逻辑谬误
I remember reading articles about how 3G connectivity was going to transform performance and, more generally, the way we used the internet altogether.
我记得读过有关3G连接将如何改变性能的文章，更笼统地说，是我们完全使用互联网的方式。
I remember how, later on, a common question I would get in after giving performance-focused presentations was: “Is any of this going to matter when 4G is available?”
我记得以后在进行以性能为重点的演示后会遇到的一个常见问题是：“当4G可用时，这有什么关系吗？”
The fallacy of networks, or new devices for that matter, fixing our performance woes is old and repetitive.
网络或与此相关的新设备的谬论，解决了我们的性能问题，是古老而又重复的。
To be fair, each new generation of network connectivity does bring some level of change and transformation to how we interact with the internet. But it does so slowly, unevenly, and in ways that maybe aren’t what we originally envisioned.
公平地说，新一代的网络连接确实为我们与互联网的交互方式带来了一定程度的变化和转变。 但是它的运行速度如此缓慢，不均匀，并且可能不是我们最初设想的。
It takes time, money and significant other resources to roll out support for a new network. We’re not talking months in most places, but years. Inevitably that means it’s going to hit some of the big market areas first and slowly trickle down to everyone else. I don’t even get to pretend that I’m in a particularly remote area and yet even here, it’s only in the past few months that I’ve been able to connect to a reliable 4G network.
部署对新网络的支持需要花费时间，金钱和大量其他资源。 在大多数地方，我们谈论的不是几个月，而是几年。 不可避免地，这意味着它将首先打入一些大市场领域，然后慢慢滴灌到其他所有人。 我什至不假装自己在特别偏远的地区，但即使在这里，也只有过去的几个月，我才能够连接到可靠的4G网络。
Even if it is 4G (5G, or whatever else) that doesn’t exactly guarantee you’ll be getting the amazing, theoretical speeds promised. For one, carriers like to throw around new networks as marketing, and (shockingly) they’re not always 100% honest about it.
即使是4G(5G或其他)，也不能完全保证您将获得惊人的理论速度。 首先，运营商喜欢把新的网络作为营销手段，(令人震惊地)他们并不总是对此感到百分百诚实。
AT&T’s “5G E” is a great example. While they technically do state in the description of the technology that it’s not 5G, they still call it 5G E and display it as such on your phone if you connect to it. Embarrassingly, if you use a “5G E-capable” phone on other providers, who aren’t pretending to have shipped anything related to 5G yet, those other providers 4G networks outperform AT&T’s 5G E according to Open Signal.
AT＆T的“ 5G E”就是一个很好的例子。 尽管他们在技术说明中确实声明不是5G，但他们仍将其称为5G E，并且如果您连接到手机，则会在手机上显示为5GE。 令人尴尬的是，如果您在其他供应商上使用“具有5G E功能”的电话，而这些供应商还没有假装与5G相关的任何东西，那么根据Open Signal ，这些其他提供商4G网络的性能将超过AT＆T的5GE。
This is nothing new. There was all sorts of similar controversy when the first carriers started rolling out supposed 4G networks.
这不是什么新鲜事。 当第一批运营商开始推出所谓的4G网络时，存在各种各样的类似争议。
Once a new network does get rolled out, it takes years for carriers to optimize it to try and close in on the promised bandwidth and latency benchmarks.
一旦一个新的网络也得到铺开，需要多年的运营商来优化它，试图接近上所承诺的带宽和延迟基准。
We’re still nowhere close for 4G. In theory, the maximum downlink speed is 100 Mbps. Compare that, for example, to recent data from Open Signal about actual speeds observed in India. The fastest 4G network clocks in around 10 Mbps, and the slowest around 6.3 Mbps.
4G仍遥遥无期。 理论上，最大下行链路速度为100 Mbps。 例如，将其与来自Open Signal的有关印度实际速度的最新数据进行比较。 最快的4G网络时钟约为10 Mbps，而最慢的时钟约为6.3 Mbps。
And those speeds aren’t constant. A few months earlier, Open Signal reported on the variance of 4G network performance in Indian cities based on the time of day and found that 4G download speeds can be 4.5 times slower during the day than at night.
而且这些速度不是恒定的。 几个月前，Open Signal根据一天中的时间报告了印度城市4G网络性能的变化，发现白天4G下载速度可能比夜间慢4.5倍 。
In other words, new network technologies sound amazing in theory—and certainly do provide substantial benefits—but not for everyone and not at the same pace.
换句话说，新的网络技术在理论上听起来令人惊叹-并且确实确实提供了巨大的好处-但并非对所有人都一样，而且步调不一。
All of this makes me more than a little leery when I read articles like the one the New York Times posted about how they plan on experimenting to see how they can use 5G to push storytelling online further.
当我阅读《纽约时报》上发布的有关他们如何计划进行实验以了解如何使用5G进一步推动讲故事的文章时，所有这些使我感到不安。
Over the past year The Times has honed its ability to tell immersive stories, allowing readers to experience Times journalism in new ways. As 5G devices become more widely adopted, we’ll be able to deliver those experiences in much higher quality — allowing readers to not only view more detailed, lifelike versions of David Bowie’s classic costumes in augmented reality, but also to explore new environments that are captured in 3D.
在过去的一年中，《泰晤士报》提高了其沉浸式故事讲述的能力，使读者能够以新的方式体验《泰晤士报》的新闻报道。 随着5G设备的广泛采用，我们将能够以更高的质量提供这些体验-允许读者不仅可以在增强现实中查看更详细，逼真的David Bowie经典服装版本，而且还可以探索新的环境。以3D捕捉。
I’m excited about what this could mean for their readers.
我很高兴这对他们的读者意味着什么。
I’m also terrified of what this could mean for their readers.
我对这对他们的读者意味着什么也感到恐惧。
There’s already a massive, and rapidly growing, divide between the “have’s” the “have not’s” online—I worry about us doing things that will only widen that gap.
在线“拥有”与“没有”之间已经存在着巨大且Swift增长的鸿沟，我担心我们做的事情只会扩大差距。
Experimentation is great. Moving the web forward has always involved a healthy level of friction between those seeking to push its boundaries and those looking for ways to improve its stability and resilience. There’s a bit of yin and yang involved here for sure.
实验很棒。 不断向前发展的网络总是在寻求突破界限的人们与寻求改善其稳定性和弹性的方法之间保持着健康的摩擦。 当然这里涉及阴和阳。
What worries me is how often that experimentation ends up hurting users. It’s one thing to experiment and test limits, it’s another thing to push those experiments onto people who can’t afford, or don’t have access to, the technology required to use them.
让我担心的是，这种试验最终会伤害用户的频率。 实验和测试极限是一回事，将这些实验推向那些负担不起或无法使用它们的技术的人。
I share Jeremy’s concern:
我同意杰里米的关注 ：
One disturbing constant in web development is that as network connections and devices improve in speed and quality, we will inevitably eat those gains by shipping more crap in our apps people never asked for.
Web开发中一个令人不安的常数是，随着网络连接和设备速度和质量的提高，我们将不可避免地通过在人们从未要求的应用程序中添加更多垃圾来吞噬这些收益。
It echoes one of my favorite quotes from Jeff Veen’s episode of Path to Performance.
它与Jeff Veen的一集《 Path to Performance》中我最喜欢的一句话相呼应。
..as bandwidth grows, and as processing power grows, and as browsers get better we just keep filling everything up. We often lose track of the discipline of now that bandwidth is faster let’s work on making our sites load faster rather than now we can do more with that available bandwidth.
..随着带宽的增加，处理能力的增加以及浏览器的不断完善，我们将不断地填充所有内容。 现在，我们经常会忘记带宽更快的规律，让我们努力使站点加载更快，而不是现在我们可以利用可用带宽做更多的事情。
There’s a scientific name for this: Jevons paradox. Personally, I favor the more approachable—and humorous—Andy and Bill’s Law.
有一个科学名称： 杰文斯悖论 。 我个人更喜欢安迪和比尔定律更平易近人和幽默。
In either case, the meaning is the same: as the efficiency of a resource increases, so does our consumption of that resource. It’s why Uber and Lyft have increased traffic congestion, not reduced it, and it’s why, even with the massive improvements to CPU and network performance over the last few decades, performance is still a business critical issue needing to be addressed.
无论哪种情况，含义都是相同的：随着资源效率的提高，我们对该资源的消耗也随之增加。 这就是为什么Uber和Lyft会增加而不是减少流量拥堵的原因，也是为什么即使在过去的几十年中CPU和网络性能得到了巨大的改善，性能仍然是需要解决的业务关键问题。
I’m always happy when we see network technology take a leap forward because I do know that, eventually, billions of people stand to benefit from it. But even as I drool over theoretical promises of those new technologies, I think it’s important to remember that those technologies won’t solve our issues for us. It takes a lot of time, and we still have to do the work ourselves.
当我们看到网络技术取得飞跃时，我总是很高兴，因为我确实知道，最终有数十亿人将从中受益。 但是，即使我对这些新技术的理论承诺dr之以鼻，但我仍然必须记住，这些技术不会为我们解决我们的问题，这一点很重要。 这需要很多时间，我们仍然需要自己做这项工作。
Whether we choose, as Jeff Veen said, to focus on how we can use those new technologies to provide a more performant experience or to focus on how we can use them to provide more stuff plays a massive role in determining just how effective those new technologies are ultimately going to be.
正如Jeff Veen所说，我们是否选择专注于如何使用这些新技术来提供更出色的体验，还是专注于我们如何使用它们来提供更多东西，在决定这些新技术的有效性方面起着举足轻重的作用。最终将成为。
翻译自: https://timkadlec.com/remembers/2019-04-18-new-network-fallacies/
逻辑谬误