My best guess is they somehow mixed up minutes and seconds? Usually people mix up bits and bytes the other way and overestimate speeds.

I copy photos and videos off my phone all the time; it’s far more convenient than trying to send it over the internet. But even the “slow” speed of 480Mbps that they’re complaining about seems more than adequate; copying a few gigs of photos will only take a minute or two, and even copying my phone’s entire 128GB of storage would only take 35 minutes. Compared to most USB storage devices that’s blazingly fast.

Only Pro models support reasonable speeds for USB-C, up to 10Gbps. Regular iPhones are capped at USB 2.0 rates, up to 480Mbps, which is no faster than Lightning. With an iPhone 16 Pro, a 1GB file transfer can take 8 seconds – with a vanilla iPhone 16, you’re going to be waiting over 16 minutes.

…What? At 10Gbps a 1GB transfer takes under a second, while at 480Mbps it would take about 17 sec. Was this article written by AI or did the author just not care to actually do the math?

Yes. Yes, they are.

I imagine they’re just using some generic web scraper for everything, and not taking any time at all to see if the sites they’re scraping have an easier way to access the data.

I think I’m a bit spoiled with my 144 Hz monitor; anything below maybe 120 FPS starts to bug me. Thankfully my PC is pretty powerful and I don’t really play graphics-heavy games (mostly just Minecraft) so my framerate is usually quite stable.

That’s not entirely correct, they did use a fiber optic cable to transfer the data, as the more detailed article linked in another comment states. Quantum entanglement itself can’t be used to transfer data; you still need to send the entangled particles through some physical means.

From what I understand, the significance is that you can transfer the states around while keeping them in a superposition. Thus you can continue to perform computations with them even after moving them to a physically separate quantum computer.