Nobody said you can’t use your damn wired mouse if it makes you happy - but latency is not an actual reason to prefer a wired mouse.
> Again, wireless can be superior, but only when you are deliberately cherry-picking the least efficient wired setup to compare to the most efficient wireless setup, just like your argument for mice.
But earlier I thought you said it was a law of physics that conductive mediums were always superior to air. Also that the speed of light in air is slower than a “conductive” medium.
You don’t seem well.
I want the solution with the absolute lowest latency, not the "low enough" latency. Wired wins at every price point.
It's also not the only reason to prefer wired, it's one of the half dozen I've outlined above.
Wireless anything is an affront to engineering, physics, and peak performance.
The preference for wireless comes strictly from a neurotic aversion to cables, nothing more.
Just to be clear, your wireless mouse, keyboard, headset, and network connection are not making use of light through air, and your wireless network connection cannot make use of light through air even a fraction as efficiently as light through fiber optic cable, due to a guaranteed minimum amount of light interference in air that a fiber optic cable will never have, right?
Yes they are. “The terms light, electromagnetic waves, and radiation all refer to the same physical phenomenon: electromagnetic energy.”
https://science.nasa.gov/ems/02_anatomy
Light and radio are both electromagnetic energy. Radio waves and light both propagate at the speed of light. The speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant. The speed of light in various mediums is always slower. Among copper, air and glass, light/EM waves will propagate the slowest in glass and the fastest in air.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
> cannot make use of light through air even a fraction as efficiently as light through fiber optic cable, due to a guaranteed minimum amount of light interference in air that a fiber optic cable will never have, right?
No, not right. As someone else pointed out a point to point link through the air will have lower latency than fiber (glass or plastic).
Whether or not a signal can be carried accurately and error free through any medium involves concepts beyond a basic understanding of the speed of light. But in the real world one will encounter reliable well designed wireless links and poorly performing wired links.
There's a clear misunderstanding here.
Light and wireless signals used by mice etc are the same thing though, just at a different frequency. They propagate at the same speed, the speed of light, which ironically is slower in glass.
Wireless signals in air travel faster than light in a fiber optic cable (and faster than electricity in copper).
By this you mean that the highest quality wireless mice can have less latency than the lowest quality wired mice, which is not abiding by the "all else equal" clause.
For ANY given wireless mouse, I will guarantee, with so much certainty that I'd place a wager on it, that I can find a wired mouse that is either cheaper with equal latency, the same price with lower latency, or cheaper and with lower latency.
It is very well possible that your cherry-picked, expensive, enthusiast-grade wireless mouse with extremely high wireless polling/sampling rates has lower latency than most wired mice, given most wired mice (not cherry picked) are far cheaper.
Again, it's less about not needing a wire and more about you not wanting a wire, because you're prejudiced against the superficial, subjective "aesthetics" of cables, isn't it?
This also completely neglects to address freedom from interference, the environment cost of batteries (disposable or rechargable), the economic cost of batteries (disposable or rechargeable), or the hassle(s) of changing or recharging batteries.
Admit it - deep down, you just have a hatred of cables for strictly aesthetic reasons, don't you?
Ethernet over powerline is not the most efficient medium, and has additional externalities, relative to an actual ethernet cable. Again, wireless can be superior, but only when you are deliberately cherry-picking the least efficient wired setup to compare to the most efficient wireless setup, just like your argument for mice.
Show me a wireless 802.11 network with faster speeds, lower latency, and less packet loss than 10G fiber.
Last time I checked, recording studios (where quality matters) use gold-plated wires from manufacturers that diligently work to remove air from their metallurgical process.
The "professional" musicians aren't using wireless because it's better, they're using wireless because it's "good enough" and because ultimately, like you, they don't really care about the quality, right?