It is latency sensitive as the transmission protocol
might substract from the usefullness. But this serves for future optimization. The title was not taken from the paper but from the nature article where the paper was initially cited.
If you were going to build a brain-computer interface, why on earth would you scatter parts of it across three different countries like this? It's not exploiting a vast data center or anything, just a VLSI chip that happens to be far away. If you did have to do that, why wouldn't you directly connect all three centers instead of having a Python script(?) in the middle handing off information.
The membrane time constant of a biological neuron is also about 30 ms, which gives you a fair amount of wiggle room even in the face of lag.
Their solution seems clever, but other than a vague mention of "IoT brain implants" (please god, no), I don't see what problem it really solves.
Interesting. I had no idea it was that long. I figured it was on the order of 10s of ns.
Some very early work had estimated them as closer to 1 ms, but there were some technical problems with the measurement approach; I think that might account for some of the outliers there too.
Bear in mind that they're little bits of fat and water, so they're not going to be particularly fast. It's sort of amazing that the brain works at all!
[Also, no idea why your comment was dead, but vouched for it]