Well, the standard in computer science is to optimize algorithms and discuss their performance for the worst case, so if we assume he's talking from a CS perspective, I find it natural to assume he's talking about that. There are a few exceptions, like QuickSort, but if some tells me to optimize some algorithm, I'll assume he's asking for optimization of the worst case unless he says otherwise or it's clear that the worse case is much rarer than some other case (I'd ask if I think that).
These considerations certainly exist in every day code as well. If you change the daily reporting process to have a worst case run time of 25 hours then you lose, even if the mean run time is cut in half.
Why then do they not have people remove the batteries from their watches? Can't they also be unintentional radiators?
what spa942 said.
From the linked thread:
"The low power in a digital watch is certainly a factor but the main thing that keeps them from interfering is very low operating frequency. In older, simpler watches this was 32 kHz! Only one octave above the audible range. In more modern multifunction watches with stopwatches that go to 0.01 seconds (as if anyone can push a button that precisely, but never mind that) they do have to be clocked faster, but they are still clocked as slowly as possible, to save power.... typically 1 MHz or less.
The RF from these things is all but undetectable unless you put a pickup directly against the watch. "
