[shric]

> No two devices on the internet are directly connected.

I get the need for brevity and simplicity in a post like this, but is there really a need for obviously false statements?

[xapata]

You can't get there from here.

[thehappypm]

What’s a counter example?

[shric]

My router and my desktop is one of several billion counterexamples.

[thehappypm]

Your route and desktop are not an example of an internet connection. That's an intranet connection. I think that's what they mean -- for two devices to be connected on the internet there's always (at least) routers in between.

[shric]

I can infer what they mean, it doesn't make it a correct statement. Maybe I'm being pedantic, but routers are devices too, and I have computers with multiple NICs that act as routers as well as servers. Intranet vs internet is an arbitrary distinction. If a "device" has an IP address that's reachable from "the internet" then it's on the internet, regardless.

[thehappypm]

The article's point is that to get information from Device A to Device B across the internet is never a straight link from Device A to Device B, there are always middlemen whose purpose it is just to forward the data along. There's always something between the end nodes.

[shric]

Yes, and that's simply and demonstrably false. There are not always middlemen, as I have already explained.