Chrome is an operating system for Google. It gives them a way into corporate environments that run Windows far more easily than getting those companies to convert to ChromeOS or something. So they keep adding features because they want users to be able to do just about anything in there.

To quote the previous post:

> I've yet to come up against a download (even a torrent) that seems like it would have really benefitted from having the entire theoretical 1.5 pipe available.

There are many things along the way that would get in the way of a home user downloading something from the internet that would hit that 5GB/s speed. It's not that people should be "banned" from it or something, more that the investment cost isn't worth it.

I regularly saturate my 1G home and 1G office connection syncing ~6GB files between the two. It's also nice to be able to download a 100G or so game quickly. Remote backups to cloud storage also benefit from fast upload speeds (and more importantly, restores).

We have a 5gbps pipe; routinely download games from Steam at >3gbps; when I had to reinitialize my cloud backup it was >4gbps. All of this without impacting anyone else on the pipe.

Yah, our P95 bandwidth is just a few megabits per second. But it's not that expensive and routinely saves me a few minutes here and there.

10gbps on the LAN is more broadly useful. Pegging it for a file share is a daily occurrence.

Also storage has gotten super expensive lately, and rather than upgrading my machines/consoles I've been offloading games and downloading them as needed and now am routinely downloading dozens of GB just to play a game.

My gaming time is limited so the faster the better.

Both impressive and surprising that thermals were the biggest barrier!

Meanwhile I'm sat here wishing I could justify running any ethernet in my apartment, but improving wi-fi tech means I never can...

I wonder what the idle vs at load difference is for power draw/heat. Would really love to see this feature in reviews some!

I wonder if you could negotiate down to 1gbit until you see some level of activity, if that would help at all?

I'm still eyeing 10Gb, but if my home needs +30w for three computers, I don't feel like it's really worth it. Would love to see more details on the power consumption from folks, especially tuning for idle.

I feel like the author of an alternative protocol probably knows these things.

I think the author mentions HTTP because many people use it where they could be using FastCGI and just don’t.

Please note that it's called FastCGI, not FastHTTP.

Again, you’re pointing out things that are obvious to those involved and I’m not sure why.

Because, besides you, the rest of HN is oblivious to the obvious judging by the downvotes.

Competition won't keep prices below cost. Only subsidy by investors can do that and they won't do that forever.

It is an alternative. It just doesn't fulfill all the needs Airdrop does. I've had situation where I want to share a photo or a text file and it'll work great in that scenario.

Probably the main "feature" AirDrop has is speed. Other alternatives should include that "feature".

No it isn't? The main feature is sending things peer to peer.

That's not a feature that's a purpose.

So what? Anyway the more important difference is it requires both computers to be on the same LAN. The main point of AirDrop is you can share between two devices with or without LAN, with or without internet.

I think you're right but the lack of industry standard for this kind of thing kills it. People want to be able to take the output of whatever tool they use that exports SVG and put it in a browser. Which isn't an unfair request. But you wouldn't have a guarantee it wouldn't filter out the tool using some obscure SVG functionality.

I'd love to see an agreed standard like OpenGL vs OpenGL ES for SVG. SVG-ES. Everyone agrees on the static, non-scripted elements that should work.

The way linked SVGs render from within img tags is basically perfect for SVG images (which as I understand is not standardized but is largely the same across browsers). External resources and scripting are blocked while still rendering nearly all SVGs correctly. And of course, any CSS is scoped to the SVG.

If someone formalizes this as a new format, please give it a new name! tvg tiny vector graphics? savg safe vector graphics?

And keep the scope as simple as possible so it actually ships! Don’t try implementing a binary format or something.

Someone did this already and did call it tinyVG! https://tinyvg.tech/

Maybe I'm missing something as I am not a frontend developer, but when you embed SVGs in an img tag as part of a Phoenix LiveView or even just a static component, you no longer get the ability to dynamically change paths/fills/colors with events coming from the server. Even if it's as simple as having a shape that you want to fill with a brand/highlight color, which at least for me is a common use case.

.rvg, Restricted Vector Graphics?

I think a more accurate statement is that they don’t want to take on the outsized burden relative to the number of users it would actually affect.

I’d love to dual boot Linux too but I’m under no delusions about being a very small segment of the Mac population.

I understand the frustration but also bikes take up a lot of space. When someone brings one on the NYC subway at rush hour it’s definitely an inconvenience.

I feel like the failure here is that it gets so packed that there isn't space for a bike. Because it's not just bikes impacted here. If you can't fit a bike, you can't fit a wheelchair, you can't fit a pram, you don't have space for someone who needs to sit down, or someone who can't handle being pressed in at all sides by other passengers.

It's a wrong allocation of resources where we decide everyone can have 4 empty seats to drive to work but we can't fit 1 person and a bike on PT.

Pretty much any decent mass transit system in the world is packed at rush hour. The whole advantage over private vehicles comes from the fact that people take up less space.

I agree it's a fairly common issue but I feel like it's not an impossible issue to solve. A person and a bike is still massively smaller than a person in an SUV. The system is basically designed with just enough capacity to barely work. But I feel like if we really wanted PT to be the obvious best choice it should be provisioned a bit over the least possible capacity.

I mean sure it's not impossible if you are willing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars to tunnel additional subway lines all over the place.

When they were built, these subway systems obviously were provisioned over expected capacity. But obviously, cities grow and nobody has a crystal ball to know what the population of a city will be 50 years from now.

The thing about subways is that adding significantly more capacity on an existing line isn't really possible if you are already running the trains as close as possible together as safety allows, which is often the case at rush hour. It's not like buses where you can just add more to the schedule.

The thing is, everyone can't have 4 empty seats to drive to work in New York City. There's only so much space on the streets and in the bridges and tunnels, and now there's a congestion charge on top of that.

In Berlin you just have some areas in wagons designated as bike areas. They are still cramped but you can be there with your bike. Plus you pay extra for your ticket to bring the bike.

IMO it’s a reasonable point to make when compared to something like the Framework. And it took legal action to get them to offer battery replacements for iPhones, I don’t think you can really claim they’re passionate about component reuse.