From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0F0FA3B2A4 for ; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:21:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from e-emp-a0.extra.cea.fr (e-emp-a0.extra.cea.fr [132.167.198.35]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 455GLeQ7016782; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:21:40 +0200 Received: from pps.filterd (e-emp-a0.extra.cea.fr [127.0.0.1]) by e-emp-a0.extra.cea.fr (8.18.1.2/8.18.1.2) with ESMTP id 455DqnM0010878; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:21:40 +0200 Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by e-emp-a0.extra.cea.fr (PPS) with ESMTP id 3yggact34r-1; Wed, 05 Jun 2024 18:21:40 +0200 (MEST) Received: from [10.11.240.3] ([10.11.240.3]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 455GLeFp035284; Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:21:40 +0200 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------U625wwxS5mZ83D0w0tbpJd1T" Message-ID: <955fff0a-40fb-4806-bce1-c35ecec4ab93@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Jun 2024 18:21:40 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Gert Doering Cc: Aidan Van Dyk , starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net References: <3FF32F52-4A93-496B-85FF-00020FA4A48B@gmx.de> <08F6942E-CC08-4956-B92E-CBEC091D86E4@ieee.org> <2F510BD5-2D7E-4A6A-A3DE-C529D14F6FBC@apple.com> <1078E544-F61B-4289-BCA1-BCDD9FA77481@ieee.org> <97d6e6f0-d153-42fd-b6c1-b64fb429dfca@gmail.com> <4008eb08-871b-4c1b-9cf3-025ba454cbc6@gmail.com> Content-Language: fr From: Alexandre Petrescu In-Reply-To: X-Proofpoint-GUID: 2okJnAm8p-Sc09SVCtouALGYlyU7q4nB X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 2okJnAm8p-Sc09SVCtouALGYlyU7q4nB Subject: Re: [Starlink] The "reasons" that bufferbloat isn't a problem X-BeenThere: starlink@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: "Starlink has bufferbloat. Bad." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Jun 2024 16:21:43 -0000 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------U625wwxS5mZ83D0w0tbpJd1T Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sorry, I wanted to say something else about 'disbelief in physics'. Of course I do hold in high esteem physics in particular, and science in general. I might not know all the physics of doppler effects and EM propagation; I might be wrong about expecting 1ms latencies from satcom.  But I am sure that where one is wrong today another one might be right tomorrow. Imagine for example the entire Internet stored in just one drone above the person's head, at 100m.  A big cache so to speak.  The latency that person will see might be even below 1ms.  Such examples, counter-examples and exceptions like this can be easily imagined. About skepticism related to physics in particular, I can not abstain telling that, as with all observation-experiment-equation crafts (physics is just one, but there are others), the next big E=mc2 equation might very well be generated by AI, rather than by a human.  What makes me think so?  There is a paper published in Nature recently, whose first author is a relative of Mr. Bohr (Niels) (if I am not wrong about names; the point about a name being famous is not important here).   The first introductory paragraph is generated by AI, as reported by the gptzero tool.  I think that from there, there are only a few small steps to have the 'meat' of an article also generated by AI, i.e. some equation that our children, not grand children, will learn as being fundamental. E=mc2 is just one example; it is very remote and very theoretical, but there are many other equation examples that are touching us in a more direct and immediate way.  Observing the nature and making equations out of it so that to forecast the future is very easy for AI. That might be a point about disbelief in physics.  But I am not distrusting the existing physics corpus, that I might just simply not know it :-) Alex Le 05/06/2024 à 15:40, Gert Doering a écrit : > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote: >> well, ok.  One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will not have >> enough requirements for its use :-) > Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-) > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster --------------U625wwxS5mZ83D0w0tbpJd1T Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Sorry, I wanted to say something else about 'disbelief in physics'.

Of course I do hold in high esteem physics in particular, and science in general.

I might not know all the physics of doppler effects and EM propagation; I might be wrong about expecting 1ms latencies from satcom.  But I am sure that where one is wrong today another one might be right tomorrow.  Imagine for example the entire Internet stored in just one drone above the person's head, at 100m.  A big cache so to speak.  The latency that person will see might be even below 1ms.  Such examples, counter-examples and exceptions like this can be easily imagined.

About skepticism related to physics in particular, I can not abstain telling that, as with all observation-experiment-equation crafts (physics is just one, but there are others), the next big E=mc2 equation might very well be generated by AI, rather than by a human.  What makes me think so?  There is a paper published in Nature recently, whose first author is a relative of Mr. Bohr (Niels) (if I am not wrong about names; the point about a name being famous is not important here).   The first introductory paragraph is generated by AI, as reported by the gptzero tool.  I think that from there, there are only a few small steps to have the 'meat' of an article also generated by AI, i.e. some equation that our children, not grand children, will learn as being fundamental.  E=mc2 is just one example; it is very remote and very theoretical, but there are many other equation examples that are touching us in a more direct and immediate way.  Observing the nature and making equations out of it so that to forecast the future is very easy for AI.

That might be a point about disbelief in physics.  But I am not distrusting the existing physics corpus, that I might just simply not know it :-)

Alex

Le 05/06/2024 à 15:40, Gert Doering a écrit :
Hi,

On Wed, Jun 05, 2024 at 03:28:45PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu via Starlink wrote:

well, ok.  One day the satcom latency will be so low that we will not have
enough requirements for its use :-)

Your disbelief in physics keeps amazing me :-)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
--------------U625wwxS5mZ83D0w0tbpJd1T--