Yeah, I wasn't sure how often this pops up, it came up in conversation and I'm not familiar enough with HN to see when the last time it was posted, so I figured i'd just post it and let it go unnoticed if it's been posted too often recently.
I enjoyed listening to her, but I don't know if I understand her point here. There was something intuitive about why certain processes require a large number of nano seconds due to physics. But I have a tough time thinking of any process besides financial trading that can't spare a microsecond.
Anything that you need to do a lot of, in a second, suffers for wasted microseconds.
If your input processing and font rendering pathways waste microseconds (and they do) it makes a delay in characters you type showing up on the screen, and a corresponding, measurable reduction in your editing throughput.
When our machines were a thousand times slower, characters showed up on the screen in substantially less time than they do today. The difference is mainly a result of cumulative wasted microseconds, in so many places that nobody can afford to gather them up.
hmm... idk. This feels difficult to believe. I don't think my editing speed would suffer if you threw 100 additional microseconds of delay into font rendering. I feel any meaningful loss would need to be measured in milliseconds or longer.
Typing tests don't really help here because you don't read what you type if you're competent. I don't know how I could test...
Great stuff. I'm reminded of the classic "we can't send an email over 500 miles!" which is somewhat related, and equally entertaining: http://web.mit.edu/jemorris/humor/500-miles
It is funny (to me anyway) that the nanosecond wires she used to give out take rather more than a nanosecond to traverse.
The speed of signal propagation is largely determined by the density of the wire's insulation, because the signal is an electromagnetic wave carried at the skin of the conductor, with its electric field oscillating in the insulation, so propagation is limited by properties of that. The distance covered in a nanosecond is typically between seven and eight inches. In wires with foam insulation (typically co-ax) signals go a little faster. In optical fiber, a nanosecond is under seven inches, because the speed is determined by the same property of the glass, which is denser.
15 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 45.2 ms ] threadShe was a genius. Was a great character.
If your input processing and font rendering pathways waste microseconds (and they do) it makes a delay in characters you type showing up on the screen, and a corresponding, measurable reduction in your editing throughput.
When our machines were a thousand times slower, characters showed up on the screen in substantially less time than they do today. The difference is mainly a result of cumulative wasted microseconds, in so many places that nobody can afford to gather them up.
Typing tests don't really help here because you don't read what you type if you're competent. I don't know how I could test...
https://youtu.be/Sn0f0vpn8jE?t=7m50s
(Given the quality of the video, I'd be inclined to think 1983 rather than 1993)
The speed of signal propagation is largely determined by the density of the wire's insulation, because the signal is an electromagnetic wave carried at the skin of the conductor, with its electric field oscillating in the insulation, so propagation is limited by properties of that. The distance covered in a nanosecond is typically between seven and eight inches. In wires with foam insulation (typically co-ax) signals go a little faster. In optical fiber, a nanosecond is under seven inches, because the speed is determined by the same property of the glass, which is denser.