More than 99% of internet traffic goes though undersea cables
There is so much going on in this sentence.
Articles usually contain a beat to fit the story in a wider context which often takes the form of “thing in story is responsible for X% of worldwide things”. This is a great example of how an LLM’s inability to understand anything leads it to produce formulaic text that any human would realize is useless.
it’s actually not true… most internet traffic is domestic. 99% of international traffic maybe? even then I question that because lots of places (i.e. europe, asia, americas) have land borders with international internet backbone cables. africa is a bit of an exception iirc because it doesnt have a ton of overland cables but the entire continent is wrapped in subsea cable.
It does say international, and I would say it sounds plausible since I am sure a vast amount is routed between some cluster of places in e.g. the east coast getting a huge amount of cross traffic with europe. I could totally see that number being real.
i see, the quote was copied wrong. yeah i dunno i find it difficult to believe the overland cables would be 1% or less of overall traffic but maybe… i’m having a hard time finding any sources that disambiguate intercontinental and international traffic
specifically the Iranian ones tho
Iran: By the Grace of Allah, go outside and touch grass.
Nicely exposing international reliance upon monopolies. We need to cut those evil monopolies down and increase resiliance.
Please do it, the Internet of today is fucked anyway
libs gloating about that one Russian datacenter may be in for quite a rude awakening
Hey, Jeff, Mark,and Sundar. These Iranians can’t say to you what to do. You should telll them in person. In the same Iranian waters!
fuck the internet
i’ll miss you nerds when i can’t peruse your bean memes because the internet got disconnected in the war.
A deflated helium balloon slowly drifts down, getting caught in the branch of a 15m tall tree. This is the first transmission from over 100 miles away you’ve seen in months. Intrigued, you throw a rope over the branch and start climbing your way up. You notice there’s a little rolled up piece of paper on the balloon’s string. With your legs still wrapped around the trunk, you scoop up the roll and unravel it. It’s a crudely-drawn picture of the pod of some legume, with an unsettling glare of a face on it. The caption reads “Meanest Beanis”. You hear a vibrating noise and can’t immediately tell if it’s the balloon deflating the rest of the way, or your ass ripping.
Tangential, but do you guys think we’ll eventually get something similar for satellites moving over a country’s “territorial skies”?
That’s happened a few times, like in 1976 when eight countries (Ecuador, Colombia, Brazil, Congo, Zaire (DRC), Uganda, Kenya, and Indonesia) signed a thing declaring ownership over their orbital space. Ecuador still has something in their constitution about it.
The problem is other countries don’t take declarations like that seriously. Also there’s no easy way to enforce it. No one’s gonna build anti-satellite missiles.
No one’s gonna build anti-satellite missiles.
Yeah I know that prototypes exist and countries have shot down their own satellites in tests, but it’s still an incredibly niche weapon with dubious tactical use. Also the international diplomacy part seems like such a tangle of weeds. There are over 15,000 satellites in orbit.
ASAT weapons are always going to be niche however they have come a long way since 2007. China for example has 3 (that I know of) deployed direct assent options; the SC-19, DN-2, and DN-3. There are also experiments in direct energy weapons to dazzle or blind satellites without needing to physically destroy them. I can only assume that if China was testing in 2007 Amerika and most likely Russia have similar options available given Chinese dominance in missiles is more recent.
If you get to the point of enforcing an orbital blockade I imagine the time for diplomacy has largely come and gone.
The position of the German BND is that German law doesn’t apply in space above Germany. (Because that would limit what they are allowed to do with regards to satellite surveillance)
I guess there is more money in going after Google/Meta/MS/Amazon than there is in going after the telecom companies that actually own and operate the cables? (FALCON seems to be owned by a company I’ve never heard of called Global Cloud Xchange, and Gulf Bridge International is also the name of the company that operates that one.)
is there any source for this besides “the hormuz letter”
Wonder if those captured AUVs have anything to do with this?
