Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

datatracker.ietf.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

#11

Post by Villodre »

pocketarc wrote: post #9
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes.

I would assume the downvotes are because the comment is GPT-generated. People come here for the community's comments and insights, not for GPT's summarisations, even if you yourself find them useful. I personally agree with the downvotes - I don't want to see every HN post littered with "this is what GPT-4 has to say about this".

An excellent answer - the very same kind of post I come here to read and not the very same machine-generated content that's everywhere in the Net ;-)

Re: Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

#12

Post by polonbike »

jesperwe wrote: post #5
vkdelta wrote: post #4

Some tests were done on Comcast networks on cable plant. Slide deck below explains it: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/118/materials/slides-11... Not sure where this leads but I guess ISPs will start charging toll for express lanes

L4S is not really an express lane. It is a way for applications to know when their traffic is congested, enabling them to scale DOWN their traffic to alleviate the congestion. Less congestion means less latency.

I guess ISPs will start charging toll for congestionless lanes...

Re: Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

#13

Post by 1123581321 »

I’m having trouble determining if my 3.1 cable modem supports the draft spec. Is there a way to tell based on serial number? Are there hardware limitations that would prevent older 3.1 modems from receiving a software update to enable support?

Re: Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

#14

Post by MrBuddyCasino »

pocketarc wrote: post #9
MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes.

I would assume the downvotes are because the comment is GPT-generated. People come here for the community's comments and insights, not for GPT's summarisations, even if you yourself find them useful. I personally agree with the downvotes - I don't want to see every HN post littered with "this is what GPT-4 has to say about this".

I think an AI summary, clearly marked as such, can be just as useful as the obligatory Archive link.

I understand the aversion against „AI spam“, but I find it weird that a supposed tech community rejects AI tech wholesale.

Re: Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

#15

Post by valvar »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #14
pocketarc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume the downvotes are because the comment is GPT-generated. People come here for the community's comments and insights, not for GPT's summarisations, even if you yourself find them useful. I personally agree with the downvotes - I don't want to see every HN post littered with "this is what GPT-4 has to say about this".

I think an AI summary, clearly marked as such, can be just as useful as the obligatory Archive link. I understand the aversion against „AI spam“, but I find it weird that a supposed tech community rejects AI tech wholesale.

Nothing's stopping users who want an AI summary from feeding the content into their favourite GPT. But it's not contributing anything meaningful to a HN discussion.

Re: Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

#16

Post by rwiggins »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #7
c54 wrote: post #2

[flagged]

I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes.

IMO, an LLM-generated summary is almost never a useful post without further comment.

I don't trust current LLMs to correctly summarize complicated and nuanced text. Now, if someone with the relevant expertise wanted to carefully read an article, feed it into an LLM for a summary, verify its correctness, and post that, I'd be alright with it.

Or if the summary is interesting in some other way - like is it super wrong? or does it make interesting leaps? or maybe it is startlingly correct? - then sure, share it, but also share why it's interesting.

Re: Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

#18

Post by viraptor »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #7
c54 wrote: post #2

[flagged]

I found this useful and don’t understand the downvotes.

There's literally an abstract at the top of this document which provides a summary. If you want more, you can feed it into chatgpt (or many other services) yourself, same as everyone here. There's no reason to post a summary as an unsolicited comment.

Re: Low Latency, Low Loss, and Scalable Throughput (L4S) Internet Service: RFC 9330

#19

Post by viraptor »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #14
pocketarc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would assume the downvotes are because the comment is GPT-generated. People come here for the community's comments and insights, not for GPT's summarisations, even if you yourself find them useful. I personally agree with the downvotes - I don't want to see every HN post littered with "this is what GPT-4 has to say about this".

I think an AI summary, clearly marked as such, can be just as useful as the obligatory Archive link. I understand the aversion against „AI spam“, but I find it weird that a supposed tech community rejects AI tech wholesale.

The archive link is useful, because it provides you a way to access the page itself. Nobody here has subscriptions to every single service, so if there's something paywalled, that link is useful to almost everyone person. (And I wish HN did it automatically) A lazy gpt summary is not that.
Post reply on HN