this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
76 points (87.3% liked)

Technology

59174 readers
857 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@fry.gs
L4s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
76
Light-based “LiFi” is stunningly fast, notably fragile—and now standardized (arstechnica.com)
submitted 1 year ago by BrikoX@lemmy.zip to c/technology@lemmy.world
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 55 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Light is almost certainly the fastest thing around. So it makes sense that "light-based wireless communications," or LiFi, could blow the theoretical doors off existing radio-wave wireless standards, to the tune of a maximum 224GB per second. [Edit, 2:40 p.m.: It does not make sense, and those doors would remain on each rhetorical vehicle. As pointed out by commenters, radio waves, in a vacuum, would reasonably be expected to travel at the same speed as light. Ars, but moreso the author personally, regrets the error. Original post continues.]

JFC is this really where you want to get your technology data from? Authors that clearly have no grasp of even the basest fundamentals in the physics involved? Really?

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's a news site, don't expect them to have science degree and them adding an edit note after they were corrected shows more integrity than 95% of other news sites.

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

shows more integrity than 95% of other news sites

Nah, there are many news sites that post corrections. This one was just so blatantly egregious that they had to put a stop to it before their entire corporation became a laughing stock. This isn't just a 'news site'. It is a Technology News Site. They had one job and they f'd it up. They shouldn't even be hiring writers without a science degree let alone one that flunked highschool science.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They shouldn’t even be hiring writers without a science degree

As you mentioned, it's a Technology News Site, not a Science News Site. Sounds a little arbitrary.

[–] Burstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You know this whole post is doing absolute wonders for demonstrating exactly how reliable this particular Community apparently is. Seriously, posters linking articles with blatant ignorance of the subject matter, defending that choice (and their choice to link it demonstrating their lack of knowledge on the subject matter too), getting crazy up-votes from people who obviously don't know any better and then your comment of 'muh, Science vs Technology is an arbitrary distinction and totally not something where both rely on each other intimately'.

[Slow clap] thanks guys. Good to know if I ever need to cite how unreliable this community actually is I'll forever have this exquisite reference.

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The author didn't know radio waves travel at the speed of light. So he made some good-sounding intro based on incorrect assumptions (which made the whole intro a little cringe) which they apologized for. Yeah, shouldn't happen, but we're all human, we make mistakes.

You know that if you go deep down enough, everything is maths? Does it mean everyone should have a maths degree to do anything? Technology isn't science, technology is practical application of science. So you need to be a scientist to design such technology, but you "only" need to understand the high-level to convey to people how it works, because no one* is really interested in how it works.

* That's a hyperbole, I don't mean "no one" literally, you sound like the type of person that would reply with "muh, not no one", so I'm clarifying in advance¨

I hope you remember this reply of mine every time you make any mistake. Or any time you don't know something you should know because you for whatever reason missed it (which, again, happens to all of us).

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The idea that radio waves are light waves is something I learned from Bill Nye in elementary school, and that was repeated to me throughout my education and was definitely on at least one of the tests I took.

So either Ars is hiring people with very strange educational experiences or they done goofed

[–] rikudou@lemmings.world 2 points 1 year ago

No one ever told me this, I learned it myself (together with the fact that "speed of light" is a fucking stupid name), so your mileage may vary.

[–] sigh@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Light is almost certainly the fastest thing around.

why is that written as if it's some sort of challenge

[–] ndguardian@lemmy.studio 2 points 1 year ago

Because my ability to disappoint may be faster.

[–] James@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 year ago

The worst part of it is that the author also included this quote from the creators of the technology.

“Operating in the optical spectrum, rather than the limited amount of licensed radio wavelengths”

Like it’s right there and they still didn’t clue in.

[–] ablackcatstail@lemmy.goblackcat.com 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed! I mean the article is interesting but also somewhat click-baitish. I get where you're coming from.

[–] Zeth0s@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, first thing I noticed as well. Hilarious how the guy has no idea what he is talking about

[–] Beanerrr@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Isn't this similar to the tech used in fiber optics cables? Or am I way off

[–] Zeth0s@reddthat.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

But it is for wifi communication apparently. Unfortunately short wave lengths are absorbed more easily than longer wave lengths as the current radio/microwave solutions. That is the main physical limitations to overcome

[–] Hedup@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

That is the main physical limitations to overcome

Yeah, they just need to do more research and in few years we'll break the laws of physics.

[–] ablackcatstail@lemmy.goblackcat.com 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not only that, the longer wave frequencies also have a much narrower bandwidth meaning they cannot carry as much data. In order to improve communications over longer wave lengths, better compression algorithms have to be developed in order for more data to be carried.

[–] Zeth0s@reddthat.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

This is exactly the issue, shorter wave lengths can carry more data, but they are blocked by literally everything between the source and the antenna... Longer wave lengths carry less information, but at least they are more reliable and can pass through many obstacles. It's a compromised at the end

[–] Neato@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago

There is potential here, despite the early Wi-Fi-via-flashlight awkwardness. While you can't turn a LiFi point entirely off, the signal has integrity at 10 percent room illumination (60 lux), and LiFiCo's FAQ suggests future use of the invisible parts of the light spectrum.

Why didn't they start with IR? IR natural sources? Because artificial sources are your TV remove and security cameras.

So the bulb works at low illuminations but what about light interferences? If you have other light sources, windows?

[–] 6mementomori@lemmy.world -4 points 1 year ago

but... the radio waves used in wifi are... already the same phenomenon as light

load more comments
view more: next ›