2026-08-22 - There's no reason for software to be slow anymore. The reported development sits in the middle of technology-level consequences that are already visible in the supplied reporting. Across the evidence, the main facts are consistent: officials, institutions or investigators acted on a defined case, policy decision or enforcement step, and the dispute now turns on what happens next.
Danluu.com reported in "There's no reason for software to be slow anymore" that The other day, I saw a viral tweet saying that people talking about how LLMs are causing slow, bloated, code are going to eat crow once they re-write everything in super-optimized assembly. We're not quite at the point where we want to write everything in assembly, but some variant of what Nolan Lawson said about testing, you can choose how many bugs you want now, which I less eloquently noted here, is becoming more true for performance. In response to a comment in my last post that the cost of formerly specialized performance work has dropped by many orders of magnitude and performance work that used to require a person or team that had a rare set of skills can be done by anyone who can type a few sentences1, which means that you can do all sorts of optimizations that used to be too expensive to be worthwhile for all but the largest scale or most lucrative projects, Marc Brooker responded with Completely agree with your closing point. Dynamic custom software, fitted to a particular workload rather than a class of workloads, seems like a very likely outcome. (Which comes with all kinds of fun risks and opportunities of its own). Kind of reminds me of FFTW.
The supplied accounts also point to the practical consequences of the decision or case. That includes the response from officials or affected parties, the procedural step being taken, and the immediate stakes described by the reporting. Where the sources mention numbers, names or dates, those details have been kept intact because they anchor the story and keep the article within the evidence.
The broader frame in the evidence is performance, about, assembly, everything, many, point, slow, used, want, work, agree, anymore, anyone, becoming. That set of terms reflects what the sources themselves emphasize: the institutions involved, the legal or administrative mechanism in play, and any time pressure created by the move. The article does not add outside background beyond what is necessary to explain the record supplied.
Because this is a newsroom summary built from a limited evidence pack, it intentionally stops short of broader interpretation. The reporting establishes the event date, the principal actors, the immediate action and the official or public response. It does not attempt to forecast outcomes beyond what the supplied material explicitly supports.
QikTimes Desk
The supplied reporting leaves a narrow but usable record: it identifies the event date, the main actors, the official action or allegation at issue, and the immediate response from the other side. That is enough to write a clean news account without adding conjecture. It is also why the article avoids extending the story into broader claims about motive, outcome or precedent unless the provided evidence spells those points out directly. In practice, the piece keeps its focus on the documented step, the language used by the named sources, and the factual boundaries of the material in hand.
