3 ms·
ACM, come on, stop spreading disinformation. You know well and good nothing travels at the speed of light down the wire or fiber. We have converters on the end,
by readingnews 2y ago
ACM, come on, stop spreading disinformation. You know well and good nothing travels at the speed of light down the wire or fiber. We have converters on the end, and in fact in glass it is the speed of light divided by the refractive index of the glass. Even in the best of times, not c. I just hate that, when a customer is yelling at me telling me that the latency should be absolute 0, they start pointing at articles like this, "see, even the mighty ACM says it should be c".
Ugh.
- anotherhue 2y agoAnd that's before you consider the actual cable length vs the straight line distance.
- lxgr 2y agoIt's a reasonable approximation for most calculations. It seems unfair to call that "disinformation". Serialization delay, queuing delay etc. often dominate, but these have little to do with the actual propagation delay, which also can't be neglected. > when a customer is yelling at me telling me that the latency should be absolute 0 The speed of light isn't infinity, is it?
- Izkata 2y agoSpeed of light also explained why these emails were limited to a little over 500 miles: http://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html http://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html So it can be relevant, even as an approximation.
- thowawatp302 2y agoI don’t think you’re going to have an issue with Cherenkov radiation in the fiber and that fiber is not going to be a straight line over a non trivial distance so the approximation is close enough.
- davecb 2y agoThat's just a comparison to Star Trek, which is set in an imaginary universe where things _do_ exceed the speed of light.