50ms includes just latency (not paint). Yeah I don't know, their blog says they have almost 100GB of cached data and it's slow without it (their direct words f

50ms includes just latency (not paint). Yeah I don't know, their blog says they have almost 100GB of cached data and it's slow without it (their direct words from the post). I'm not sure why they would write about something but tweet something else, it's the same person too. > My opinion is that I dont think we should settle for 500ms response time as acceptable Sure, it's a perceivable amount of delay. Fortunately with Rails you can achieve <= 150ms response times without too much trouble which I think is fast enough where no one is going to notice a difference between a 125ms and 25ms back-end response when the total end to end time painted in their browser might be 750ms (back-end response + latency + paint). The total end to end time is what the user experiences.