News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:A theory of Zoom fatigue by saurik on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @04:30AM (#22933095)
The process of waiting to create the first packet to send (even with no compression) will always be slower than a system where you just send the audio instantly as an analog signal. Even the process of waiting for a single "sample" of audio (for a tiny tiny packet) is technically slower (but of course no one does that: they tend to group together at least 2ms of audio into a packet). The only way you can go faster than a classic land line (assuming there were no signal repeaters: like, this is one of those landlines where as you get further away the signal also gets quieter) is if you can go a shorter distance or use materials with less resistance--maybe "lower relative permittivity"? I don't know exactly what measurement you use here as I don't remember enough physics--to build the wiring or (probably your best bet) switches.
Re:A theory of Zoom fatigue by saagarjha on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @05:06AM (#22933261)
I believe the velocity factor actually depends mostly on the dielectric insulator used.
Re:A theory of Zoom fatigue by mhh__ on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @11:50AM (#22936040)
Not sure why you've been downvoted, it's at least partly true with my idealised understanding of transmission lines
Re:A theory of Zoom fatigue by saagarjha on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @05:50PM (#22939709)
It seems to have come around; Hacker News is fickle sometimes.
Re:A theory of Zoom fatigue by mhh__ on Tuesday April 21, 2020 @11:49AM (#22936024)
It would depend on the characteristics of the transmission line used to transmit the signal.