It astounds me that a company valued in the hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars has written this. One of the following must be true:
1. They actually believed latency reduction was worth compromising output quality for sessions that have already been long idle. Moreover, they thought doing so was better than showing a loading indicator or some other means of communicating to the user that context is being loaded.
2. What I suspect actually happened: they wanted to cost-reduce idle sessions to the bare minimum, and "latency" is a convenient-enough excuse to pass muster in a blog post explaining a resulting bug.
1. They actually believed latency reduction was worth compromising output quality for sessions that have already been long idle. Moreover, they thought doing so was better than showing a loading indicator or some other means of communicating to the user that context is being loaded.
2. What I suspect actually happened: they wanted to cost-reduce idle sessions to the bare minimum, and "latency" is a convenient-enough excuse to pass muster in a blog post explaining a resulting bug.