Measuring "the web" based on amount of bandwidth used is kind of a ridiculous metric. Time spent engaging (or some such metric) with a particular internet service might be more relevant.
Video uses a seriously disproportionate amount of bandwidth per use.
This is one of the things I love about HN. Someone makes a flippant comment and I get to learn something interesting cause someone else posts a response like it was a serious statement. I find myself correcting people's flippant comments often, or at least thinking about doing it, and most people just seem annoyed. I really enjoy learning something new even if it's tangential to the topic at hand.
Tangent interested should check out http://www.greenermedia.com/hec.html for more on HEC(human elephant conflict) and to read about their recent trip to Sri Lanka(second) to finish filming a documentary called Common Ground. Can't wait to see it! Elephants and rural farmers need all the help they can get.
Also: Sri Lanka Wildlife Conservation Society www.slwcs.org
I actually had to laugh when reading it the first time because it seemed such a neat spoof on the article in so few words. You could have used bacteria or insects just the same. Just goes to show that there are many well known facts that turn out to be not that well known after all.
Perhaps your original intent would have been more immediately obvious if you had chosen a different animal that's also almost extinct, but not synonomous in people's minds with large size more so than the fact of their near extinction? Or was that also part of the original intent?
I admit that the analogy is a bit leaky, but the point is that ants are nowhere near extinct, even though they may be much smaller than elephants. Where it breaks down is if you consider the number of ants vs elephants globally. I probably shouldn't have said "total" mass, just relative mass.
I didn't have as much luck finding a quick elephant biomass estimate. But giving a generous estimate of 1 million elephants, and the upper limit of the weigh of the larger African elephant at 26,000 pounds we can guess that elephant biomass is less than 26 billion pounds. Considering that's less than the biomass of humans in the US, I'd say ants probably actually do compare well to elephants in proportion of total biomass.
I apologize for any pedantry, but it was actually a question that piqued my curiosity.
A graph on relative usage was used to prove something absolute...and you offering a graph on relative mass to prove relative mass...so almost but not quite. I didn't see anyone dispute the accuracy of the graph. People balked at the notion that the graph is proof that the web is dead.
If you define the Web instead as "stuff that happens in web browsers" then... you come to the same conclusion. What definition of the Web would not include all this video traffic?
I could see someone being interested in subsets, but yeah, they don't have a definition here. One that might be interesting is: what amount of time do people spend reading mainly textual documents online? That'd correspond somewhat to a classical view of the web as hypertext (you know, a "web" of interlinked documents).
That would, though, have to exclude not only watching videos, but also paying your credit-card bill on a bank's website, and other such web-as-thin-client rather than web-as-documents uses. Forums like this also occupy a weird place, since they're somewhat more like web-as-listserv/usenet-replacement than web-as-documents.
But, I'm not sure the end result would actually show a decline anyway. Wikipedia and blogs, for example, are more or less hypertext documents in the old sense of the term, just with some new conventions for organizing and editing them. Wikipedia alone probably rivals (exceeds?) the entire mid-1990s internet in size and readership.
Exactly. If I watched HD video on my iPhone, I would destroy my 2GB cap very quickly. But I can use the web and play QRANK and such constantly for a month and barely put a dent in it.
Video uses a seriously disproportionate amount of bandwidth per use.