Comments
77 total · 77 loaded
A difference of one atmosphere?
It does say that the pressure in the Space Shuttle was decreased to about 70% atm for 24h before EVA.
Apollo was 1/3 atm 100% oxygen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Space_Station
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5690/why-is-the-br...
https://www.google.com/search?q=pressure+inside+the+space+sh...
https://www.google.com/search?q=pressure+inside+the+apollo+c...
e.g. some EVM chains have a majority of "stake" in either one country or several adjacent countries (particularly in Asia). A cable cut there, which the article points out has happened, can lead to the blockchain getting cut off or even halting.
It might be difficult for you or I to profit from double spend, but remember, the threat profile is entire countries, and if any of the heavy-hitters wanted to kill BTC the logistics of conducting a big gnarly double-spend would barely register on their existing cyber budgets.
Back in the day, these scenarios were fanciful because crypto was small-league and the viable threats were big-league. Since then, crypto made it to the big leagues, but I don't think it ever became capable of handling big-league threats. At some point it will have to reckon with that.
I'm not sure you really understand what a double spend is. It's not actually a big deal in the real world. An attacker capable of double spending is simply capable of reversing blocks, therefore reversing transactions.
So, for example, an attacker could buy a house with BTC, and then when the papers are signed, reverse the transaction to get their BTC back. But in the real world, the victim would just go to the police and get their house back.
The only plausible "big league" threat would be a government investing billions in ASICs to perform a 51% attack and grind the network to a halt. But the Bitcoin community would probably quickly move to a new Proof of Work algorithm and render their ASICs worthless.
We saw a similar thing with supply chains and chip suppliers.
Then also remember that the internet haven't seen a global outage since forever, worst parts have been when some submarine cables break and traffic has to route around it, but never has the entire thing fully went down. Considering how most of it is built with bandaids, silver-tape and WD40, it's surprising it is as resilient as it is.
Like statistically impossibly unlucky.
It may even be free. If they're already there cutting the thing with an appropriate saw, then slicing off one more bit and saving it for Bill's friend jgrahamc isn't a big deal.
But without that kind of relationship, it's hard.
(I want one, too.)
We didn't get along.
It was laid in 1858. During its brief three-week lifespan, only 732 messages (amounting to roughly 400 total telegrams) were successfully transmitted before the cable died.
A Web Around the World, Part 1: Signals Down a Wire January 7, 2022 https://www.filfre.net/2022/01/a-web-around-the-world-part-1...
https://www.filfre.net/2022/01/a-web-around-the-world-part-2...
https://www.filfre.net/2022/02/a-web-around-the-world-part-3...
First working cable was sort of Monty Python Swamp Castle deal.
Now that AI + Robotics is taking off, perhaps the industry will get something in the near future that can crawl along the cable and help bury it over time (perhaps mechanically or ultrasonically), down enough that it can't be dug up by the anchors of ships going back and forth in a grid-like pattern...
Alternatively, is there a wavelength of light to which water is completely transparent? Can we shoot lasers of that frequency through open water instead of through cables?
Maybe something that could be mounted on blue whales?
Normally in imaging, you first need to get the satellite over the location you want to image, at the right time - then let it orbit over a downlink location.
There are companies making a lot of money by having downlink capability in useful places (eg: near the poles) - combined with a fat pipe to the Internet.
With Starshield, the satellites talk to each other over laser - so the satellite doesn't have to wait to travel to a downlink location - just relay to of that is already there.
So for certain special cases it can help - but I think you'll find a cable stuffed with multimodal fiber had vastly more bandwidth.
Space lasers probably don't do multiple wavelengths, and aiming a lot of laser transceivers is going to be challenging.
> Alternatively, is there a wavelength of light to which water is completely transparent? Can we shoot lasers of that frequency through open water instead of through cables?
Even if you could, that's only going to work for short hops, long distance fiber includes repeaters every so often (50-100 km) to deal with loss, it would be tricky to build those under the sea ... and you need to power them, which means a cable, might as well include fiber with your power cable.
The cables can go the entire distance between the data centers. The satellites probably connect to their closest neighbors, and any long distance transmission would have to make multiple hops, and share the bandwidth with everything else in the system going through the same nodes.
Since there are hundreds of undersea cables, with a dozen fiber pairs or so each, the cable system has several orders of magnitude greater throughput compared to the current constellation of satellites.
Of course, it depends on the altitude of the satellite but speed of light in a fiber optic is only ~2/3rds of speed of light in a vacuum so you can afford some detour
That made me wonder: Why can't we use vacuum cables?
(the sort of questions I should probably be bothering an LLM with.. someone should make a LMGPTTFY)
But otherwise chains of microwave links does get much closer to c in applications where you want absolute lowest latency (or much more commonly, when digging a fiber line is too expensive)
Hollow-core fiber is basically this!
> LMGPTTFY
"let me go prompt that for you" or "let me GPT that for you"?
bandwidth would indeed be worse
The high capacity in submarine fiber is achieved through DWDM and coherent modulation 100Gbps+ transceivers, not massive parallelism in fiber use.