The primary purpose of TTL is to prevent packets from looping endlessly during routing. If a packet gets stuck in a loop, its TTL will eventually reach zero, and then it will be dropped.
That doesn't answer my question. If it counted up then it would be up to each hop to set its own policy. Things wouldn't loop endlessly in that scenario either.
Then random internet routers could break internet traffic by setting it really low and the user could not do a thing about it. They technically still can by discarding all traffic whose value is less than some value, but they don’t. The idea that they should set their own policy could fundamentally break network traffic flows if it ever became practiced.
This is a wild guess but: I am under the impression that the early internet was built somewhat naively so I guess that the sender sets it because they know best how long it stays relevant for/when it makes sense to restart or fail rather than wait.
It does make traceroute, where each packet is fired with one more available step than the last, feasible, whereas 'up' wouldn't. Of course, then we'd just start with max-hops and walk the number down I suppose. I still expect it would be inconvenient during debugging for various devices to have various ceilings.
Imagine if avatar Gavin Belson had done the "metaverse legs" product reveal, with the animation running at 10 frames/second and a few legless avatars in the audience throwing up confetti. It would be almost too ridiculous to put in the show because the show itself would look like it was being cheap with the effects. But Meta had spent $36 billion on the metaverse at this point.
>I'd love Claude or any of the major AI chat interfaces to have a 'forking' capability so I can go back to a certain point in time in the chat and fork off a new rabbit hole of context.
ChatGPT has this feature: forking occurs by editing an old message. It will retain the entire history, which can still be navigated and interacted with. The UX isn’t perfect, but it gets the job done.
Your perspective isn't unusual; it's a valid approach to engagement with hobbies and interests.
I play a lot of Counter-Strike, but I also find lots of value in watching professional players compete. Observing pros can be incredibly insightful: it showcases the pinnacle of skill and strategy within the game (literally the same game I play), serving as both inspiration and a learning opportunity. It's fascinating to see how far one can excel in a game, providing ideas and setting benchmarks for what's possible.
This blend of "active participation" and "passive spectating" offers new angles to better appreciate and understand the game. It's not just about watching (which I find pretty entertaining on its own); it's about learning and pushing the boundaries of my capabilities by observing the best in the field.
