Right, if it’s a case interview, then higher accuracy ought to prompt the interviewee to ask:
(1) Do the 200 cuts typically occur in clusters?
(2) What’s the typical density, eg are they usually collocated? (as an alternative to the above)
(3) Are there pathways that avoid the sea but connect Europe and North America (getting at density in the sea in question)
Etc.
That’s what makes this one so good—lots of opportunities to extend or roll-back difficulty.
I was surprised to see so many upvotes this morning and was disappointed when I realized it wasn't for another comment I made about the Anthropic Principle.
My take is that in face of coincidences supporting the emergence of intelligent life, we should expect to observe coincidences unnecessary for the emergence of life too.
An analogy: imagine you have lost the key to your mansion and try to cut one at random out of a metal sheet. If it can unlock the door, then chances are that you cut unnecessary notches (the analogy only holds for warded locks and the key you crafted is a master key).
What are the chances that they break in close proximity spacially, but not temporarily? (I'm assuming that it would be headline material if the lines had disconnected within minutes)
Tangent: an attacker trying hard to provoke that kind of accident would likely not have a very fast success feedback. "Let's try once more, for good measure"
Still pretty decent, given the right circumstances.
For example, the 2011 earthquake in Japan resulted in damage to 7 cables[0]. But it wasn't the quake itself which instantly broke all 7 cables - they were destroyed by underwater avalanches triggered by the earthquake. Avalanches can occur hours after a seismic event, and some underwater avalanches go on for days.
I highly doubt that's the case here, but if you're asking about chances it's not as unlikely as you'd think!