why is that? Undersea cables makes way more sense - the issue is we have maritime law that allows any nation state to freely roam over important cables. During wartimes this is a complete different story - ships won't be allowed near the lines, and if they do get close they will be destoryed without prior warning. No more anchoring "accidents".
replies(5): >>42197587 #>>42197662 #>>42197706 #>>42198738 #>>42199375 #
zelphirkalt ◴[20 Nov 24 20:12 UTC] No.42197662[source]▶
Inofficially Europe is already at war, whether it wants to or not. Maybe someone needs to inofficially keep a close eye on those cables and take inofficial countermeasures against inofficial sabotage acts.
replies(2): >>42197796 #>>42214582 #
delusional ◴[20 Nov 24 20:29 UTC] No.42197796[source]▶
No we're not. Nobody in the EU has transitioned to a wartime economy. We are helping out a strategic ally. If Ukraine falls tomorrow an cedes add territory to Russia, the EU is not going to continue fighting, because the war will be over.

That of course assumes that Putin stops at Ukraine. The point is that this isn't our war.

replies(4): >>42198124 #>>42198831 #>>42199115 #>>42202599 #
K0balt ◴[20 Nov 24 21:08 UTC] No.42198124[source]▶
You’re in a zero lot line flat and your neighbors house is on fire. I’d be pretty motivated to help out as well, but I don’t think I’d be quite so cavalier about not being on a wartime footing. Russia has shown repeatedly throughout history that it does not honor international agreements in good faith, and that it sees military adventurism as a legitimate way to expand its borders.

After the dust settles on the Ukraine war, if Putin still has the capacity to wage war, he will not likely stop with Ukraine. It is by now obvious that a limited incursion into Poland, for example, will not spark a global thermonuclear war.

Ukrainian suffering is both the litmus test and the vaccination against nuclear escalation that Putin needs to contemplate further expansion.

Political alignments aside, if I were based in Europe I would be very, very concerned.

replies(1): >>42198505 #
valval[dead post] ◴[20 Nov 24 21:53 UTC] No.42198505[source]▶
[flagged]
concordDance ◴[20 Nov 24 22:31 UTC] No.42198817[source]▶
Even Botswana and Zambia aren't in the same league: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?...
replies(1): >>42198869 #
1. valval ◴[20 Nov 24 22:37 UTC] No.42198869[source]▶
Frankly Botswana is beating Ukraine in GDP and Zambia in perceived corruption.
replies(1): >>42199581 #
2. aguaviva ◴[21 Nov 24 00:10 UTC] No.42199581[source]▶
Frankly Botswana is beating Ukraine in GDP

Ukraine's GDP is close to 10x that of Botswana, and in the last year has grown 10 percent over that of 2022.

replies(1): >>42202123 #
3. valval ◴[21 Nov 24 08:04 UTC] No.42202123[source]▶
Try GDP per capita PPP, the measure that matters for average living conditions
replies(1): >>42205769 #
4. aguaviva ◴[21 Nov 24 16:12 UTC] No.42205769{3}[source]▶
When your first attempt at dropping a random statistic gets blown out of the water -- try shifting the goalposts.
replies(1): >>42209851 #
5. valval ◴[21 Nov 24 23:47 UTC] No.42209851{4}[source]▶
I bet you had to look it up as well. I bet you had to go out there, and confirm that Ukraine, a country with 15x the population of Botswana, does indeed have a higher GDP.

To make your discussions easier and less embarrassing in the future, assume that 100 % of the time when someone speaks of GDP, they're speaking of GDP at purchasing power parity per capita.

replies(1): >>42210428 #
6. aguaviva ◴[22 Nov 24 01:43 UTC] No.42210428{5}[source]▶
Assume that 100 % of the time when someone speaks of GDP, they're speaking of GDP at purchasing power parity per capita.

And you can assume that 100 % of the time when someone speaks of the size of their gas tank, they're really talking about MPG while in cruise mode.

replies(1): >>42211757 #
7. valval ◴[22 Nov 24 07:10 UTC] No.42211757{6}[source]▶
I’m serious. Please don’t assume anyone is ever speaking or absolute GDP unless they make it explicitly known. That would be utterly silly.
replies(1): >>42214744 #
8. aguaviva ◴[22 Nov 24 15:47 UTC] No.42214744{7}[source]▶
I'm serious, too.

But given the wildly untenable opinion statement of yours that this now long-flagged thread started off with -- and the obvious irrelevance of any economic performance measures to the Russo-Ukraine conflict -- we see that the entire thread has been utterly silly, from the get-go.

replies(1): >>42220127 #
9. valval ◴[23 Nov 24 09:52 UTC] No.42220127{8}[source]▶
I'm a bit lazy to type right now so Claude can type the message in my stead:

" Think about comparing two families: the Smiths have 5 people and earn $100,000 per year, while Jones is just a couple earning $70,000. If you only looked at total household income, you'd think the Smiths were doing better. But when you realize the Smiths have to split that money five ways ($20,000 per person) while the Joneses get $35,000 each, the picture changes completely.

That's exactly what happens when we compare countries by total GDP. China's total GDP might dwarf Denmark's, but China has to spread that wealth across 1.4 billion people, while Denmark only needs to support 6 million. It's like comparing a pizza between a huge family reunion and a dinner date - the total amount of pizza matters less than how many slices each person gets.

This is why economists prefer to use GDP per capita - it's like looking at how much pizza each person at the table gets, rather than just admiring the size of the whole pie. "

I presented some hard to digest (for some) facts in my opening comment here. You'll only need to read European, Ukrainian, and Russian history for 30 minutes to know that. Of course you wouldn't, you're just a parrot repeating propaganda. You have no interest in the truth.

replies(1): >>42225308 #
10. aguaviva ◴[24 Nov 24 01:34 UTC] No.42225308{9}[source]▶
Who needs truth, when you can just ask Claude?