On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 02:54:50AM +0100, Johnny Billquist wrote: > Ok. I oversimplified. > > If I remember right, the point was that something sub 200ms is perceived by > the brain as being "instananeous" response. It don't mean that one cannot > discern shorter times, just that from an action-reaction point of view, > anything below 200ms is "good enough".
The usual figure cited is 100 ms, not 200, but yeah. it is instructive to look at the stopwatch function on a digital watch; you can easily see the tenths counting but not the 100ths. -- David A. Holland dholl...@netbsd.org
