3 ms·
> Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi. > You think WiFi connects your laptop directly to the server in the datacentre? Interesting. The way you've
by laumars 8y ago
> Except there literally isn't any wires in WiFi.
> You think WiFi connects your laptop directly to the server in the datacentre? Interesting.
The way you've selectively quoted one sentence out of what is a very short post anyway just so you can imply that I'm oblivious to other infrastructure - even when my very next sentence describes other infrastructure - is in very poor taste.
Plus you're still failed to prove point. Yes ethernet over cat5e/6 cables and fibre exist, but they're not WiFi. Neither is 4G, Bluetooth, nor FM radio despite actually being wireless (unlike cat6 / fibre).
What you're arguing is beyond nonsensical; it's like saying "I drive to the railway station every morning therefore the train I then catch is also classified as a car."
The daft thing is if you'd talked about the wireless radio's antenna then you might have had a genuine point. Yet you went the "network cables are WiFi as well" argument instead. Go figure.
- gaius 8y agois in very poor taste. I believe my analogy to be a sound one, in that all wireless does is insulate the end user from mile upon mile of wiring, just as serverless insulated the user from racks upon racks of servers, and that you were - and are - being needlessly pedantic.
- laumars 8y agoI don't think it's being pedantic if your analogy is based on a basic premise that is fundamentally untrue. I get there is no such thing as a perfect analogy but I'd at least expect the subject to be factually acuate even if the comparison is subjective.
- dang 8y agoWould both of you please stop this ridiculous spat.
- laumars 8y agoWhat spat? This is the first time I've chatted to the guy and I harbor no ill will towards him. Isn't the point of HN that you can have a discussion when you disagree with someone?
- gaius 8y agoLikewise :-)
- dang 8y agoThe point of HN is that you can have a civil, substantive discussion. I called it a spat because you both got personal. It's nice that you both enjoyed it, but it's still against the rules here. It sets a bad example for others, who unfortunately aren't so convivial.
- laumars 8y agoCondescending perhaps, but there was no personal attacks and certainly none any worse nor less substantive than your terse reply (which, it's worth mentioning, was also after the discussion had already reached its natural conclusion).