> Computers are fast - a lot faster than we can possibly perceive. By some estimates human beings perceive two events as instantaneous at around 100ms. To Drew'

> Computers are fast - a lot faster than we can possibly perceive. By some estimates human beings perceive two events as instantaneous at around 100ms. To Drew's point, this is an eternity for a computer. In that time a modern CPU could execute 10 billion instructions. This type of thinking is why we can’t have nice things, and why technology and software seem stuck on an eternal treadmill. A system with lower latency feels amazing - compare a high and low latency terminal or text editor sometime and feel the difference. A touchscreen with 1ms latency (input to output, which requires a 1000Hz display) feels like a real physical object - way different from a touchscreen at 16ms or (god forbid) 100ms. We are never going to get there if people keep assuming that latencies lower than 100ms (or 30ms) are imperceptible. 100ms is the minimum viable performance. If an operation takes longer than that, you’ve failed for interactive purposes. But just because that’s the minimum requirement doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try our dang hardest to improve on that!