zlacker

As an aside, I am very much against this trend of accusing people of "internalizing" a bad thing such that they aren't aware of it. It's using therapy-speak as an ad hominem attack, and in my view reflects poorly on the speaker. Most of the people on HN are software developers and are conversant in a wide variety of tools on many platforms, and certainly I am (one can infer that from my post). So to assert that I simply don't know what scroll lag looks like is not only absurd, but also fundamentally disrespectful and ignorant. The simple fact is that you do not, cannot, know what other people experience on their machines. Each physical system is characterized by roughly 10e10 bits - the number of combinations is (10e10)!. In other words, wild and alien configurations exist that you've never seen, and cannot imagine. Compared to this, the chances that someone has software that behaves slightly differently on their system than on your system is approaching 1.

Have some humility.

>>javajo+(OP)
Considering this as a possibility is anything than "fundamentally disrespectful and ignorant".

I've known lots of developers who thought that some broken, slow, erratic, or stupid, program or OS behavior is the normal, because that's what they've been used to. They could be great programmers too, they just didn't venture much outside the stuff they used.

As for the diatribe, I don't care for this recent trend of perceiving something somebody said as some kind of abuse of "therapy speak" (before this comment I've seen a few stories about some actor "abusing therapy speak" and such lately, so I assume it's some new fad going on). I don't read about therapy, or had any therapy speak in mind. "Internalized" has been used for decades as a term, and here just means "accepted this lag as the baseline as they don't have a frame of reference". Might not even be the right word, I probably was looking for normalized (is that therapy speak too?). So there's that.

>>javajo+(OP)
Except people really do internalize lag as "normal behavior". Back when PC monitors were stuck at 60Hz, people would unironically claim that "the human eye can't see more than 60 fps". Of course they changed their tune after experiencing lower input lag

>>NavinF+5F
I agree that the human eye can see higher than 60Hz, especially in the peripheral vision where VR research shows we need at least 90Hz to not get sick and 120Hz works better.

That said, there is something to be said for modern applications just running way below the limits of the refresh rate of our screens: https://twitter.com/jmmv/status/1671670996921896960

>>coldte+lo
> broken, slow, erratic, or stupid, program or OS behavior

This describes so much software that I don't see how you can fault anyone for thinking it is normal.

>>coldte+lo
One other possibility is that I know what scroll lag is, don't see it in Firefox on my devices, and you really don't want to accept that for some reason. So much so you double-down on your out-of-the-blue speculation about my mental state. People also have petit mal seizures, and that could also explain not seeing lag. Or perhaps an eye problem. Or maybe I'm a paid shill for Mozilla. Why not propose these as well? It would make just as much sense, and reflect just as poorly on you.

>>javajo+0H1
Sorry, but this reaction has little to do with my comment. I didn't do any "speculation about your mental state", except to the degree that saying that someone can be so used to a certain program behavior/lag/etc that they consider it normal describes a "mental state".

>One other possibility is that I know what scroll lag is, don't see it in Firefox on my devices"

Yes, that's "one other" possibility.

Now, can we also entertain the possibility I suggested as something that one can't just rule out in advance, and that one would be OK in suggesting could also be the case?

I don't know you, have not met you, and I don't speak about you as a person. I made a general observation about what could be the case when someone says what you said. Another commenter also corroborated having seen this in the wild (assuming it even needs corroboration). It's hardly something that doesn't happen. And because I'm a somewhat insulted by your tone, notice how I didn't even said anything about you directly. I wrote:

"Don't forget the other possibility: someone using Firefox having internalized this lag as "normal behavior".

The rest, you brought into this. Enough is enough. Over and out.

>>entrop+wW
I saw that thread and could not relate. Both my desktop (5800x3d/64GB/4090/4K120) and laptop (M2 Pro/32GB/3K120) are just as snappy as that 600MHz machine. More importantly, my machines stay snappy under more demanding workloads which that old machine can't do.

In the next tweet he compares it to a stock Surface Go 2 (quad-core i5 processor at 2.4GHz, 8GB RAM, SSD) and seems to be surprised that it performs like crap. His 600MHz CPU is sufficient to get decent input lag from NT 3.51 which lists a 25 MHz CPU as it's minimum spec just as my machines get decent input lag from Windows/macOS which list a 1.2 GHz CPU as the minimum spec.

I know clock speed is a bad metric, but you get the point. Your hardware needs to be well above the minimum spec by an order of magnitude if you want acceptable latency