[vast]

He actually says that devs try to do their best but the business models make it hard. I can very well resonate with that. With decent effort we could make out site respond in a tenth of the current time. But no one ever asks for it nor will give you the opportunity. Even performance centric companies like Google are now doing an insanely bad job. Business applications perform bad even on modern desktops. They will probably try to keep the user facing parts of the ad machine fast, but everything else is not what I expect from a company with such mindset. They of course never did anything to improve the state of ad tech.

[londons_explore]

Google ad bidding requires 200 milliseconds to run the ad auction. I could send a packet all the way to Australia and back in that time!

If you're trying to make a page load instantly (100 milliseconds - the edge of human perception), it isn't possible with Google ads, even the text only ones.

[atoav]

Although 100ms would be a decent loading speed compared to todays standards, 100ms is not the edge of human perception. Tm100ms equals 2.5 frames in 25 fps and even a 1 frame blank image (40ms) is noticeable at that speed.

In my experience the edge of visual perception is somewhere below 10ms

[londons_explore]

I am considering the 'click on thing, see result' perception loop, which is far slower than the 'see one thing happen and then see another thing happen, and not be sure if they happened at the same time or sequentially'.

[atq2119]

Even the difference between ~16ms and ~33ms is noticeable to most people for the "click to see result" perception loop -- that's the difference between 60fps and 30fps.

100ms is a glacially slow reaction time in comparison, and it's a bit sad that most of the tech industry is setting their performance goals so low.

(In fairness, I suspect most people wouldn't be able to verbally express why the 16ms feels better to them than the 33ms, but would subconsciously notice the difference.)