this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2024
108 points (94.3% liked)

No Stupid Questions

36145 readers
699 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Would Starlink and other satellite ISP's be able to mitigate some of the traffic?

(page 2) 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Basically none. The satellite link isn't getting traffic directly between you and the server you are reaching - the satellite just relays the data to the nearest ground station that then uses the normal fibre network to get the rest of the way.

Even if you managed to reconfigure starlink to be a peering network rather than an access network, you'd still have the issue that the starlink network as a whole has orders of magnitude less bandwidth than even one under sea cable

[–] [email protected] 114 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Russia can't take out all the "internet cables." Presuming we're talking about undersea cables, there are a fuckton of them. The logistics of taking out even a handful of those before the world takes action is beyond what Russia is capable of pulling off.

Even if they do manage to cut some, traffic would slow down, not stop. Then the cables would be repaired, and everyone would be more pissed at Russia than they already are.

It's nothing more than bluff and bluster. It would be a minor setback for the world, and have huge downsides to Russia.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I would imagine that it would be equally devastating to Putin to cut the cables as it would be to anybody else. I want to believe that he’s bluffing, trolling everybody to get their attention and reactions.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago

The comments are from June. If they were going to do it, they’d have done it by now

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A large amount but at 500ms+ latency it might as well be useless for most applications.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (5 children)

I'm pretty sure it would result in the US internet being isolated from the rest of the worlds'

Which actually works against Putin since that means his troll farms also get cut off, meaning less new material for the useful idiots to keep other useful idiots freshly indoctrinated with.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

his troll farms also get cut off Why don't we already have a hardware firewall for this?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 months ago

Because generally where the West can extend their communications the people tend to provoke change for the better.

Cutting Russia off entirely for the troll farms is locking Russians into a Russian curated echo chamber, or a least doing that to an even worse extent than Putin is already trying to do himself.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A cable-cutting war will be absolutely devastating to the global economy. It's the modern equivalent of Mutually Assured Destruction. There are few viable contingency plans.

I say this as a telecom wonk: hope and pray and vote so that war never comes.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 99 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (8 children)

Almost none of it.

The amount of data flowing through undersea cables around the world is insane compared to the inter-satellite links available.

That being said, a lot of data that you use as a consumer on a daily basis doesn't pass through any undersea cable at all. It's more of a business problem than an individual problem.

The majority of the websites or online services you access are locally hosted on your own continent. Netflix, Facebook, Amazon, etc. all have local servers. Even for video games, most of the traffic is local just due to lag issues caused by too much distance.

What would break? Banking and financial institutions transferring money to or from overseas institutions to complete investments and loans ,Communications (Like e-mailing or calling a factory in China from the US, or contacting your Grandma in Thailand), International shipping, Flight tracking, etc.

While the satellites could take over for some of that, what would likely happen is specific companies would bid up the price for that limited capacity, and less financially valuable uses like being able to look at the latest lemmy posts from European submitters wouldn't work.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I suppose:

1a. that'd be a lot of cables to take out

2b. many cables are terrestrial

3c. Putin would tick off other BRICS members and other countries

4d. ship-to-ship—maybe get some airplanes and balloons involved

5e. American Navy attacks Russian vessels cutting cables, and Biden tells Putin to stop this folly

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

The US has been able to send bandwidth via laser beam long distances for a while. I wonder if they could set up a network this way to bypass any bad cables. Even if only while they are being repaired.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 3 months ago (10 children)

Not across oceans though. Earth is curved.

load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›