Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

blog.gitbutler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 248 posts

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#131

Post by physicles »

bmicraft wrote: post #127
physicles wrote: post #89

The root cause here is poorly named settings. If the original setting had been named something bool-y like `help.autocorrect_enabled`, then the request to accept an int (deciseconds) would've made no sense. Another setting `help.autocorrect_accept_after_dsec` would've been required. And `dsec` is so oddball that anyone who uses it would've had to look up. I insist on this all the time in code reviews. Variables must…

> Variables must have units in their names if there's any ambiguity Then you end up with something where you can write "TimoutSec=60" as well as "TimeoutSec=1min" in the case of systemd :) I'd argue they'd been better of not putting the unit there. But yes, aside from that particular weirdness I fully agree.

> Then you end up with something where you can write "TimoutSec=60" as well as "TimeoutSec=1min" in the case of systemd :)

But that's wrong too! If TimeoutSec is an integer, then don't accept "1min". If it's some sort of duration type, then don't call it TimeoutSec -- call it Timeout, and don't accept the value "60".

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#132

Post by Aerroon »

orangepanda wrote: post #49
theginger wrote: post #39

Reaction times differ by types of stimulus, auditory is slightly faster than visual and tactile slightly faster than that at 90 - 180 ms So if git gave you a slap instead of an error message you might just about have time to react.

The slapping device would need to build inertia for you to feel the slap. Is 10ms enough for that?

This is why any reasonable engineer would go with zaps instead of slaps!

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#133

Post by Aerroon »

otherme123 wrote: post #63
kittikitti wrote: post #8

I sometimes have this realization as I'm pressing enter and reflexively press ctrl+c. As someone whose typing speeds range from 100 to 160 WPM, this makes sense. Pressing keys is much different from Formula One pit stops.

Not about pit stops. They talk about pro drivers with highly trained reflexes, looking at a red light knowing that it will turn green in the next 3 seconds, so they must push a pedal to the metal as fast as they can. If they react in less than 120ms is considered a jump start. As for 100WPM, which is a very respectable typing speed, it translates to 500 CPM, less than 10 characters per second, and thus slightly above…

>But Ctrl+C are two key presses: reacting to type them both in under 100 ms is equivalent to a writting speed above 200WPM.

I think people don't really type/press buttons at a constant speed. Instead we do combos. You do a quick one-two punch because that's what you're used to ("you've practiced"). You do it much faster than that 100ms, but after that you get a bit of a delay before you start the next combo.

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#134

Post by bambax »

physicles wrote: post #89

The root cause here is poorly named settings. If the original setting had been named something bool-y like `help.autocorrect_enabled`, then the request to accept an int (deciseconds) would've made no sense. Another setting `help.autocorrect_accept_after_dsec` would've been required. And `dsec` is so oddball that anyone who uses it would've had to look up. I insist on this all the time in code reviews. Variables must…

Yes! As it is, '1' is ambiguous, as it can mean "True" or '1 decisecond', and deciseconds are not a common time division. The units commonly used are either seconds or milliseconds. Using uncommon units should have a very strong justification.

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#136

Post by brazzy »

burnished wrote: post #58
brazzy wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can absolutely ctrl+c before 100 more ms are up Not gonna believe that without empirical evidence.

I think they are talking about times where you realize a mistake as you are making it as opposed to hindsight, given that 100ms seems pretty reasonable.

"seems pretty reasonable" is not evidence.

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#137

Post by nine_k »

nikau wrote: post #78
WalterBright wrote: post #66

> Originally, if you typed an unknown command, it would just say "this is not a git command". Back in the 70s, Hal Finney was writing a BASIC interpreter to fit in 2K of ROM on the Mattel Intellivision system. This meant every byte was precious. To report a syntax error, he shortened the message for all errors to: EH? I still laugh about that. He was quite proud of it.

How wasteful, ed uses just ? for all errors, a 3x saving

There are really few systems where you can save a part of a byte! And if you need to output a byte anyway, it doesn't matter which byte it is. So you can indulge and use "?", "!", "*", or even "&" to signify various types of error conditions.

(On certain architectures, you could use 1-byte soft-interrupt opcodes to call the most used subroutine, but 8080 lacked it IIRC; on 6502 you could theoretically use BRK for that. But likely you had other uses for it than printing error diagnostics.)

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#138

Post by otherme123 »

Aerroon wrote: post #133
otherme123 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not about pit stops. They talk about pro drivers with highly trained reflexes, looking at a red light knowing that it will turn green in the next 3 seconds, so they must push a pedal to the metal as fast as they can. If they react in less than 120ms is considered a jump start. As for 100WPM, which is a very respectable typing speed, it translates to 500 CPM, less than 10 characters per second, and thus slightly above…

> But Ctrl+C are two key presses: reacting to type them both in under 100 ms is equivalent to a writting speed above 200WPM. I think people don't really type/press buttons at a constant speed. Instead we do combos. You do a quick one-two punch because that's what you're used to ("you've practiced"). You do it much faster than that 100ms, but after that you get a bit of a delay before you start the next combo.

As menctioned, pro-gamers train combos for hours daily. The best of them can press up to 10 keys per second without thinking. For example, the fastest StarCraft II player Reynor (Riccardo Romitti) can sustain 500 key presses per minute, and do short busts of 800. He has videos explaining how to tweak the Windows registry to achieve such rate (it involves pressing some keys once and the OS autorepeats faster than you can press), because it can't be done with the standard config dialogs. And you are trying to tell me that you can do double that... not only double that, "much faster" than that.

I dare anyone to make a script that, after launching, will ask you to press Ctrl+C after a random wait between 1000 and 3000 ms. And record your reaction time meassured after key release. It's allowed to "cheat" and have your fingers ready over the two keys. Unless you jump start and get lucky, you won't get better than 150ms.

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#139

Post by CRConrad »

schacon wrote: post #32
a3w wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

deci is 1/10, deca is 10/1. So decisecond is correct.

I understand, I meant I tried to say the word “decisecond” out loud and we debated if that was a real word or if I was attempting to say “deca” which was understandable.

Sure, deca- as in "decade" is understandable. But why would deci- as in "decimal" be any less understandable?

Re: Why is Git Autocorrect too fast for Formula One drivers?

#140

Post by adzm »

zxvkhkxvdvbdxz wrote: post #118
jonas21 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Milliseconds are a commonly-used unit. It doesn't really matter if 1 ms is too fine a granularity -- you'll just have to write "autocorrect = 500" in your config file instead of "autocorrect = 5", but who cares?

Sure, yes. But for human consumption, decisecond is something one can relate to. I mean, you probably cannot sense the difference in duration between 20 and 30 ms without special equipment. But you can possibly sense the difference between 2 and 3 deciseconds (200 ms and 300 ms) after some practice. I think the issue in this case was rather the retrofitting a boolean setting into a numerical setting.

> But you can possibly sense the difference between 2 and 3 deciseconds (200 ms and 300 ms) after some practice.

At 120bpm a sixteenth note is 125ms, the difference is very obvious I would think

Post reply on HN