Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Could you explain your reasoning? My understanding is that:

fiber=c lasers=c fiber=nonlinear lasers=linear

So in physics terms, starlink will eventually surpass buried fiber in latency for all situations where fiber routing divergence from linear exceeds the ~1000km orbital round trip.



Now compare the noise level in a buried fiber, versus satellite radio transmission.

We've been getting a thunderstorm every evening here, and my Starlink slows down a lot -- not sure if it's ionization, the water content of clouds, or what, but it's definitely noticeable.

And my previous point-to-point wifi would also essentially stop transferring data when it rained, just in case some Starlink hater thinks it's somehow worse than alternatives.


Technically the speed of light in fiber is 2/3c because fiber has a higher index of refraction. Some HFT funds have actually moved away from fiber in some instances because they can pick up a few microseconds by going through the air instead.


Goldman Sachs actually moved to a neutrino beam between London and NYC.


I can't find anything about that online is this a joke or is this actually real


there's nothing about this on Google, and neutrino detectors are definitely not advanced enough for this. was this a joke that went over my head?


Maybe it's a joke about the (anomalous) detection of faster-than-light neutrinos?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_ano...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: