A few reasons - preservation is one of them
The problem that I’m having (and why I asked that) is because I was assuming that you would have some knowledge which you don’t seem to have with a lot of my comments. I’m really not trying to be rude, but it makes it a lot more difficult to explain the flaws in your reasoning when you’re talking about topics that are beyond your knowledge as if you know them well.
I have explained the realities of the situation to you, if you don’t want to accept them, that’s fine, but you’re basically arguing with an expert about something you don’t really understand very well. I’m happy to explain stuff but you should just ask rather than assume you know better because it makes it much more difficult for me to understand the gaps in your understanding/knowledge.
So ultimately, for routers, we have a number of limited resources. Firstly, yes, interfaces, but also the usual stuff - CPU, RAM, etc.
Now, I mentioned before that routing protocols are very complex - they have many metrics which are taken into account to determine what path is ultimately best for each packet. This is a process which can be quite intensive on CPU and RAM - because the router needs to “remember” all of the possible routes/destinations a packet can travel, as well as all of the metrics for each destination - distance, delays, administrative distance, TTL, dropped packets, etc. and then make a decision about processing it. And it needs to make these decisions billions of times a second. Slowing it down, even a tiny bit, can hugely impact the total throughout of the router.
When you add another connection to a router, you’re not just increasing the load for that one router, but for the routers which connect to the routers which connect to those routers which route to the routers that route to that router… you get the idea. It increases the number of options available, and so it places additional burden on memory and processing. When the ultimate difference in distance even an extra 100 miles, that’s less than a millisecond of travelling time. It’s not worth the added complexity.
That’s what I meant when I said that an extra hop isn’t worth worrying about, but adding additional connections is inefficient.
There really should be a law requiring companies which provide online services to be required to release self-hosted server software once they discontinue the provision of the service.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that you don’t really know what you’re talking about. Are you a professional network engineer or are you just a hobbyist?
When many people say socialism, what they mean is capitalist democracy
Lol. Lmao, even
I just wanted to let you know that I really enjoyed this comment. I think it has some good advice but the writing style is kind of unique, it’s almost alien in a way that I can’t quite explain, I liked it!
Won’t be a future unless we fund renewables instead of this junk.
Doesn’t bother me, just means there will be fewer fools arguing with me!
Yep, I mean, the comment you’re replying to literally contains the phrase, “the biggest issues are interference…” haha
Likewise, it’s something that’s likely to improve as we tend to move away from the 2.4GHz band.
Dropping packets is definitely more of a problem for streaming in particular, rather than anything else, because like you said, if you drop packets you’re going to get degraded quality video. If you were gaming locally, it wouldn’t really affect you as much. Online games have extremely good, well designed methods of compensating for dropped packets in a way that streaming will never be able to match.
Nah, that wouldn’t work as well, because people wouldn’t necessarily click through into the thread, and also there’s often different context, depending on the specific article that I post it in.
IMO, the comment adds plenty of value whenever I share it and it certainly inspires plenty of engagement every time, so I see no reason to change what I do.
I’m ignoring fossil fuels because they’re obviously fucking terrible and both renewables and nuclear are an improvement over them, nobody questions that. The pro-nuclear lobby loves saying “it’s so much better than fossil fuels!” which is like explaining that a helicopter is faster than a car. Fossil fuels aren’t the competition for nuclear, renewables are.
I already discredited the “Germany swapped nuclear for coal!” argument in the other thread which I’m guessing you already found since you’re claiming I’m German, for some reason. It’s not really an honest claim.
Obviously, it’s bad that Germany is using coal, and nuclear would be better. You’ll get no argument from me about that. But when it comes to building new power plants there’s no good reason to use nuclear.
When books are published in the US, they’re required to submit a copy to the library of congress for preservation purposes.
It shouldn’t be left to corporations to decide whether or not the cultural artifacts they own are worth preserving or not.