Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I am more interested in a low latency connection, which then can change everything.


sort by: page size:

It sounds like you want lower latency?

Nor will it be low-latency.

Or low latency requirements.

Lower latency

It will have to be something like this that gives best possible latency for a higher price.

very low latency sounds nice. Especially for voice and video chat.

My understanding is that things like online games could take advantage of it, for the latency. Anything that has high latency concerns would be made better by having a closer endpoint.

lower latency is definitely a great point. The second point I subscribe less to it, this would mean more complexity and harder constraints on the battery

Why? For latency reasons?

Low latency was a design goal.

Everyone will be affected by the latency vs a few will be affected by the lack of accessibility. This is what your tradeoff is.

Sorry. Better latency :)

You would bother if you wanted reduced latency for a better user experience.

Not if you need low-latency...

If we're going to put it in computery terms, latency matters. People want decreased latency for themselves, not just to be in the company of more people sitting in the same traffic jam.

My delight at lower latency pretty quickly evaporates in the face of a spinning hourglass. I'd rather have consistent availability at the expense of latency.

What latency?

It's not lower latency, it's hidden latency. If you are one to be randomly amused and distracted by shiny things, perhaps you'd like it more.

Doesn't matter. There is still the incentive for low latency.
next

Legal | privacy