Guys, sorry you didn't like my jab at the NYT.

But basically Groxx was correct: The article is "FUD" and "non-comprehending journalism".

We can see what was seriously wrong with the article mostly just by looking at the article:

The title of the article was "Internet Architects Warn of Risks in Ultrafast Networks", but the article had (1) some biographical information on the "Internet architects" but (2) nothing significant about the "risks".

So, the article was what I wrote: (1) Grab attention by the formula fiction technique of claiming that there is a 'problem', i.e., the "risks", and (2) have some 'characters', i.e., Bechtolsheim and Cheriton, the readers are supposed to 'identify' with.

So, the article was not really about the risks, the Internet, or even Arista but about the two people. We're supposed to 'identify' with the people because they are wealthy and played significant roles in the early days of the commercial Internet.

So, the article is an attempt to manipulate the readers by being deceptive, by claiming to be about technology but really being just an effort to use formula fiction techniques to keep our attention.

Note: "Formula fiction"? Sure: You've seen examples thousands of times; the framework is simple, e.g., (1) introduce a character(s) the audience will 'identify' with, (2) have the character encounter a problem, (3) see the character solve the problem and get the girl.

Why does the audience 'identify' with the character? Because the audience gets a case of vicarious, escapist, fantasy, emotional experience entertainment, that is, gets to enjoy 'feeling' that they ARE the character they have identified with. Then the audience cares about the character much as they would themselves and, thus, continues to pay attention to see how the character handles the problem. Since the ancient Greeks, formula fiction

James N. Frey, 'How to Write a Damn Good Novel', ISBN 0-312-01044-3, Saint Martin's Press, New York, 1987.

(NOT a very advanced book!) has been a "sure-fire way to get and hold the attention of an audience" but, really, usually communicates next to nothing in useful information. In particular, when 'journalism' is just formula fiction it is just audience manipulation that promises information but gives only vicarious, fantasy entertainment.

So, in the case of this article, we are supposed to start reading because of the title with "Internet" and "risk", that is, technical topics, but keep reading because we 'identify' with the two people introduced, Bechtolsheim and Cheriton. That is, we are supposed to 'identify' with these two characters, that is, like to be like them. We are supposed to want to be like them because they are wealthy. Then, after we 'identify' with the characters, we want to find out more about them and how they address the "risk". So, so far the article is just a deceptive title and some simple formula fiction.

But the article does not finish the framework of formula fiction because it does not show how the characters solve the problem and at the end the characters do not get a girl.

Why avoid the solution to the problem? Because the solution is presumed to be too technical for the intended audience. In spite of the title, the article is NOT technical. A girl? There is none readily available in this story.

The shame is that the article is not about "risk" and the "Internet", is not about technology, and is about two 'celebrities' much as in a movie tabloid.

So, in particular, the article is nothing like 'professional journalism' and is, as Groxx described,, "FUD" and "non-comprehending journalism".

In being about people, in particular celebrities, instead of technology, things, or tools for solutions, the article is, drawing from the Toys R Us catalog I mentioned, more for girls 4-7 than boys 4-7. That is, the article is 'effeminate'.

Is such common for the NYT? My conclusion is that it is essentially standard for the NYT -- aim at mostly a female audience by using the techniques of formula fiction to manipulate the audience and to concentrate more on people, personalities and emotions than things, tools, or facts; yes, the NYT can understand what Toys R Us understood. So, really, except for rare cases, the NYT has nothing important to do with providing 'news', that is, informing its readers about important events in politics, the economy, etc. but is just a manipulation to get attention based on false promises.

The article's mention of 100 Gbps up to 1000 Gbps = 1 Tbps is now old news. The 1 Tbps is just for one wavelength on just one fiber where with 'dense wavelength division multiplexing' (DWDM) can put, typically, some dozens of such wavelengths on one fiber and some dozens of such fibers in one cable so that "ultrafast" is much faster than the NYT was explaining. In particular, the "ultrafast" the switch sees is heavily from the total data rate from all its inputs which might be a few connections at 100 Gbps or many more connections at the now common 10 Gbps. That is, the "ultrafast" is not just from the data rate on a single wavelength, not just from the possibility of a standard for 1 Tbps per wavelength.

For me, my startup, if successful, could use servers with 10-100-1000 Gbps NICs and a server farm LAN 'switching fabric' that could handle such data rates and also be reliable, maintainable, and scalable. I've looked at a high end Cisco LAN switch but would like to know more. So, I would have liked to have learned more about the "risk" and how Arista is addressing it. Alas, the article had no such content.

Again, the article is not journalism, is not about technology, and is not to inform the reader but is to manipulate the reader by being about 'celebrities' as in a movie tabloid, all standard for the NYT. The NYT doesn't know much about technology and doesn't care much about journalism but is a devoted, grand expert at manipulating readers with formula fiction about people.

If you didn't realize such things, then now you've learned.

Why did I post such jab at the NYT? Because I very much want them to pursue journalism to inform the public. Indeed, my conclusion is that by a wide margin the worst problem facing the US and the world is the news media that does not provide the information needed for informed citizens. So, we get, e.g., US Federal Government directed actions, especially via Fannie and Freddie, that blew the housing bubble that crashed, took the reserve capital of the banks, wiped out the banking system, put about 50% of the home mortgages 'under water', and gave us The Great Recession that no doubt has resulted in significant increases in rates of substance abuse, wife abuse, child abuse, infant mortality, stress and clinical depression, divorce, homelessness, untreated medical problems, and suicide and great losses of social and intellectual capital and production. I blame the news media, in particular, the NYT.