Has this author never heard of error correcting codes? The whole point of them is to assume there's lossiness and add bytes to allow correction (or at least detection) of tampered or missing bytes. That's why TCP (or maybe it's Ethernet?) frames include FEC bytes in their message format.
Additionally, I'm sure they're aware that HTTP over TLS has encrypted data frames, which would be unreceivable in a lot of cases if these situations arose a bunch. And considering how much of the modern Internet is built on this paradigm, I think that many of these points are rare and probably extremely pedantic.
This is coming from someone who agrees with much of the nuance implied (but not explained!) by the post.
All great technical writing (which I assume these clickbait articles are at least attempting to be) is written with mutual discovery and deeper understanding in mind, and if you leave no actual explanation in the post, you can't really achieve either of those.
> That's why TCP (or maybe it's Ethernet?) frames include FEC bytes in their message format.
Neither TCP nor Ethernet provide for forward error correction. Ethernet frames include a 32-bit CRC while TCP segments use the so called "internet checksum".
IEEE 802.3, the ethernet working group, defines FEC for many media types. While Ethernet frames do not themselves contain forward error correction, in many cases they are encoded with FEC before they hit the line. This is required by spec for most long low speed and all high speed links. You couldn’t get any frames through without it.
What part of the article do you think pertains to error correction codes or data checksumming? The first four points are true even if the transmission medium never changes bytes, just becomes unavailable at a given point.
Additionally, I'm sure they're aware that HTTP over TLS has encrypted data frames, which would be unreceivable in a lot of cases if these situations arose a bunch. And considering how much of the modern Internet is built on this paradigm, I think that many of these points are rare and probably extremely pedantic.
This is coming from someone who agrees with much of the nuance implied (but not explained!) by the post.
All great technical writing (which I assume these clickbait articles are at least attempting to be) is written with mutual discovery and deeper understanding in mind, and if you leave no actual explanation in the post, you can't really achieve either of those.