No, not better, in any way. The article was about dealing with the slow start problem. It didn't seek to examine the causes or likelihood of latency in its or

No, not better, in any way. The article was about dealing with the slow start problem. It didn't seek to examine the causes or likelihood of latency in its or any other particular situation. It had a well-defined problem: 50ms RTT combined with TCP slowstart == more round trips and significantly more time for a small transfer. The problem was mitigated with a neat little option in recent Linux kernel versions that most people don't know about. Your response was a very spartan, mostly off-topic, exceedingly broad statement, "a ridiculous amount of latency". It doesn't matter that this particular situation might not have been so bad had the network been better (something we still haven't established, because all you've done is make an assumption about where the second server was located), what matters is that 50ms+ round-trip times are not in any way unusual in the general case. You decided to silently narrow the issue dramatically to what you perceived to be the specific circumstances of the author, then make a broad statement about latency on broadband connections without presenting evidence or examining applicability to the wider Internet. This is especially strange, since it implies the author and his fellow Swedes will be the only ones reading an (English-language?!) blog, thus he wouldn't be concerned about latency to, for example, the UK, US, or Australia. When called on it, your response was that I should have done the "research" you did, and effectively, that everyone should make the same assumptions you did.