4 ms·

> To some people, "micro" and "milli" sound the same To be fair, it almost is. Both units are used to talk about times of about the same size. Using both in t

> To some people, "micro" and "milli" sound the same To be fair, it almost is. Both units are used to talk about times of about the same size. Using both in the same sentence is like mixing meters and feet. It's much clearer to say e.g. 1500us vs 3us; or 1.5ms vs 0.003ms. Don't mix units when making a comparison.

chaxor 3y ago
In the era of Electron, most things take minutes anyway, so milliseconds is an upgrade.
- maccard 3y ago
  The reason things take minutes is because people ignore order of magnitude diffences when they're insignificant, (it doesn't matter if X takes 10ms instead of 0.1ms), and then over time someone builds on that and makes the same assumption (it doesn't matter if it takes 100ms, when it could take 1ms, followed by it doesn't matter if it takes 10s). Avoiding these order of magnitude differencdz early on is the best way to ensure you don't end up with a SPA that takes 15 seconds to populate a list with 20 items in it.
nooby12345 3y ago
A factor of 1000 actually
- marginalia_nu 3y ago
  Hmm, I'm clearly not awake enough to SI. But the point still stands. Don't mix units.
  - jiggawatts 3y ago
    The lack of expertise here is confirming the point of the article. I'm not mixing units. Milliseconds and microseconds are both measured in units of seconds. The milli- and micro- prefixes are orders of magnitude. They're scales, not units. When a scientist starts talking about measurements accurate to attoseconds, I sit up and take notice. The number in front doesn't make a difference. It's the "atto" that raises my eyebrows. Back to computing: I had a debate here with someone who claimed that 128-bit floats are required for some chip layout codes. I questioned that, because a 32-bit number can subdivide the side-length of a chip down to sub-atomic resolution, and a 64-bit float can model the wiggles of the hadrons making up the atomic nuclei! To some people, 128-bit sounds "twice as good as 64-bit". To experts, it's... umm... a sign you've made a mistake.
    - marginalia_nu 3y ago
      We can absolutely go into a long side-discussion about units and how most imperial units are also clearly just a constant-factor away from SI units and nobody would argue they are the same unit, but I don't think any of that actually matters. It's semantics. When you are an expert, nearly by definition the average person you're talking to is less well read on the subject than you, the expert. Because of this, it's extremely important to be able to communicate with clarity and patience. Your expertise doesn't matter if you can't make yourself understood, and it's not reasonable to expect people around you to share your expertise, so you need to adapt the message. Communication in general is easier the fewer concepts you invoke. In almost all situations it's better to be mostly correct and well understood than to be perfectly correct and not understood at all. Even if you can expect most people to have an understanding of SI units, far fewer will have an intuition for them (because they aren't working with them daily). Everyone has a basic intuition for big numbers though, so if you want to say "this is bad", show them a big number; the bigger the better. It can still be correct and make a well founded argument, but presentation matters a lot more than you'd think for convincing someone. In increasing order of likelihood it will convince anyone: The new solution adds a 15ms latency, whereas our usual requests have a 2us latency. The new solution adds a 15ms latency, whereas our usual requests have 0.002ms latency. The new solution is a factor 7.5e3 slower than the existing solution, which has a 2 microsecond latency. The new solution is 7,500 times slower than the existing solution, which has a 2 microsecond latency. The new solution is 75,000% slower than the existing solution, which has a 2 microsecond latency. What is said is basically identical in each version, but the presentation puts an increasing emphasis on just how big a difference this is by literally showing a big number.
    - jononor 3y ago
      So maybe the term scale is more correct than unit. But more importantly, is the advise useful or not?
Attrecomet 3y ago
This is beautiful, thank you Edit: aww, ninja edit takes away all the fun :/
- marginalia_nu 3y ago
  > Edit: aww, ninja edit takes away all the fun :/ You know I have a degree in theoretical physics so I really should get this stuff right, but before I've had my morning coffee all bets are off :P
hef19898 3y ago
Well, the difference is the whole point in fields like, e.g., high frequency trading
verve_rat 3y ago
I whole heartedly disagree. Micrometers and millimetres are very, very different and that should be obvious to anyone that uses grams and kgs, or meters and km everyday. Microseconds and milliseconds are obviously different orders of magnitude, that's sort of the whole point of SI prefixes. That CTO is just doesn't sound qualified for the job.

chaxor 3y ago

In the era of Electron, most things take minutes anyway, so milliseconds is an upgrade.

maccard 3y ago
The reason things take minutes is because people ignore order of magnitude diffences when they're insignificant, (it doesn't matter if X takes 10ms instead of 0.1ms), and then over time someone builds on that and makes the same assumption (it doesn't matter if it takes 100ms, when it could take 1ms, followed by it doesn't matter if it takes 10s). Avoiding these order of magnitude differencdz early on is the best way to ensure you don't end up with a SPA that takes 15 seconds to populate a list with 20 items in it.

nooby12345 3y ago

A factor of 1000 actually

marginalia_nu 3y ago
Hmm, I'm clearly not awake enough to SI. But the point still stands. Don't mix units.
- jiggawatts 3y ago
  The lack of expertise here is confirming the point of the article. I'm not mixing units. Milliseconds and microseconds are both measured in units of seconds. The milli- and micro- prefixes are orders of magnitude. They're scales, not units. When a scientist starts talking about measurements accurate to attoseconds, I sit up and take notice. The number in front doesn't make a difference. It's the "atto" that raises my eyebrows. Back to computing: I had a debate here with someone who claimed that 128-bit floats are required for some chip layout codes. I questioned that, because a 32-bit number can subdivide the side-length of a chip down to sub-atomic resolution, and a 64-bit float can model the wiggles of the hadrons making up the atomic nuclei! To some people, 128-bit sounds "twice as good as 64-bit". To experts, it's... umm... a sign you've made a mistake.
  - marginalia_nu 3y ago
    We can absolutely go into a long side-discussion about units and how most imperial units are also clearly just a constant-factor away from SI units and nobody would argue they are the same unit, but I don't think any of that actually matters. It's semantics. When you are an expert, nearly by definition the average person you're talking to is less well read on the subject than you, the expert. Because of this, it's extremely important to be able to communicate with clarity and patience. Your expertise doesn't matter if you can't make yourself understood, and it's not reasonable to expect people around you to share your expertise, so you need to adapt the message. Communication in general is easier the fewer concepts you invoke. In almost all situations it's better to be mostly correct and well understood than to be perfectly correct and not understood at all. Even if you can expect most people to have an understanding of SI units, far fewer will have an intuition for them (because they aren't working with them daily). Everyone has a basic intuition for big numbers though, so if you want to say "this is bad", show them a big number; the bigger the better. It can still be correct and make a well founded argument, but presentation matters a lot more than you'd think for convincing someone. In increasing order of likelihood it will convince anyone: The new solution adds a 15ms latency, whereas our usual requests have a 2us latency. The new solution adds a 15ms latency, whereas our usual requests have 0.002ms latency. The new solution is a factor 7.5e3 slower than the existing solution, which has a 2 microsecond latency. The new solution is 7,500 times slower than the existing solution, which has a 2 microsecond latency. The new solution is 75,000% slower than the existing solution, which has a 2 microsecond latency. What is said is basically identical in each version, but the presentation puts an increasing emphasis on just how big a difference this is by literally showing a big number.
  - jononor 3y ago
    So maybe the term scale is more correct than unit. But more importantly, is the advise useful or not?

Attrecomet 3y ago

This is beautiful, thank you Edit: aww, ninja edit takes away all the fun :/

marginalia_nu 3y ago
> Edit: aww, ninja edit takes away all the fun :/ You know I have a degree in theoretical physics so I really should get this stuff right, but before I've had my morning coffee all bets are off :P

hef19898 3y ago

Well, the difference is the whole point in fields like, e.g., high frequency trading

verve_rat 3y ago

I whole heartedly disagree. Micrometers and millimetres are very, very different and that should be obvious to anyone that uses grams and kgs, or meters and km everyday. Microseconds and milliseconds are obviously different orders of magnitude, that's sort of the whole point of SI prefixes. That CTO is just doesn't sound qualified for the job.