But I really wonder what was your prototype that needed that speed connection and that wouldn't work with something slower. Can you share, at least vaguely, what was your work?
We work with gis/satellite data. Nothing groundbreaking technically, but we aggregate it into products that are useful for social science researchers who aren’t comfortable with or don’t have the computing resources to use this data by themselves.
We’ve actually moved everything into a data center with a 1gb connection. The trade of being that we have several orders of magnitude more storage and computing capacity.
I was surprised when my parents had 1Gbit in 2009. I was delighted when I could get 500Mbit in 2013. I'm slightly miffed that I don't even get 1Gbit in 2022. I literally laugh at providers attempting to convince me to get whatever with 10 or 20Mbit uplink speeds, in 2022l Yes, they exist.
Anyhow. What's insane about a 10Gbit uplink? I wired up my apartment for 1Gbit in 2001. I've been frustrated about home network speeds for 21 years. I do not understand why you consider 10Gbit insane.
On the wider internet, few resources are happy to dedicate such bandwidth to you, even if you can consume it. Not even every popular torrent can muster so much incoming bandwidth.
I can see how it may make sense if you run a popular public server from your home; maybe more convenient than colocation, but still is not a typical use case.
Real question: If you are an Internet gamer, I assume that latency per packet is lower for 1Gbit+ connections, so it is useful for many customers.
More: I feel the same about monitor resolutions above 4K. Anything above 4K on a 27inch monitor makes no sense for my body size / sitting height. I cannot use a vertical monitor taller than 27inch, and above 4K is too small for my aging eyesight! Again: I am sure there are many interesting applications for 4K+ and 27inch+. I hereby wish good luck to all the whippersnappers who will prove me wrong with interesting applications of 4K+ and 27inch+!
So? The process of wringing out the bottlenecks is to eliminate the ones you can, and be mad about the ones you can't.
Back in the dialup days, nobody in their right mind would run a torrent, or play online shooters, or watch streaming HD video -- such things were utterly impractical over ultra slow links with very high latency. Once people started getting broadband, these applications started appearing.
Of course we need faster links into people's homes. Of course under-1Gbit links into homes in 2022 are ridiculous.
10gig is insane.
Finally, can your SSD even keep up with speeds like this?
**Oh and I thought I’d note, it is the positive use of “insane” like “mad good”.
COTS nvme SSD can easily do 1GB/s which easily maxes out non-optimized 10Gbit due to overhead alone. Burst that is for write, but you get the idea.
Meanwhile here in Silicon Valley, the fastest connection I can get at home (sonic.net) is 22Mbps/1.7Mbps. In the office I have Comcast Business which is a bit faster (don't recall exactly) but certainly well below 100Mbps.
So yes 1Gbps sounds quite insane. 10Gbps is out of this universe.
Now, 400G uplinks are still pretty reserved, but 100G (and its' breakout, 4 x 25G) is common as dirt now.
This is quite efficient due to the PCIe4 support not hogging many lanes (half of the 8 lanes can be enough depending on usage), but to use the speed one needs a 25G switch. Is the cheapest way just an Ryzen with 5 of these directly attached to the CPU, and running routing on the CPU via DPDK?
[0]: https://geizhals.eu/qnap-lan-adapter-qxg-25g2sf-cx6-a2609459...
Or what if you want a bunch of historical data for some sort of analysis, and you'd like to start that now, not next week when it finishes downloading? If it's historical (i.e. sitting there available to download) then faster is always better right? If your connection is the bottleneck then all else equal why wouldn't you want it?
(I imagine 10Gbps is about the point currently where it's not necessarily going to help going faster on your end, unless you you have multiple (concurrent) sources, or know that even at that you're still still the bottleneck.)
https://www.esri.com/arcgis-blog/products/product/imagery/ma...
>>The term "Third World" arose during the Cold War to define countries that remained non-aligned with either NATO or the Warsaw Pact.
That is the official terminology used in school books required by the official curriculum.
I'm from what used to be a third-world country in the strict sense of term, I'd now refer to my country as a country in the global south.
Meaning what, in the southern hemisphere and not Australia or new Zealand?
We have 195 countries in the world and only 33 of those are entirely on the southern hemisphere.
Here is one example of an illustrative map:
Or not necessarily that the inventor of the phrase thinks like that themselves, but rather that they think most people think that way.
The closest geographical designation was the Brandt line drawn in the 80s showing a north and south divide in terms of global wealth distribution [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_North_and_Global_South#...
I understand if this comes across as pedantry but the global north and south terminology does a better job at leveling the playing field when talking about wealth and progress disparities.
As per your other question, Australia is part of the global north, China is part of the global south in the global north and south groupings.
I mean... but how? It's just the exact same concepts with less intuitively obvious words. Arguably it frames the disparity as a more immutable part of a nation; it doesn't fit normal language patterns to talk about a country moving north/south.
How? South Korea, Japan, and Singapore are richer than France or Spain now. As nations develop the geographic terminology makes less and less sense. Developing nation is much more accurate.
In other words, effectively developed = what we are, developing = trying to be what we are.
It also places unnecessary upper bound on progress (if you call yourself developed, I guess you can stop developing then?).
Ultimately it is forcing a finite game onto the world.
Global south sounds like a better term.
That’s the plan, yes.
> Ultimately it is forcing a finite game onto the world. Global south sounds like a better term.
Except that it’s geographically inaccurate as well as kind of racist. Japan, Singapore, and Korea can get richer than France or Spain, but they still get lumped in with the other non-white people in “the global south.”
Just to clarify, the plan is to stop developing?
> Japan, Singapore, and Korea can get richer than France or Spain, but they still get lumped in with the other non-white people in “the global south.”
Global south/north divide lumps SK, SG and JP into the north. I have a bigger problem with it putting Russia there, but not e.g. Argentina.
Besides, note how the term "developed" sounds like it has an objective, final and fixed definition, but always invites moving goalposts. Now you use some financial metric. Tomorrow someone uses education levels or democracy.
**
The truth is that everybody should keep developing, and development can entail different things to different people. If you say "I'm developed, and that other person is developing", "we are good, but they are not good yet", all you get is resentment when in fact you want global cooperation.
"Developedness" is a vague, subjective measure that indicates duck all except hubris on the part of whoever coined the term (not coincidentally, that was developed countries).
A vague measure warrants a vague term. "Global South" is far from perfect, but it is less bad. It is obviously geographically inaccurate, which on a meta level is quite fitting.
I don't think I could ever use either term without air quotes, but at least with global south they are more or less implied.
Only if you arbitrarily make exceptions for what’s “south”—ignoring the fact that Singapore and Taiwan and Korea are south of China. The phrase itself implies a permanent association between “south” (I.e. non-white, since skin color is a function of latitude) and “under-undeveloped.” That seems far worse to me than acknowledging that developing countries are indeed trying to become like developed countries.
I'm not against replacing "third world", but something with the word "south" is ambiguous and counterintuitive.
'Southern hemisphere' is fine though I think? And I assume that's what was meant.
Your conclusion is my point.
Doesn't make sense. The second world countries wouldn't drop the third world when realigning to first world.
First world: NATO aligned. Second world: Warsawa pact aligned. Third world: Non-aligned.
Sweden and Swtizerland are traditional third world countries.
Add in a requirement/desire for it being real-time (or equivalently (you'd get further and further behind) continual) and it could be necessary if large (per second) enough.
Being from a soon north korea 2.0 to be (russia,) I can say it was my surprise to see Internet being so bad across the developed countries when I was travelling in the previous decade. Canada - ridiculously expensive traffic, Germany - no comments, UK - sometimes good, sometimes 128kbps DSL, USA - 20mbps DocSis everywhere
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, China, much of Africa had FTTH as the dominant way of home Internet connection for a while.
Just fyi as I know you aren’t a native speaker, it’s ‘chip in’, if you were native I’d assume a typo, probably is for you too, but it’s a phrase easy to mishear and when I was learning a second language I appreciated these corrections.
We moved back to NL and have 1GBit fiber, and there has been a short outage once in three years. I know that there are a still a lot of addresses without fiber, but when I last checked the stats, about 50% of the addresses has the possibility to get a fiber subscription. Heck, even my parents who live in a small rural town have fiber.
I wonder how the upgrade might look considering that 10Gbps hardware is quite expensive (and house cabling might need upgrading) and 2.5Gbps/5Gbps is quite new and hard to find router or laptop dock/hub supporting it.
At my previous flat 150mbps was the fastest available. So it varies a lot in London on where exactly you are.
We are still creating newbuilds in cities without fiber. In other news, someone fucked up construction and left an entire complex of brand new apartment blocks with 7 mbps internet
https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/03/mistake-leaves...
I visited Nepal several years back. They were going straight to wireless. All of the villages in the mountains had a solar panel on their roof that they used to charge their cellphones and there was a cell tower on the ridges.
It was surreal to see villagers use Facebook but have no road access to the main city.
It is easier to upgrade everything in some Blatic states than in some US cities.
In actual fact, our telcos were heavily subsidized during their formative years, granting them a monopoly, rights of way, and helping to pay for their infrastructure. In return for a guaranteed profit margin, we had extreme control over their pricing structure and guarantees of service quality and coverage.
Then we allowed them to be privatized and deregulated, in exchange for which we get fucked. Which is, as far as I’ve ever been able to tell, the inevitable outcome of converting public services to private.
Privatisation is good if competition is fostered at the same time. For example by opening existing physical infrastructure to multiple service providers.
Where I live we had (historically) one fixed lined govt provider. When mobile arrived we got 3 private providers. With fibre we got multiple hardware installers (ie multiple companies digging fibre) and then dozens of ISPs running on that.
So far, so good.