Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mitchalsup@aol.com (MitchAlsup1)
Newsgroups: comp.arch
Subject: Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture
 =?UTF-8?B?ZGVzaWduZXI/?=
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2024 20:17:20 +0000
Organization: Rocksolid Light
Message-ID: <cd6956b2748dce20e28d79ee195b2902@www.novabbs.org>
References: <vcgpqt$gndp$1@dont-email.me> <memo.20240920210657.19028B@jgd.cix.co.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="2805500"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="65wTazMNTleAJDh/pRqmKE7ADni/0wesT78+pyiDW8A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$Eq/1yx9oQhgwhS5.bbwitexTtUzdSvJFumyAUVlIzBDV8PFDFmXUy
X-Rslight-Posting-User: ac58ceb75ea22753186dae54d967fed894c3dce8
Bytes: 2232
Lines: 31

On Fri, 20 Sep 2024 20:06:00 +0000, John Dallman wrote:

> In article <vcgpqt$gndp$1@dont-email.me>, david.brown@hesbynett.no
> (David
> Brown) wrote:
>
>> Even a complete amateur can notice time mismatches of 10 ms in a
>> musical context, so for a professional this does not surprise me.
>> I don't know of any human endeavour that requires lower latency or
>> more precise timing than music.
>
> A friend used to work on set-top boxes, with fairly slow hardware. They
> had demonstrations of two different ways of handling inability to keep
> up
> with the data stream:
>
> - Keeping the picture on schedule, and dropping a few milliseconds
>   of sound.
> - Dropping a frame of the picture, and keeping the sound on-track.
>
> Potential customers always thought they wanted the first approach, until
> they watched the demos. Human vision fakes a lot of what we "see" at the
> best of times, bit hearing is more sensitive to glitches.

Having the ears being able to hear millisecond differences in sound
arrival times is key to our ability to hunt and evade predator's.

While our eyes have a time constant closer to 0.1 seconds.

That is, I blame natural selection on the above.

> John