3 ms·
Per-second doesn't make sense in this context. Either it can transmit all of the internet traffic, so it has sufficient bandwidth to theoretically mirror the wh
by Sebb767 4y ago
Per-second doesn't make sense in this context. Either it can transmit all of the internet traffic, so it has sufficient bandwidth to theoretically mirror the whole internet traffic, or it can't. A time unit doesn't make sense here.
The alternative interpretation would be that it can transmit the whole amount of data ever sent through the internet in its existence per second, but this seems rather unlikely.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoWell barring the title they define it in the article and say it can match the current speed of all internet traffic raw traffic speed. doesn't matter what units you use as long as it's based on basic units bits/second. Pretty straightforward. Can it keep it up? probably not currently. Can it handle similar amounts of switching? Also probably not.
- williamscales 4y ago> Either it can transmit all of the internet traffic, so it has sufficient bandwidth to theoretically mirror the whole internet traffic, or it can't. A time unit doesn't make sense here. It’s not a time unit. It’s a rate. The rate is twice the rate of traffic on the internet. Therefore it can transmit all the traffic on the internet. Ideas like traffic only make sense in the context of per-unit-time, because they’re fundamentally about a flow.
- Dylan16807 4y agoYes, it's a rate. The aspect of time is already baked in. Adding an additional unit of time is either redundant or means you're talking about acceleration.
- JCharante 4y agoI can run twice the speed of Usain Bolt.. per second