[HN Gopher] Contact of Containership Dali with the Key Bridge an...
___________________________________________________________________
Contact of Containership Dali with the Key Bridge and Subsequent
Bridge Collapse [pdf]
Author : mhb
Score : 45 points
Date : 2024-05-14 20:48 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (static01.nyt.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (static01.nyt.com)
| jagged-chisel wrote:
| Matters of Fact, still investigating. All good info to answer the
| public's curiosity.
| krisoft wrote:
| It would seem the real mystery is why did the breakers open.
|
| I have watched a youtube video where a knowledgeable chief
| engineer who works on comparable ships was very dismissive of the
| idea that it might be a cyber attack.[1] He was mainly reasoning
| that the on-board equipment is air gapped from the internet.
| Which of course it makes an attack more complicated but it is not
| like the airgap saved the centrifuges in Natanz.
|
| That being said it also does not say that it was a cyber attack.
| Could be any number of ordinary malfunctions. But i don't see
| that the publicly available evidence would exclude the
| possibility of a cyber attack as of yet. It would be very
| different if they would have found a damaged shaft in the
| generator, or a clogged fuel filter. Something hardware-ish.
|
| 1: https://youtu.be/9B9znFDwdBI?si=aFSoqVsmrTaaQofY
| cirrus3 wrote:
| I don't see that the publicly available evidence would exclude
| the possibility of aliens causing the breakers to open either.
| krisoft wrote:
| We don't see any UFO on the videos and there are no reports
| about little grey ones on-board. Seems pretty much exluded by
| the evidence that they tripped the breakers in person if you
| ask me. Did they do it remotely or in a delayed manner? I
| think that leads back to my question.
| daghamm wrote:
| You are ignoring the existence of underwater UFOs (UUOs).
|
| Those are in fact the real UFOs and the Congress have been
| misleading the public for decades by having everyone chase
| some made up flying sausage in the sky, as if we are small
| children. Just the fact that they created the hoax around
| Area 51, in the middle of a dessert and far from any water
| should have told you all you need to know. And don't get me
| started on the 1961 fiasco in Bay of Pigs where CIA failed
| to capture the damaged UUO that had floated to land.
|
| But if we just for a minute step away from the obvious
| connection between JFK Jr, aliens and the Illuminati...
| have you ever considered that training LLMs on public forum
| comments is a bad idea?
| toast0 wrote:
| Probably time travelers. Most likely to prevent transport of
| a specific item or person over the bridge at a future date.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| Or just thrill seekers[1].
|
| [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204686/
| worstspotgain wrote:
| We can't exclude midi-chlorians either, 5/4 was coming up.
| kornhole wrote:
| Breakers are usually tripped when too much power is used.
| Because the ship was traveling slowly in the harbor using lower
| power, we need to understand other reasons why a breaker would
| open.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Failing breakers commonly trip below current limits.
| Hopefully they will comprehensively test the circuit path and
| its components in scope. Someone will have to explain why
| they weren't replaced prior to failure if root cause.
| jameshart wrote:
| 'Airgapped from the internet' is very much the default state of
| technology on a ship. Connecting things to the internet seems
| like something that would require additional steps.
| bagels wrote:
| The fact that they had two explained power failures in port,
| and they made some changes to the configuration point to more
| likely causes: they made some faulty reconfiguration or the
| previously dormant breakers were faulty.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| i will be counterparty to anyone who wants to bet this was due
| to cyberattack at 10:1 odds if you find an agreeable escrow
| krisoft wrote:
| Saying "we do not know if it was a cyberatack or not" is not
| the same thing as saying "i think it was a cyberatack".
| whimsicalism wrote:
| i feel that i do know it wasn't a cyberattack, which is why
| i am confident taking such odds.
| worstspotgain wrote:
| As is often the case these days, the probability that it was
| an attack is much higher than the conditional probability
| that it would ever be publicly proven to be if so. The target
| wouldn't want it disclosed any more than the attacker.
|
| 100:1 and you will find takers, though.
| usernamed7 wrote:
| wow i had no idea they had some much generation and distribution
| going on. That's a lot of power they're moving. That's a lot of
| things that can go wrong. Even with all the backups, complex
| systems are complex, and there's obviously a gap in redundancy.
| Still, better a system failure than a human one.
|
| It was interesting that on the video you can see the ship
| lose/regain/lose power, and now it makes sense.
| troydavis wrote:
| The company that acted as salvor, Resolve Marine, publishes
| detailed explanations of past ship salvage projects:
| https://resolvemarine.com/services-capabilities/salvage-wrec...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-14 23:00 UTC)