<a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/110271-netflix-doubles-down-tv-gaming-social-play-bid.html" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.techspot.com/images2/news/ts3_thumbs/2025/11/2025-11-15-ts3_thumbs-aa8.jpg" width="800" height="560" style="padding: 15px 0" title="Netflix doubles down on TV gaming and social play in a bid to keep subscribers" /></a> Netflix changed how we watch content and now they are making an equally ambitious bid to change how people play. This week, the streaming platform unveiled its most significant leap yet into gaming: a library of interactive titles that can be played directly on TVs using phones as the controllers.... <a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/110271-netflix-doubles-down-tv-gaming-social-play-bid.html">Read Entire Article</a>

تقوم نتفليكس بخطوة كبيرة في مجال الألعاب من خلال إطلاق مكتبة من العناوين التفاعلية التي يمكن لعبها على أجهزة التلفاز باستخدام الهواتف الذكية كأجهزة تحكم. تهدف هذه المبادرة إلى تعزيز تفاعل المستخدمين والاحتفاظ بالمشتركين من خلال تحويل تجربة اللعب، مما يعكس التطور المستمر للشركة في تقديم المحتوى.

Netflix está realizando un movimiento significativo en el ámbito de los videojuegos al lanzar una biblioteca de títulos interactivos que se pueden jugar en televisores utilizando teléfonos inteligentes como controladores. Esta iniciativa tiene como objetivo mejorar el compromiso del usuario y retener suscriptores al transformar la experiencia de juego, reflejando la evolución continua de la empresa en la entrega de contenido.

Netflix fait un pas significatif dans le domaine du jeu en lançant une bibliothèque de titres interactifs jouables sur des téléviseurs, utilisant des smartphones comme contrôleurs. Cette initiative vise à améliorer l'engagement des utilisateurs et à fidéliser les abonnés en transformant l'expérience de jeu, reflétant l'évolution continue de l'entreprise dans la diffusion de contenu.

Netflix is making a significant move into gaming by launching a library of interactive titles that can be played on TVs using smartphones as controllers. This initiative aims to enhance user engagement and retain subscribers by transforming the gaming experience, reflecting the company's ongoing evolution in content delivery.

Netflix doubles down on TV gaming and social play in a bid to keep subscribers

The service is customized for teachers' needs and includes added security and privacy, a collaborative workspace, and more.

OpenAI expands free educational offerings - here's what ChatGPT for Teachers can do

GPT-5.1-Codex-Max is ready to take on your next massive coding job. Here's what's new.

OpenAI's Codex Max solves one of my biggest AI coding annoyances - and adds dramatically faster performance

The agent offers one-click buying for all your holiday needs and will be free for all US-based users.

Perplexity's AI shopping tool is free for all now, just in time for Black Friday - how to use it

If aesthetics and efficiency top your list of needs, there are several Linux distributions that are right up your alley. Both Ubuntu Budgie and Pop!_OS should top that list.

Ubuntu Budgie vs. Pop!_OS: I've used both Linux distros - here's how to choose

The Nomad Stratos Band might just be my favorite Apple Watch band ever. Here's what makes it special.

My search for the ultimate Apple Watch band is over: This one checks all the boxes for me

With blazing performance and liquid cooling, Redmagic's 11 Pro boasts the best mobile gaming I've experienced.

I'm a diehard Pixel user, but this liquid-cooled Android phone has my attention

<h3>
 
 
 Speedtest.net vs Fast.com in real life
</h3>

Your speed test says 400 Mbps. 
YouTube still buffers. 
Nothing feels more cursed than that.

That happened on my home fiber line. 
<code>Speedtest.net</code> proudly showed more than 418 Mbps down, but YouTube sessions still dropped quality or paused to buffer. 
The numbers looked great, the experience did not.

The trick is simple: speed tests often measure the best case, while streaming exposes the real case.


<h2>
 
 
 Two tests, two different truths
</h2>

<code>Speedtest.net</code> is built to show what your connection can do when everything is aligned in its favor. 
It talks to dedicated, well peered servers and opens several parallel TCP connections to push your link as hard as possible. 
The result is a nice high number that represents peak capacity, not necessarily what you get for every service.

<code>Fast.com</code>, from Netflix, is much closer to what your streaming apps feel. 
It talks to real CDN infrastructure, pulls real data over a sustained period and focuses on how fast you can actually move video like traffic. 
That is why <code>Fast.com</code> often shows a lower number that still explains your YouTube or Netflix experience much better than a single big result from <code>Speedtest.net</code>.

If <code>Speedtest.net</code> is your max horsepower on a dyno, <code>Fast.com</code> is how fast the car actually accelerates on the road.


<h2>
 
 
 Protocols: TCP vs QUIC in one glance
</h2>

Most classic speed tests use TCP. 
TCP is reliable, ordered and conservative, and it slowly ramps up how much data it sends until it figures out what the network can handle. 
To compensate for that slow start, speed tests usually use several parallel TCP streams to reach your real peak quickly.

Modern streaming platforms lean heavily on QUIC over UDP, also known as HTTP3. 
QUIC runs on UDP, adds encryption and reliability, and handles packet loss more gracefully without blocking every stream when one packet goes missing. 
ISPs do not always treat TCP and UDP traffic the same way, so your speed test path and your video path can be very different, even on the same line.

You can think of TCP as a careful truck convoy and QUIC as a lot of smaller, nimble cars using partly different roads.


<h2>
 
 
 My real world results
</h2>

Here is what my line looked like on paper.

Local <code>Speedtest.net</code> server in Baku, PASHA Technology: 
<code>Download: 418.14 Mbps</code> 
<code>Upload: 435.85 Mbps</code> 
<code>Ping: 6 ms</code> 
<code>Loaded latency (down): 60 ms</code> 
<code>Loaded latency (up): 89 ms</code>

<a href="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2F8cmjr35gveucclq1k8x4.png" class="article-body-image-wrapper"><img src="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2F8cmjr35gveucclq1k8x4.png" alt="Speedtest.net local" width="800" height="475"></a>

<code>Speedtest.net</code> server in Helsinki, GSL Networks: 
<code>Download: 390.72 Mbps</code> 
<code>Upload: 326.58 Mbps</code> 
<code>Ping: 110 ms</code>

<a href="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2Fwr4fcwx0f38nicjo6575.png" class="article-body-image-wrapper"><img src="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2Fwr4fcwx0f38nicjo6575.png" alt="Speedtest.net international" width="800" height="429"></a>

Numbers say your connection is a monster. 

But when I ran <code>Fast.com</code>, the picture changed. 
<code>Fast.com</code> consistently reported noticeably lower speeds that felt much closer to what I saw when YouTube dropped quality or paused.

<a href="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2F7sgww3h72gsa5no7ma2r.png" class="article-body-image-wrapper"><img src="https://media2.dev.to/dynamic/image/width=800%2Cheight=%2Cfit=scale-down%2Cgravity=auto%2Cformat=auto/https%3A%2F%2Fdev-to-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Farticles%2F7sgww3h72gsa5no7ma2r.png" alt="Fast.com screenshot" width="800" height="740"></a>

<code>Speedtest.net</code> showed the theoretical maximum. 
<code>Fast.com</code> revealed the practical streaming ceiling.

I also ran a quick traceroute to <code>youtube.com</code> to see how the packets travel. 


<div class="highlight js-code-highlight">
<pre class="highlight shell"><code>traceroute youtube.com
</code></pre>

</div>



The path goes through my home router, across my ISP’s core, then out via a Moscow internet exchange onto Google’s backbone, and finally lands on a YouTube edge in about 60–70 ms. That hop pattern is clean and the latency is low and stable, so routing itself looks fine; the real problem is not “ping” but how much throughput I get for streaming traffic compared to what classic speed tests report.




<h2>
 
 
 Why the gap happens
</h2>

There are three usual suspects.

First, peering and routing. 
My ISP clearly has a very clean, well provisioned path to the <code>Speedtest.net</code> servers it picks for me. 
The path to the Netflix and YouTube CDNs is different, sometimes longer and sometimes more congested.

Second, traffic treatment. 
Generic TCP test traffic looks harmless and small in volume compared to the hours of video people stream every evening. 
During busy times, it is easy for an ISP to give streaming traffic lower priority than other things without completely breaking it.

Third, protocol differences. 
If the network handles UDP and QUIC slightly worse than TCP, you feel that specifically in streaming, games and real time apps. 
On a graph, the TCP path still looks beautiful, while the QUIC path quietly suffers.




<h2>
 
 
 How to check your own line quickly
</h2>

You can reproduce this pattern in a few minutes.

Do one <code>Speedtest.net</code> run to a nearby server. 
Note download, upload and ping and glance at the loaded latency while the test is running. 
That gives you your lab result.

Then open <code>Fast.com</code> and run it a couple of times, especially during the hour when you actually watch YouTube or Netflix. 
If <code>Fast.com</code> is in the same ballpark, your streaming path is probably healthy. 
If it is half or less of the Speedtest number, especially in the evening, you are likely seeing congestion, weak peering or some form of video deprioritization.




<h2>
 
 
 Small tweaks that actually help
</h2>

If you control your router, give priority to traffic that hates latency. 
Real time calls first, then streaming, then normal browsing, then heavy downloads and torrents. 
Smart queue management will not magically increase your Mbps, but it can stop a single download from wrecking a family movie night.

Another quick experiment is to compare <code>Fast.com</code> with and without a VPN. 
If speeds suddenly jump when you tunnel out through a decent nearby VPN, it is a strong hint that your provider is treating some destinations or protocols less kindly than others.

In that case you can either live with it, complain with data in hand or lean on the VPN for the services that suffer most.




<h2>
 
 
 The real meaning of “418 Mbps”
</h2>

That 418 Mbps Speedtest result on my connection is not a lie. 
It is just telling a very specific story: how fast my line can go to a friendly server over TCP under ideal conditions.

YouTube buffering and lower <code>Fast.com</code> numbers tell the rest of the story: 
how my ISP peers with big CDNs, 
how QUIC over UDP is routed, 
how streaming traffic is handled when the network is busy.

So the takeaway is simple. 
Use more than one test. 
Treat big <code>Speedtest.net</code> numbers as best case, not a guarantee. 
For streaming, the less glamorous <code>Fast.com</code> style results are often closer to what your eyes and ears actually feel.

يمكن أن تكون اختبارات سرعة الإنترنت مضللة، كما يتضح من تجربة شخصية حيث أبلغ Speedtest.net عن سرعة تنزيل تزيد عن 418 ميجابت في الثانية، ومع ذلك كانت يوتيوب لا تزال تعاني من مشاكل في التخزين المؤقت. تنشأ هذه الفجوة لأن Speedtest.net يقيس السعة القصوى في ظروف مثالية، بينما تعكس خدمات مثل يوتيوب الأداء في العالم الحقيقي. من ناحية أخرى، تم تصميم Fast.com لتقييم الأداء الفعلي للبث على مدى فترات طويلة، مما يوفر تمثيلاً أكثر دقة لتجربة المستخدم. لذلك، على الرغم من أن اختبارات السرعة قد تظهر أرقامًا مثيرة للإعجاب، إلا أنها لا تتوافق دائمًا مع جودة خدمات البث.

Las pruebas de velocidad de Internet pueden ser engañosas, como se demostró en una experiencia personal donde Speedtest.net reportó una velocidad de descarga de más de 418 Mbps, pero YouTube aún experimentó problemas de almacenamiento en búfer. Esta discrepancia surge porque Speedtest.net mide la capacidad máxima en condiciones óptimas, mientras que servicios como YouTube reflejan el rendimiento en el mundo real. Fast.com, por otro lado, está diseñado para evaluar el rendimiento real de streaming durante períodos sostenidos, proporcionando una representación más precisa de la experiencia del usuario. Por lo tanto, aunque las pruebas de velocidad pueden mostrar números impresionantes, no siempre se correlacionan con la calidad de los servicios de streaming.

Les tests de vitesse Internet peuvent souvent être trompeurs, comme le montre une expérience personnelle où Speedtest.net a signalé une vitesse de téléchargement de plus de 418 Mbps, alors que YouTube rencontrait toujours des problèmes de mise en mémoire tampon. Cette divergence provient du fait que Speedtest.net mesure la capacité maximale dans des conditions optimales, tandis que des services comme YouTube reflètent la performance dans le monde réel. Fast.com, en revanche, est conçu pour évaluer la performance de streaming réelle sur des périodes prolongées, offrant une représentation plus précise de l'expérience utilisateur. Ainsi, bien que les tests de vitesse puissent afficher des chiffres impressionnants, ils ne correspondent pas toujours à la qualité des services de streaming.

Internet speed tests can often be misleading, as demonstrated by a personal experience where Speedtest.net reported a download speed of over 418 Mbps, yet YouTube still experienced buffering issues. This discrepancy arises because Speedtest.net measures peak capacity under optimal conditions, while services like YouTube reflect real-world performance. Fast.com, on the other hand, is designed to assess actual streaming performance over sustained periods, providing a more accurate representation of user experience. Therefore, while speed tests may show impressive numbers, they do not always correlate with the quality of streaming services.

Why Your Internet Speed Test Lies

<a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/110310-boomers-gen-x-millennials-pick-better-passwords-than.html" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.techspot.com/images2/news/ts3_thumbs/2025/11/2025-11-19-ts3_thumbs-efd.jpg" width="800" height="560" style="padding: 15px 0" title="Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials pick better passwords than Gen Z &ndash; but they're all still bad" /></a> The latest common password list comes from NordPass – its seventh edition of the annual report. The company decided to do something a little different this year by including the most popular passwords among multiple generations. <a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/110310-boomers-gen-x-millennials-pick-better-passwords-than.html">Read Entire Article</a>

يكشف التقرير السنوي الأخير من NordPass أن جيل الطفرة، وجيل X، وجيل الألفية يختارون كلمات مرور أفضل مقارنةً بجيل Z، على الرغم من أن جميع الأجيال لا تزال تختار كلمات مرور ضعيفة. تسلط هذه النسخة السابعة من التقرير الضوء على الفروق بين الأجيال في ممارسات أمان كلمات المرور.

El último informe anual de NordPass revela que los Boomers, la Generación X y los Millennials eligen mejores contraseñas en comparación con la Generación Z, aunque todas las generaciones aún seleccionan contraseñas débiles. Esta séptima edición del informe destaca las diferencias generacionales en las prácticas de seguridad de contraseñas.

Le dernier rapport annuel de NordPass révèle que les Boomers, la Génération X et les Millennials choisissent de meilleurs mots de passe par rapport à la Génération Z, bien que toutes les générations sélectionnent encore des mots de passe faibles. Cette septième édition du rapport met en lumière les différences générationnelles en matière de pratiques de sécurité des mots de passe.

The latest annual report from NordPass reveals that Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials choose better passwords compared to Gen Z, although all generations still select weak passwords. This seventh edition of the report highlights generational differences in password security practices.

Boomers, Gen X, and Millennials pick better passwords than Gen Z &ndash; but they're all still bad

<a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/110296-chip-could-transform-quantum-computing-generating-rainbow-laser.html" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.techspot.com/images2/news/ts3_thumbs/2025/11/2025-11-19-ts3_thumbs-8d2.jpg" width="800" height="560" style="padding: 15px 0" title="This microscopic chip turns one beam of light into three &ndash; and it could reshape quantum computing" /></a> For decades, scientists have sought ways to compress the tools of optical science – lasers, lenses, mirrors – onto chips that fit on a fingertip. Such miniaturization is key to unlocking faster communication systems, ultra-precise atomic clocks, and scalable quantum computers that rely on light rather than electronic signals. But... <a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/110296-chip-could-transform-quantum-computing-generating-rainbow-laser.html">Read Entire Article</a>

طور العلماء شريحة مجهرية قادرة على تحويل شعاع ضوء واحد إلى ثلاثة أشعة متميزة. من المتوقع أن تعزز هذه الابتكارات بشكل كبير الحوسبة الكمومية من خلال تصغير المكونات البصرية الأساسية مثل الليزر والعدسات على شريحة، مما قد يؤدي إلى أنظمة اتصالات أسرع وأجهزة كمبيوتر كمومية أكثر كفاءة.

Científicos han desarrollado un chip microscópico capaz de transformar un solo haz de luz en tres haces distintos. Esta innovación está destinada a avanzar significativamente en la computación cuántica al miniaturizar componentes ópticos esenciales como láseres y lentes en un chip, lo que podría llevar a sistemas de comunicación más rápidos y computadoras cuánticas más eficientes.

Des scientifiques ont développé une puce microscopique capable de transformer un faisceau de lumière unique en trois faisceaux distincts. Cette innovation pourrait considérablement faire progresser l'informatique quantique en miniaturisant des composants optiques essentiels tels que les lasers et les lentilles sur une puce, ce qui pourrait conduire à des systèmes de communication plus rapides et à des ordinateurs quantiques plus efficaces.

Scientists have developed a microscopic chip capable of transforming a single beam of light into three distinct beams. This innovation is poised to significantly advance quantum computing by miniaturizing essential optical components like lasers and lenses onto a chip, potentially leading to faster communication systems and more efficient quantum computers.

This microscopic chip turns one beam of light into three &ndash; and it could reshape quantum computing

<a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/110311-nvidia-amd-could-kill-mid-range-budget-gpus.html" target="_blank"><img src="https://www.techspot.com/images2/news/ts3_thumbs/2025/11/2025-11-19-ts3_thumbs-c9a.jpg" width="800" height="560" style="padding: 15px 0" title="Nvidia and AMD could kill some low- to mid-range graphics cards as memory shortage crisis intensifies" /></a> According to the Korea Economic Daily (highlighted by Jukan on X), Nvidia and AMD are considering discontinuing their cheaper gaming GPUs where memory costs account for a large share of the bill of materials (BOM). <a href="https://www.techspot.com/news/110311-nvidia-amd-could-kill-mid-range-budget-gpus.html">Read Entire Article</a>

تدرس إنفيديا وAMD إيقاف إنتاج بعض بطاقات الرسوميات منخفضة ومتوسطة السعر بسبب الزيادة الكبيرة في تكاليف الذاكرة، التي تشكل جزءًا كبيرًا من تكلفة المواد. تأتي هذه الخطوة في ظل أزمة متزايدة في نقص الذاكرة تؤثر على سوق بطاقات الرسوميات للألعاب.

Nvidia y AMD están considerando discontinuar algunas de sus tarjetas gráficas de gama baja y media debido a un aumento significativo en los costos de memoria, que representan una gran parte del costo de los materiales. Esta decisión se produce en medio de una creciente crisis de escasez de memoria que está afectando al mercado de GPU para juegos.

Nvidia et AMD envisagent de cesser la production de certaines de leurs cartes graphiques d'entrée et de milieu de gamme en raison d'une augmentation significative des coûts de mémoire, qui représentent une grande partie du coût des matériaux. Cette décision intervient dans le contexte d'une crise croissante de pénurie de mémoire qui affecte le marché des GPU de jeu.

Nvidia and AMD are reportedly considering discontinuing some of their low- to mid-range graphics cards due to a significant increase in memory costs, which constitute a large portion of the bill of materials. This decision comes amid a growing memory shortage crisis that is affecting the gaming GPU market.

Netflix doubles down on TV gaming and social play in a bid to keep subscribers

Was this article worth reading? Share it