I've always felt that's why this kind of reporting is pointless. I don't care what some guy I don't know, who doesn't post his credentials, says about a technology that's very complex. I'd rather wait for Wendell Wilson to do a video and I'll watch it on Level1Techs channel on YouTube.

This whole model seems pointless and strange to me. We no longer need "tech journalists" when you can have literal tech experts creating videos that cover all this stuff in far greater depth.

I'd love to see the metrics on this article versus the best tech expert YouTubers.

Most people have no idea how to evaluate YouTuber credentials, and they subscribe to outlets like the NYT to do the filtering for them.

You're not the intended audience for these pieces so it's not weird that you don't find them very useful. Most people just aren't interested in the depth of detail that you are.

Imagine if they replaced all the articles on topics you are just peripherally interested in with wonky deep-dives. You'd probably give up after the first few because you aren't equally interested in everything, and sometimes you just want a breezy high-level overview of what's happening.

NYT is writing to audience that just wants to know whether they need a fancy new router or whether they should stick with their current one for a while longer. That's it.

I'm not debating the audience, I'm debating the qualifications of the person writing.

I know Wendell is the real deal because Dr. Ian Cutress wouldn't have had him on AnandTech livestreams if he wasn't. I also know Wendell's the real deal by watching Level1Techs YouTube videos. I also know he's the real deal because he literally builds out networks for companies for a living (Wendell Wilson Consulting in Kentucky). I don't know shit about this NYT writer. His credentials aren't listed on the NYT website. Does he have a degree in business information systems? Electrical engineering? Computer science? I don't know. That's the whole point.

I don't want to hear heart health advice from a "health journalist", I want to hear what an actual cardiologist has to say. Same with a "tech journalist". No thanks, I'll trust the opinion of someone who builds networks for a living when it comes to my network equipment.

In the past, finding people with these qualifications was difficult, and then you had to find time to liaise with them. Now you can find some of the best people in the world and gain their insight just from reading or watching YouTube.

Back in the old days there were media outlets for the general public and the specialists. One just has to be pointed to the right direction. I don't think today's media landscape is that different - the professional youtubers are just today's trade journals.

Though there is definitely a much larger barrier of entry when it comes to video because product is much more involved than just writing an article. I've noticed over the past few years was that pros from the few non-tech hobbies have been trying to get into video and many are clearly struggling. I often wonder how much talent is out there that we don't get to see.

You seem convinced Wendell is well known and authoritative, but I've never heard of him, any more so than the author of the Times piece.

You should consider that not everyone shares your experiences.

> I'd rather wait for Wendell Wilson to do a video and I'll watch it on Level1Techs channel on YouTube.

I watch a ton of tech Youtubers and I have absolutely no idea who those folks are. The world is a lot bigger than you imagine.

I know exactly how big the world is, thanks. The guy personally built a new workstation for Linus Torvalds and sent it to him.

Maybe the world's a bigger than you imagine.

I'm not sure you get my point.

Your internet celebrities are not as famous as you imagine and thus not references the layperson would know of let alone trust.

A major newspaper, despite its defects, is much more of a known quantity.

Wendell did a video with Linus Tech Tips a few years back, and they’ve collaborated a few times before and since, too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsgI1mkx6iw

network chuck too, was my first video of him I watched, and probably most interesting too, but that's probably personal thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cmmVEoftEM

I can’t find any appearence or mention of Wendell in that video, nor could I find any other video by the same person featuring Wendell.

Most people aren’t technical experts, so this has a much broader appeal using language and scenarios that’s more familiar to everyday people.

That's not my point.

My point is why should anyone listen to this guy. None of his qualifications are on display. Does he build out WiFi networks for a living? "He works for the New York Times" is not a qualification anyone should give a shit about after how they've conducted "journalism" since 2015.

I want to hear from experts, not journalists. Maybe articles wherein journalists consult with a range of experts and then convey those experts' opinions to me, but I definitely don't care what a guy with a degree in journalism who happens to love tech has to say. I want to hear from people from work with these technologies from day to day.

If you want to know about heart health, you ask a cardiologist, not a health journalist.

I think the issue your ideal world of communication runs into, is that experts can't dedicate all of their time to public outreach. That's where journalists come in. If you want to know why your chest hurts a bit on the regular, you talk to your doctor. If you want to learn a few interesting facts about a heart condition, you read an article written by a journalist.

For a network that's already working fine, it's only going to make marginal improvements.

Who's going to spend $230 on a new router for slightly faster lightbulbs?

This comment made me laugh. My light bulbs turn on at the speed of electricity right now.

thx for pointing that out, you two made my day!

The fact that lightbulbs took seconds to turn on suggests something was very wrong and he's getting much more than marginal improvements.

Most likely due to slow ARP resolution. My custom firmware power switch would take a long time to respond until I turned on gratuitous ARP broadcast.

Anecdata, but I recently went to wifi6 and even though I didn't notice until now, I'm pretty sure our wifi lights respond quicker than they used to. It's maybe only a second or 2, but I remember being annoyed at how long they took sometimes before, and I haven't felt that way since I got this new router.

However, the old router was a Google mesh and 1 of them definitely died slowly, so that could have been causing the delay for a while before it fully died on us.

If your lights take seconds to turn on, invest in better technology. Lutron Caseta switches take milliseconds to turn lights on.

Sounds like a placebo or he had terrible wifi before. Alexa and the old bulbs wouldn't be running Wifi6 so its just a newer router running in backwards compatible modes.

The only Wifi6 device the author owns is probably an iPhone.

It does. I have a hard time believing Wi-Fi itself could cause such a large swing in latency, but perhaps all those back and forth round trips do add up? Is WiFi 6 known for major latency improvements? Or is this just related to less congestion?

It would be interesting to compare it to Ethernet usage of these devices.

Yes, WiFi 6 has a lot of major improvements to reduce latency.

Intel has a good write up here:

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/gaming/resources/wif...

> seconds to turn on a light bulb

What a time to be alive! We truly are living in the future!

We used to have to take several seconds to walk over and back to a light bulb to turn it on. Now it's just as fast but we don't have to even stand up.

I'd be curious to know whether that's a wifi problem or a "your IoT devices are run by very small computers running very unoptimized software" problem.