71–80 of 262 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You gotta bore for that sweet latency win. A chord tunnel between San Francisco and Hong Kong would save 1300 miles (20% improvement right there), and if you drill it straight enough, you won't even need a cable.
Alameda enterprises excited by rumours of new chord tunnel Thursday, low latency burrito delivery futures up 5%.
No mention of latency improvements? Seems crazy since oversea transit (tcp & single-channel) is usually latency (or loss) bound. I would expect it's better than going over public transit and legacy subsea fiber, but it would have been useful to see some comparison tests between POPs.
I know a lot is focusing on the Bandwidth. But are we making any progress on Long Distance Subsea Cable using Hollow Core Cable, achieving close to maximum speed of light for theoretical lowest latency possible? Imagine cutting latency from West Coast US to Hong Kong by 50ms! Light is only traveling at around 2/3 of speed within Fibre. The previous decades have been around Bandwidth. Is time we shift out focus to lat…
You gotta bore for that sweet latency win. A chord tunnel between San Francisco and Hong Kong would save 1300 miles (20% improvement right there), and if you drill it straight enough, you won't even need a cable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My bet is on tech like Starlink with inter-satellite communication. Starlink should have lower latency with space lasers compared to fiber.
Won't they be at low enough altitude that they'll need more hops than fiber to get around the globe, where each hop adds at least some delay?
But Starlink will never match the bandwidth and reliability that fiber can do, nor is it meant to. So it's not a replacement, just another awesome option.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most certainly. You don’t land a cable in either the US or France without a classified annex to the license that provides for interconnection to their intelligence services.
Let's say they do tap the cables (I reckon they do too but in case they don't) what can they actually see if the traffic is encrypted?
The article mentions the number of fibres in this cable is 12, and that new technology was used to increase that number. What is the limit on how many fibres can go in a cable? Should we expect future cables to have 50 fibres, or 100, or 1000, or more?
You could load a modern Javascript-powered website in less than a minute with that.
My browser loads that page like forever, until I remember to _allow_ javascript on that page, like why on earth they render everything except the content at all.
Is this due to more and more content simply generated by javascript frameworks?
The article mentions the number of fibres in this cable is 12, and that new technology was used to increase that number. What is the limit on how many fibres can go in a cable? Should we expect future cables to have 50 fibres, or 100, or 1000, or more?
I suspect that the repeaters and associated power equipment along the line is pretty big stuff. So the fact that this cable is able to "share" that equipment across the 12 fibers is a breakthrough in technology.
You could load a modern Javascript-powered website in less than a minute with that.
Especially the linked blog post, as it doesn't render unless you allow JavaScript from gweb-cloudblog-publish.appspot.com (per uMatrix). Webdevs: is there a reason why a page would be designed so that JS being on is mandatory? Especially for something as prosaic as a couple of paragraphs of text.
If you meant mandatory in terms of the actual medium requiring it, I can only hint to interactive applications, aside from that I don't think it would actually be mandatory.
You could load a modern Javascript-powered website in less than a minute with that.
Especially the linked blog post, as it doesn't render unless you allow JavaScript from gweb-cloudblog-publish.appspot.com (per uMatrix). Webdevs: is there a reason why a page would be designed so that JS being on is mandatory? Especially for something as prosaic as a couple of paragraphs of text.
I think in the case of Google, it's because they've been told they are the best developers, the top 1% of SWE's, they went through rigorous interviews, are paid a small fortune twice as much as they would get at a regular coding job, etc.
So it's dick shaking. They need to show to the world that they're better than plain HTML websites, that they have a massive schlong, that they out-chadded the vast majority of software devs. Plain html? Psht, we can invent our own language, gonna put those six years of uni to work! Wordpress? This is beneath us! It has to be a client-side rendered JS-pulled-through-GWT behemoth because on my system it's... wait it's slower, but nevermind that it's technologically ALPHA.
edit: actually looked at the source, looks like a Polymer / Web Components website. I've had to work in that once, it was dreadful compared to libraries used by real people.