A Speed Limit for Computers

tekne

Though no one cares, I feel compelled to put down my 2 cents. Such a "speed limit" is an unfathomably bad idea, in every way, and moreover is a violation of fundamental human rights. I deeply oppose it. That is all.

nvch

We have speed limits for vehicles because speed kills. In computing, waiting kills (indirectly, by wasting time). Speed is life. Some roads have minimum speed limits. If we're talking about limits, that's the kind of limit we want.

vivid242

I like the idea, and it reminded me that the „Vim book“ had the subtitle: „Edit text at the speed of thought“. How much faster should an ‚automated thinking‘ than a ‚manual thinking‘ be (allowed to be)?

protocolture

This is a blog post in search of a solution in search of a problem. IE nothing.

alex0015

The article seems to be saying that lack of equity is worse than lack of innovation. Obviously we can strive for having both equity and innovation, but it really seems like the points made in the article are arguing that, for example, if there exists a discrepancy in what speeds are available to different people, this is worse than only the lowest speed being available to everyone. The linked article from 1973 is very strange to read in 2026 and honestly it's hard to take seriously. It seems to actually argue that China and India should stop developing because development encourages dependence on energy. It says that machines are slaves that modern people are required to master? The speed equity discussed in the linked paper has actually increased significantly as well. More people have cars, and more people can afford plane trips, and bicycle infrastructure is better all over the nation (the world, probably) compared to 1973. I agree with the general principle that cities should encourage diverse development so more people can choose not to use cars if they want, or if they don't have access to a car. In the paper, this would be achieved by somehow state limiting the amount of energy people would be able to consume per capita. I'm glad that world didn't come to pass. Basically it sounds like the point of view of the article is that at some point the state should tell people they're not allowed to try to make a certain process more efficient in terms of time or resources, because that might drive demand for better productivity, which would be bad because it drives us further from nature and community. Some of the points intersect with beliefs I hold, but I strongly oppose this way of going about it.

cadamsdotcom

People are too hooked on their feeds to accept an imposition that doesn't decrease their risk of physical harm. Self-imposable speed limits like screen time limits and blocking services and proxies do exist already and certainly could reduce overall non-physical harm if imposed on everyone - but we struggle as a species to agree on the impact of non-bodily harms.

chrismcb

Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Implementing a speed limit, it size limit on a computer is just idiotic. It works be again to saying, no you can't use a calculator to do the arithmetic, you must use pen and paper, because I said so. Which means who ever doesn't implement this arbitrary speed limit is going to eat you for lunch. This is a Luddite argument.