Jyith

Jyith t1_j2dx2pg wrote

Reply to comment by mccannr1 in Need to Vent, Apologies by mcmesq

Yea, because fun is the thing that's important in life. Who cares if people are horrible and do shitty things as long as you're having fun. Right?

−8

Jyith t1_j2dwwbt wrote

Reply to comment by rattler1234 in Need to Vent, Apologies by mcmesq

Exactly this.

It's a deliberate circle jerk. Not only are the reviewers in the pockets of the studios, the studios just outright own the media companies that employ the reviewers.

And independent reviewers who don't give glowing reviews are just blacklisted. Same thing for games.

1

Jyith t1_j2dwb39 wrote

Reply to comment by carbirator in Need to Vent, Apologies by mcmesq

Both movies check a ton of boxes for certain political ideologues. And considering that the movie industry and their lackeys in the journalism industry are trying to improve their PR after all the controversy about sexual abuse and pedofilia in their ranks, of course they are going to give their own movies glowing reviews.

It's a case of "Nothing to see here... OH LOOK! OUR NEW MOVIE HAS ALL THE FEMINISM! IT HAS ALL THE MULTICULTURALISM! IT IS LGBTQ+ FRIENDLY! Don't look at our wrongdoings, pay for and watch our movies, which we've specifically made to cater to your sensibilities even though in real life we couldn't care less!"

−9

Jyith t1_j20iiws wrote

Because of the frequency? Obviously, if the range of even the mid-band 5G is a fraction of 4G, you need to build a lot more cell towers. And you know where that 4G, 5G and future 6G data travels the majority of the time? In the same fiber-optic cables as everything else. Operators need to build the cables all the way up to the 5G towers. And as far as I'm aware, the 5G towers don't generally communicate with each other.

Also, the core network needs to be fast enough to accommodate increased traffic. More undersea cables between continents, more underground cables within countries.

So no, the difference in infrastructure is obviously not minimal.

There are probably tons more nuances. Like I said, I'm not an expert.

1

Jyith t1_j20d6kb wrote

Well, it's a simplification, but yes. All different generations are just different frequencies. And the borders between them are mostly arbitrary.

The G after the number just means "generation", by the way (5G being the 5th generation of telecommunication networks).

There are international groups that declare the "official" criteria for every generation, and seems that usually they are just expansions on the frequencies of the previous generation - with some speed, latency, bandwidth and coverage requirements tacked on top.

2

Jyith t1_j208pld wrote

Literally just different frequencies. Multiple different frequencies from "both ends" and the "middle". We've been utilizing these frequencies for other things previously, but with 5G they've specifically started utilizing them for mobile networks.

The low-band 5G is close to 4G in every aspect - including speeds.

Mid-band 5G offers faster speeds in the hundreds of Mb's but has various downsides, like crappy range and getting blocked by thick walls etc.

High-band 5G or "the gigabit internet" is like mid-band on crack. Extremely high speeds, but absolutely lousy range and penetration. The idea on the implementation is more like high-range WiFi than an actual cellular network: antennas on top of every house in dense urban areas.

6G would likely utilize same frequencies as high-band 5G and then up from there, which makes one question how they are going to make it viable. The whole article seems to me like an excerpt from some 10-year-old's sci-fi book, with terms like "space-time coding" and "sideband-free metasurface antenna", but I'm not an expert so I'm not going beyond anything but healthy skepticism.

5