is there an xkcd for there always being an xkcd for everything? i wonder now ...

damn that list is so clean. if it was any other place on earth, i guess it would be an incomprehensible or hard to read form

Theoretically, you could always increase the speed of data transmission by using more cables in parallel.

Now i wonder what would be the average transmission speed of a rocket full of SD cards to another planet, compared to wirelessly transmitting that data?

That ping would be weeks or months btw.

"Stone" is British, we don't use that bullshit here.

Is it? I feel like I've accidentally downloaded it by accident on more than one occasion when trying to get the UK version... I usually just go to tpb.

And they won't tell you what it is, they'll just throttle you when you reach it.

Could be related to their stagnating economy and population. Conservatives love to point to Japan as a successful ethnostate, but their xenophobia has directly led to the stagnation.

Im paying 125/month for 50 Mbps. Lol

Living there right now and that is hard to believe. It's very common to find housing that still runs on VDSL. Living in Tokyo too

Which supports my point that average bandwidth is not an indicator of overall quality of internet accessible to the public because it can very easily be skewed by household size.

But people read half of the first paragraph and downvote. I guess it's on me for not being concise enough.

In my area geetting that higher bandwidth is at least an extra $50/month and I'm being conservative. That's $600/year just to download games quicker.

That means that if you're buying a new massive game once every month and a half you're paying just as much for bandwidth to download the game as you're paying for the game itself.

This is not good value unless you have so much disposable income that you don't even know what to do with it.

And yet, developers still build sites that load 500kb of JS just to display 5kb of text.

We don’t need faster speeds, we need more reasonable and thoughtful site design. Most sites are ridiculously overengineered, and don’t need a lot of what has been stuffed into them.

If it's like here in Finland, coverage means there's a fibre running under the street in front (or close enough nearby) but because it costs quite a lot to connect a building to it, especially if you want higher speeds and have to start retrofitting every apartment, many haven't done it.

For example our house officially has fibre coverage, but the street-to-house connection costs ~1800€ which is why we still run a VDSL while the apartment building down the street has 10Gbit to every apartment.

But then how will you be able to mine every single possible data point on every single visitor so that you can maximize profits with advertisors?! Huh?! /s

Wouldn't it be bottlenecked by the upload speed?

Half-duplex

IME it is more devs and managers going wild on the “golly gee wiz” features that are meant to dazzle site visitors, rather than on actual content (or to obscure a lack of actual material content).

Sure, what you mentioned is a problem, and a serious one at that. But your issue arises more from marketers and bean counters and C-Suite execs than devs and managers.

Not quite. Google fiber did 2 things: 1) in any market thry entered, they forced an ante speed and 2) they provided a model that a bunch of local coops and/or municipal networks could follow (and did)

They are currently in 28 markets in the US.