Greentext

4616 readers

1690 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

Anon is often crazy.
Anon is often depressed.
Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works

520

Anon is an Aussie (sh.itjust.works)

submitted 10 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works

88 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The main part of ping is the processing at the hops taking time, not the physical distance (for reference, with full speed of light you could get around the equator in around 150ms). I do recall there at least being a claim that starlink has reasonably good ping, it doesn't seem impossible for it to be better than via fiber, even if shooters are probably still unplayable

[–] naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Nah dude, every time I've checked my routing the rtt is basically speed of light. Like it's 200 ms give or take to LA. As the Crow flies that's 24000 km, which would be 80 ms RTT. idk the exact route but we can probably add say 30% in the distance cause those cables aren't dead straight and there's a bit of waggle around the actual network infrastructure.

like yeah maybe half is the processing but that fraction only gets smaller with distance and LA is like the closest English speaking hub.

edit: just ran a test now https://www.meter.net/ping-test/202404-92320-2f35.html that's theoretically 90 ms so yeah, even if that distance is accurate it's 60% light speed limits.