4 ms·

> When I moved into my last house with roommates their network was gaaarbage cuz everything was running off the same router. The 2.4ghz congestion slowed the 5g

> When I moved into my last house with roommates their network was gaaarbage cuz everything was running off the same router. The 2.4ghz congestion slowed the 5ghz connections because the router was having to deal with so much 2.4ghz noise. I don't know why you're saying, a 2.4 GHz device should not interfere with 5 GHz channels unless it's somehow emits some harmonics, which would most definitely make i noncompliant with various FC standards. Or do you mean the modem was so crappy it couldn't deal with processing noisy 2.4 GHz channels at the same time as 5GHz ones? That might be true, but I would assume the modems would run completely different DSP chains on different asics, so this would be surprising.

robocat 1y ago
> do you mean the modem was so crappy > but I would assume the modems Your assumption is sometimes incorrect as cheap devices can share some RF front end. Also apparently resource contention can also occur due to CPU, thermal, and memory issues. https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e70 https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e... (Note that Prof is one "character" I have defined in the prompt customisation) Or: https://g.co/gemini/share/1e8d55831809 https://g.co/gemini/share/1e8d55831809
- ssl-3 1y ago
  Ah, splendid. I'm so glad that you have come before me today to present this bot's confounding quandary, and I receive it with tremendous glee. Please allow me to proffer the following retort: The answer to having a shitty, incapable router is to use one that is not shitty, and is capable. (The routing-bits have no clue what RF spectrum is being utilized, and never have. They just deal with packets. The packets are all shaped the same way regardless of the physical interface on which they arrive, or which they are destined for.)
  - robocat 1y ago
    There's no need to be rude. cycomanic knows stuff but their answer was basically contradicting chrneu, which nobody likes. It is counterintuitive to me (and I'm guessing cycomanic too) that the different bands should interact so much. The AI answers passed my shit-detector... And I think it is the same as trying to be helpful but providing a search link in the past. Other HN users can make their own decision about reading the prompt or reply (although using links does make me wonder about cross account tracking and doxing myself).
    - ssl-3 1y ago
      The false supposition built into the question asked of the bot combined with the resulting answer to the bad question result in the whole thing being -- at very best -- a boondoggle of a red herring. It's all quite well-worded, and yet is still completely unrelated to what is being discussed. Real people: "Hey, let's talk about networks!" Eventually: "Cool, I like networks! Did you know that down is actually up, and up is actually down? In fact, I asked a sycophant bot to demonstrate this fiction with its wily words, and it did so with with wonderful articulation. Here's a link!" Having tolerance towards this kind of make-believe anti-truth is not something that I would consider to be a healthy human function. Especially when this nonsense has deflected through a third party that is completely absent from the discourse and isolated from the context, such as a sycophant bot, and particularly so when there's an implied appeal to authority for that absent third party. (I have no intention of considering whether this kind of action is deliberate or not. I simply recognize this move for how consistently successful it is at poisoning a discussion amongst a group of people.) --- If you were to ask me, a person, the following question: > "What is the most likely reason that a cheap router/AP would slow down servicing clients on 5GHz when also servicing clients on a congested 2.4GHz spectrum" ...then I would not have responded to that question with a single confidently-stated and presumptive answer, but instead by opening a dialogue. And I would begin this dialogue by asking about the reasons that lead you to believe that this would ever be true in the first place. (But that's not the path that was chosen here.)

robocat 1y ago

> do you mean the modem was so crappy > but I would assume the modems Your assumption is sometimes incorrect as cheap devices can share some RF front end. Also apparently resource contention can also occur due to CPU, thermal, and memory issues. https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e70 https://chatgpt.com/share/68e9d2ee-01a4-8004-b27b-01e9083f7e... (Note that Prof is one "character" I have defined in the prompt customisation) Or: https://g.co/gemini/share/1e8d55831809 https://g.co/gemini/share/1e8d55831809

ssl-3 1y ago
Ah, splendid. I'm so glad that you have come before me today to present this bot's confounding quandary, and I receive it with tremendous glee. Please allow me to proffer the following retort: The answer to having a shitty, incapable router is to use one that is not shitty, and is capable. (The routing-bits have no clue what RF spectrum is being utilized, and never have. They just deal with packets. The packets are all shaped the same way regardless of the physical interface on which they arrive, or which they are destined for.)
- robocat 1y ago
  There's no need to be rude. cycomanic knows stuff but their answer was basically contradicting chrneu, which nobody likes. It is counterintuitive to me (and I'm guessing cycomanic too) that the different bands should interact so much. The AI answers passed my shit-detector... And I think it is the same as trying to be helpful but providing a search link in the past. Other HN users can make their own decision about reading the prompt or reply (although using links does make me wonder about cross account tracking and doxing myself).
  - ssl-3 1y ago
    The false supposition built into the question asked of the bot combined with the resulting answer to the bad question result in the whole thing being -- at very best -- a boondoggle of a red herring. It's all quite well-worded, and yet is still completely unrelated to what is being discussed. Real people: "Hey, let's talk about networks!" Eventually: "Cool, I like networks! Did you know that down is actually up, and up is actually down? In fact, I asked a sycophant bot to demonstrate this fiction with its wily words, and it did so with with wonderful articulation. Here's a link!" Having tolerance towards this kind of make-believe anti-truth is not something that I would consider to be a healthy human function. Especially when this nonsense has deflected through a third party that is completely absent from the discourse and isolated from the context, such as a sycophant bot, and particularly so when there's an implied appeal to authority for that absent third party. (I have no intention of considering whether this kind of action is deliberate or not. I simply recognize this move for how consistently successful it is at poisoning a discussion amongst a group of people.) --- If you were to ask me, a person, the following question: > "What is the most likely reason that a cheap router/AP would slow down servicing clients on 5GHz when also servicing clients on a congested 2.4GHz spectrum" ...then I would not have responded to that question with a single confidently-stated and presumptive answer, but instead by opening a dialogue. And I would begin this dialogue by asking about the reasons that lead you to believe that this would ever be true in the first place. (But that's not the path that was chosen here.)