|
| ▲ | happyopossum 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| > Be aware that it is bits, so 62.5kb Ok, I’m not normally one to be the pedantic bits/bytes guy, but if you’re gonna go and make a bit/byte “clarification” you need to get the annotation correct or you'll just confuse everyone. It’s 500kb (small b for bits) and 62.5kB(capital/big B for bytes). |
| |
| ▲ | umanwizard 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Shouldn’t it actually be KB or even KiB? | | |
| ▲ | BuildTheRobots 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If we're playing actually, then it's a speed not a quota, so whatever the correct value it should be suffixed with "per second". | | | |
| ▲ | vardump 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | K is for Kelvin, so probably not. kB or KiB, depending on intent. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | mlyle 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| People always use bits for connectivity. 62.5kB/sec -- maybe really 55-60kB/sec downloaded. Or 18 seconds to get a megabyte. This is simultaneously fast (on my 14400 bps modem that I spent the most time "waiting for downloading", I was used to 12-13 minutes per megabyte vs. 18 seconds here) and slow (the google homepage is >1MB, so until you have resources cached you're waiting tens of seconds). It would be nice if everything were just a touch more efficient. |
| |
| ▲ | volemo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Is Google homepage consisting of a text input field and like ten buttons really over a megabyte? Damn. | | |
| ▲ | mlyle 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I end up transferring 940kB (with a lot of blocking cranked up). Typing "hello" in the search bar takes it up to 1MB. Then the first page of search results is another 1.3MB. Now, I assume all of this would start working before it's all transferred. But we're still talking about tens of seconds of transfer at 500kbit/sec. (And Google at least acts like they care about bandwidth a little. So many 15megabyte pages out there...) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > the internet is still usable with that. We lived for years on 56kbps, granted the Internet was different back then, but we'd still "use" it, download stuff, etc. |
| |
| ▲ | wat10000 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Unfortunately, the 56kbps internet was a lot more usable. I've been on 256kbps cellular connections (T-Mobile free international roaming) and it works, but it's pretty bad. Everything takes way more data these days, and nobody thinks about slow connections when writing software so there are a ton of overly aggressive timeouts and bad UI that assume operations won't take more than few seconds. |
|
|
| ▲ | namanyayg 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I've never heard bandwidth being expressed in bytes. But if we're being pedantic then I'd like to throw my hat in and call it 62.5kB. Or even better, 62.5KiB (for kibibyte) |
| |
| ▲ | volemo 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Or even better, 62.5KiB (for kibibyte) Well, we can’t know if Starlink’s marketing team used 2^10 or 10^3, and since it’d inflate their numbers I guess the latter. | | |
| ▲ | mlyle 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Data rates are almost always multiplied by powers of 10, because they're based on symbol/clock rates which tend to be related to powers of 10. There's no address lines, etc, to push us to powers of 2 (though we may get a few powers of 2 from having a power of 2 number of possible symbols). So telco rates which are multiples of 56000 or 64000; baud rates which are multiples of 300; ethernet rates which are mostly just powers of 10; etc etc etc. Of course, there's occasional weird stuff, but usually things have a lot of factors of 5 in there and seem more "decimal-ish" than "binary-ish". |
|
|
