A Speed Limit for Computers

https://caolan.uk/notes/2026-07-02_a_speed_limit_for_computers.cm

by zdw • 10 days ago

19 29 10 days ago

tekne2• 10 days ago

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.

eightysixfour• 10 days ago

I'm still thinking through this and you seem to have strong opinions. What do you think of speed limits for cars and e-bikes?

hnuser123456• 10 days ago

Well, to start with, If you drive your car too fast, you might kill people. If you drive your computer too fast, it might get data corruption and/or reboot unexpectedly.

wyrdcurt4• 10 days ago

I don't know if it's a bad idea or not, but I'm struggling to understand how the idea as presented in the post would be a violation of fundamental human rights. Do you care to elaborate?

palmotea• 10 days ago

I don't know if it's a bad idea or not, but I'm struggling to understand how the idea as presented in the post would be a violation of fundamental human rights. Do you care to elaborate?

Nowadays calling something "a violation of fundamental human rights" often really just means "I really don't like it."

Nevermark• 10 days ago

Though no one cares, I feel compelled to put down my 2 cents.

I am not sure if you are insulting everyone who reads your point, or your own ability to communicate.

But maybe interpret the ideas less as a dichotomy you can't untangle and so must reject, which is a fragile place to reason from, and instead identify what are good points, what are not, and improve upon either.

Because there is certainly a great deal of truth to the problems being addressed.

zdragnar3• 10 days ago

What truth? The whole article is absurd. Speed limits exist to reduce fatalities, not reduce inequality. Road speed limits in my area have been increasing, not decreasing, as road designs have improved. Distance didn't scale with speed either - the West was settled well before the automobile.

nvch• 10 days ago

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.

danwills• 10 days ago

I am partial to this speed-is-life sentiment, and it made me think of this beautiful and wonderfully poignant demoscene production by Farbrausch and Haujobb: "Time Index". It is made in the memory of a friend of theirs that died.

The softsynth soundtrack includes lyrics and one of them is "we slow down" which I always interpreted as a kind of demoscener's lament since making things go fast is sorta the whole point!

https://youtu.be/fngv1dCFrdo?si=tR-1uQ4vKIPLHZu3

I am not arguing for either side of the fastness debate, while I certainly adore fast computers I don't like the mental image of our computers all blazing away doing stuff mainly humans care about, while the the world 'outside' is steadily getting hotter and more polluted.

vivid242• 10 days ago

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• 10 days ago

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

alex00152• 10 days ago

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.

JuniperMesos3• 10 days ago

The author is a socialist, quoting a socialist from 1973 whose ideas if implemented would've made everyone's lives worse. The idea that a lack of equity is worse than a lack of innovation is a core principle of socialism and it's the core reason why socialism is bad.

cadamsdotcom• 10 days ago

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• 10 days ago

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.

halilim• 10 days ago

As a developer, I first thought about a different point when I saw the title. We usually use high-end devices that mask the performance issues in the software we develop. There is some effort and tooling, but I don't think it's enough.

Artificial limits or more regulation might not be the answer, yet post-AI scarcity can lead us to interesting places.

fragmede• 10 days ago

The device to point at in this context is the Remarkable e-ink tablet. It isn't an iPad. It's a digital sheet of paper. What it makes up for in lack of features is what sells it. It doesn't have a webbrowser or Instagram or TikTok. That would be missing the point. A "simple" digital pen and paper. Optionally a keyboard. Has wifi and cloud connectivity.

A Speed Limit for Computers

Related Stories