zlacker

Starlink's Laser System Is Beaming 42M GB of Data per Day

submitted by pjf+(OP) on 2024-01-31 20:02:28 | 12 points 11 comments
[view article] [source] [links] [go to bottom]
replies(4): >>slau+Bf >>cqqxo4+Ki >>cliZX8+dm >>SushiH+Mq
1. slau+Bf[view] [source] 2024-01-31 21:20:54
>>pjf+(OP)
Also known as 42 petabytes. Or 42 trillion kilobytes. Or 336 quadrillion bits.
replies(1): >>ethanw+ii
◧◩
2. ethanw+ii[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-31 21:37:18
>>slau+Bf
If I did the calculations right this puts starlink at roughly .32% of all internet traffic per second.
replies(1): >>theoli+zl
3. cqqxo4+Ki[view] [source] 2024-01-31 21:39:43
>>pjf+(OP)
42M GB really had me scratching my head.
replies(2): >>xhkkff+Ao >>netsha+jt
◧◩◪
4. theoli+zl[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-31 21:55:27
>>ethanw+ii
It's not clear if they're double counting the traffic across all the lasers in the traffic path or if it's only in and out of the laser mesh.
5. cliZX8+dm[view] [source] 2024-01-31 21:58:55
>>pjf+(OP)
If a number is too low to make a good headline, multiply it by some large number, e.g. 86400 (seconds per day), 300 million citizens, ...
replies(1): >>Spivak+st
◧◩
6. xhkkff+Ao[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-31 22:12:20
>>cqqxo4+Ki
I like to think of this as 1.32 billion giga quarter bits myself. Quarter bits make everything bigger.
7. SushiH+Mq[view] [source] 2024-01-31 22:23:54
>>pjf+(OP)
[dupe]

>>39200323

>>39199368

replies(1): >>dang+wf3
◧◩
8. netsha+jt[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-31 22:39:06
>>cqqxo4+Ki
How about a 1969 MG MGB? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MG_MGB#/media/File:MG_MGB_open...

Stupid headline is stupid...

◧◩
9. Spivak+st[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-31 22:40:07
>>cliZX8+dm
Which is odd since 4 PB/day already sounds impressive.
replies(1): >>millzl+wv
◧◩◪
10. millzl+wv[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-01-31 22:54:27
>>Spivak+st
That's only to people who know what that means.
◧◩
11. dang+wf3[view] [source] [discussion] 2024-02-01 20:37:59
>>SushiH+Mq
Thanks! Comments moved to >>39200323 .

Edit: except for the ones about the headline since the headline is fixed on the other thread.

[go to top]