4 ms·
I'm intrigued, and yet horrified by the amount of bandwidth that all of these images must be consuming.
by thrower123 7y ago
I'm intrigued, and yet horrified by the amount of bandwidth that all of these images must be consuming.
- shhshahassa 7y agoHere is the required negative hacker news comment. Thanks for stepping up!
- icebraining 7y agoDon't worry; just think that in the time spent reading a single page/picture, the user is not watch another shaky (ie, hard to compress) HD video, which are common on IG.
- scarejunba 7y agoYou're not going to believe this but sometimes I stream video and go to sleep before it's finished. It's 4k too. I don't even give a fuck. An hour of wasted bandwidth, not even half a shit given.
- rolltiide 7y agoThe CDN has already cached it for the company and the users are probably on wifi so why think about it Even if it was cellular...
- TeMPOraL 7y agoWell, there's taste, and I agree with GP here - I too find such things distasteful. It's not much waste in the grand scheme of things, but it's still ridiculously wasteful, and the more wastefulness is accepted, the more it adds up everywhere.
- feintruled 7y agoI know for some backbone comms technologies (SDH, maybe?) there has to be some sort of carrier signal at all times. I think this is probably true for fibre as well, it's never truly dark. So maybe the bandwidth being there should be used for something useful? (I purposely ignore the processing power required at the other end to serve you the images ;-)