MinekPo1 [it/she]

nya !!! :3333 gay uwu

I’m in a bad place rn so if I’m getting into an argument please tell me to disconnect for a bit as I dont deal with shit like that well :3

  • 0 Posts
  • 56 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle









  • actually they would be correct :

    USB began as a protocol where one side (USB-A) takes the leading role and the other (USB-B) the following role . this was mandated by hardware with differently shaped plugs and ports . this made sense for the time as USB was ment to connect computers to peripherals .

    however some devices don’t fit this binary that well : one might want to connect their phone to their computer to pull data off it , but they also might want to connect a keyboard to it , with the small form factor not allowing for both a USB-A and USB-B port. the solution was USB On-The-Go : USB Mini-A/B/AB and USB Micro-A/B/AB connectors have an additional pin which allows both modes of operations

    with USB-C , aside from adding more pins and making the connector rotationally symmetric , a very similar yet differently named feature was included , since USB-C - USB-C connections were planed for

    so yeah USB-A to USB-A connections are explicitly not allowed , for a similar reason as you only see CEE 7 (fine , or the objectively worse NEMA) plugs on both ends of a cable only in joke made cables . USB-C has additional hardware to support both sides using USB-C which USB-A , neither in the original or 3.0 revision , has .







  • to be fair , neither the free software movement nor the open source movement (which are distinct ideologically) are explicitly socialist . in a way , especially the free software movement , they embody an extention of liberalism .

    both of these movements focus on the individuals freedom and take issue not with developers/companies being systemically incentivized to develop closed source / nonfree software , but with individual developers/companies doing so . thus the solution taken is limited to the individual not to systemic change .



  • autistic complaining about units

    ok so like I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a more confusing use of units . at least you haven’t used the p infix instead of the / in bandwith units .

    like you used both upper case and lowercase in units but like I can’t say if it was intentional or not ? especially as the letter that is uppercased should be uppercased ?

    anyway

    1Mb

    is theoretically correct but you likely ment either one megabyte (1 MB) or one megibyte (MiB) rather than one megabit (1 Mb)

    ~325mb/s

    95mb/s

    and

    9mb/s

    I will presume you did not intend to write ~325 milibits per second , but ~325 megabits per seconds , though if you have used the 333 333 request count as in the segment you quoted , though to be fair op also made a mistake I think , the number they gave should be 3 exabits per second (3 Eb/s) or 380 terabytes per seconds (TB/s) , but that’s because they calculated the number of requests you can make from a 1 gigabit (which is what I assume they ment by gbit) wrong , forgetting to account that a byte is 8 bits , you can only make 416 666 of 4 kB (sorry I’m not checking what would happen if they ment kibibytes sorry I underestimated how demanding this would be but I’m to deep in it now so I’m gonna take that cop-out) requests a second , giving 380 terabits per second (380 Tb/s) or 3.04 terabytes per second (3.04 TB/s) , assuming the entire packet is exactly 114 megabytes (114 MB) which is about 108.7 megibytes (108.7 MiB) . so anyway

    packet size theoretical bandwidth
    1 Mb 416.7 Gb/s 52.1 GB/s
    1 MB 3.3 Tb/s 416.7 GB/s
    1 MiB 3.3 Tb/s 416.7 GB/s
    300 kb 125.0 Gb/s 15.6 GB/s
    300 kB 1000.0 Gb/s 125.0 GB/s
    300 kiB 1000.0 Gb/s 125.0 GB/s
    30 kb 12.5 Gb/s 1.6 GB/s
    30 kB 100.0 Gb/s 12.5 GB/s
    30 kiB 100.0 Gb/s 12.5 GB/s

    hope that table is ok and all cause im in a rush yeah bye