Keyboard latency

Post by thecrazyone » Wed, Oct 18, 2017, 8:19 PM UTC

pdkl95 wrote: post #92

colanderman wrote: post #9

I'm surprised the "humans don't notice 100 ms" argument is even made. That's trivially debunkable with a simple blind A/B test at the command line using `sleep 0.1` with and without `sleep` aliased to `true`. To my eyes, the delay is obvious at 100 ms, noticeable at 50 ms, barely perceptible at 20 ms, and unnoticeable at 10 ms. Not to mention that 100 ms is musically a 16th note at 150 bpm. Being off by a 16th note e…

> strike a key less than 100 ms after some visual stimuli, I'm sure I couldn't do it The video game "Super Hexagon"[1] is a surprisingly interesting demonstration of this limitation, and how the mind tries to workaround the problem. The higher difficulties ("hexagonest"[2]) seem impossible at first. In the easier levels you can react , but now the time it takes to see the scree, parse the simple graphics, recognize t…

Post by snvzz » Thu, Oct 19, 2017, 7:25 PM UTC

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #272

snvzz wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be horrified, then. https://redislabs.com/blog/testing-fork-time-on-awsxen-infra... https://www.cs.indiana.edu/~adkulkar/papers/pspawn.pdf

Both of those appear to indicate that forking is expensive when you need to copy unusually large amounts of memory (which makes sense). In this context, I would expect reasonable/small memory use and so fast forking.