this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2024
1526 points (99.0% liked)
Microblog Memes
5392 readers
4080 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
- !whitepeopletwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !best_of_mastodon@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtwitter@sh.itjust.works
- !curatedtumblr@sh.itjust.works
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Is bandwith that expensive nowadays? I feel the argument is valid but was implemented when bandwidth was way more expensive.
I mean, if I upgrade my home internet box to the 40€ tier I'll have 10Gb symmetrical.
Edit: there are a lot of google fanbois here lol
It’s not about your bandwidth, it’s about YouTube’s bandwidth. You probably don’t care, but for them it adds up to a lot
I just showed how inexpensive it has become.
Do you think I think I'm youtube??
You showed your home bandwidth. It means absolutely nothing in this discussion.
How often do people watch the first few seconds of a video and not finish it? It happens a lot. It probably happens a lot more often than that user actually finishing it. We could be talking about doubling Google's bandwidth requirement. Not to mention server CPU time, disk I/O. Do you have any idea how expensive the operational costs of YouTube probably are as it is? This is an efficiency game to successfully run a video platform which supports up to high bitrate 4k video at this unfathomable scale, servicing the entire planet.
It makes the most efficient sense for them to only let you buffer a little bit at a time, not more than you need.
I'm not kissing Google's ass. I'm just pointing out that if you want the service to exist, it has to be designed as efficiently as possible, otherwise it won't exist for long.
Man ive got like 8 tabs right now with paused videos cause I cant focus on shit
It's not that bandwidth is incredibly expensive, it's more that it's a limited resource, videos are huge, and there's a gajillion users.
Like others mentioned - yes, I mean the bandwidth from the perspective of the one providing the service. For the same bandwidth that someone watched 10% of a video, paused it and never watched the remaining 90%, you can show those same 90% to someone else who'd actually watch it. That's without counting the small overheads here and there, but hopefully you get the idea.
Well, if they didn't push trash with their algorithms, maybe people would finish more videos.
Tell this to them, not to me. Moreover I'm not talking about a specific site but rather about the general technical implications you'd have if you're hosting something.
Yes.
That 10Gb link is almost certainly oversubscribed, though. You don't actually have 10 Gb of dedicated constant bandwidth, you just have access to 10Gb of potential bandwidth. You're unlikely to saturate that link very often, so you won't notice, but it's shared with other people.
It's different from Google or any other company paying for bandwidth that's being actually used, not just a pre-allocated link like your home internet.