3 ms·

Do we have to have all these scathing headlines telling us what we do and don't know? I mean, I've been doing this a while. I do know a thing or two, and I'm ha

Do we have to have all these scathing headlines telling us what we do and don't know? I mean, I've been doing this a while. I do know a thing or two, and I'm hardly the only one. I'm surprised ACM stoops to this level of unprofessional clickbait.

pmoriarty 9y ago
Honestly, I don't care if the title is clickbaity or not. What I care about is whether the content is worth reading. If it is, I'm happy if the authors entice me to read it, using whatever means necessary (including by using clickbaity titles). If the article itself was fluff, then I'd be upset if I wasted my time reading it. But titles? Who cares? In fact, I'd argue it's more harmful to have boring, non-clickbaity titles on interesting/informative articles than it is to have clickbaity titles on fluff. At least with the latter, it only takes a few seconds of my time to scan through it and see it's fluff. With the former, I may never read the article and completely miss out because I never gave it a chance, which is a waste.
zkms 9y ago
I don't care about the clickbait, if it gets someone to realise that in most cases, latency is at least as important a figure of merit than bandwidth or packet loss, that article does its job. Long, uncontrolled queues that live at fast-slow transition points and induce pathological latency is a very generic issue and is certainly not unique to IPv4 packets getting bufferbloated at CPEs or whatnot. It's always tempting to use cheap memory to make huge buffers to try to increase utilisation (and thus bandwidth) or decrease queuing loss. Any practitioner who works in any role (designer, programmer, operator/administrator) with packet-switched networks should have some familiarity with this sort of problem -- even if it's just at a "some queuing is good because it increases link utilisation but if queues are too big and are allowed to stay full then latency goes to hell and the network breaks" level.
hinkley 9y ago
Do you never find yourself with the urge to scold people for not knowing all of these things? Wouldn't it be more productive to send them a link?

pmoriarty 9y ago

Honestly, I don't care if the title is clickbaity or not. What I care about is whether the content is worth reading. If it is, I'm happy if the authors entice me to read it, using whatever means necessary (including by using clickbaity titles). If the article itself was fluff, then I'd be upset if I wasted my time reading it. But titles? Who cares? In fact, I'd argue it's more harmful to have boring, non-clickbaity titles on interesting/informative articles than it is to have clickbaity titles on fluff. At least with the latter, it only takes a few seconds of my time to scan through it and see it's fluff. With the former, I may never read the article and completely miss out because I never gave it a chance, which is a waste.

zkms 9y ago

I don't care about the clickbait, if it gets someone to realise that in most cases, latency is at least as important a figure of merit than bandwidth or packet loss, that article does its job. Long, uncontrolled queues that live at fast-slow transition points and induce pathological latency is a very generic issue and is certainly not unique to IPv4 packets getting bufferbloated at CPEs or whatnot. It's always tempting to use cheap memory to make huge buffers to try to increase utilisation (and thus bandwidth) or decrease queuing loss. Any practitioner who works in any role (designer, programmer, operator/administrator) with packet-switched networks should have some familiarity with this sort of problem -- even if it's just at a "some queuing is good because it increases link utilisation but if queues are too big and are allowed to stay full then latency goes to hell and the network breaks" level.

hinkley 9y ago

Do you never find yourself with the urge to scold people for not knowing all of these things? Wouldn't it be more productive to send them a link?