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.
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?
> 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."
So I suppose I should have added a bit of a disclaimer: I genuinely believe free access to computation and information to be a human right; up there with the press 100 years ago.
Restricting computers, morally, is like restricting the printing press. Many people look back on the latter with disdain, and today want to censor the Internet.
Violating fundamental human rights sounds like a very serious charge. I kind of understood human rights to be self-evident and universal. In a transportation context, I’m hard pressed to think of much transit infrastructure without speed limits. That leads me to believe they’re not obviously abhorrent to everyone.
I have felt endangered when people careen around me at speeds that feel good to them but dangerous to me. In many cases that’s because we’re both moving at speed appropriate to our level of risk, but I’m vulnerable in ways that they are not (for example, they’re driving an SUV and I’m driving a bicycle).
With respect to TFA’s more general argument, it seems intuitive to me that more of most anything is good to a point, but there’s also such a thing as too much. How does that impinge on human rights?
> 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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
16 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 16.3 ms ] threadSuch 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.
Nowadays calling something "a violation of fundamental human rights" often really just means "I really don't like it."
Restricting computers, morally, is like restricting the printing press. Many people look back on the latter with disdain, and today want to censor the Internet.
I have felt endangered when people careen around me at speeds that feel good to them but dangerous to me. In many cases that’s because we’re both moving at speed appropriate to our level of risk, but I’m vulnerable in ways that they are not (for example, they’re driving an SUV and I’m driving a bicycle).
With respect to TFA’s more general argument, it seems intuitive to me that more of most anything is good to a point, but there’s also such a thing as too much. How does that impinge on human rights?
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.
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.
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.
How much faster should an ‚automated thinking‘ than a ‚manual thinking‘ be (allowed to be)?
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.
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.
Artificial limits or more regulation might not be the answer, yet post-AI scarcity can lead us to interesting places.