this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2025
51 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
39969 readers
112 users here now
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Subcommunities on Beehaw:
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not diminishing returns in terms of time and speed, which is CanadaPlus' point. 100km/h faster is 100km/h faster, not 100% increase each time. The time reduction is perfectly in line with the added speed, so for 100 kilometers of distance:
100km/h = 1hr -> 200km/h = 1/2hr -> 300km/h = 1/3hr -> 400km/h = 1/4hr
It would be diminishing returns if doubling the speed each time didn't halve the travel time, but "diminishing input = diminishing output", or 100% -> 50% -> 25%, etc, is not diminishing returns, that's linear.
The first time they added/input twice as much speed. The second time they didn't.
An actual example of diminishing returns would be the cost to speed ratio, where doubling the budget each time will not result in a doubled speed, e.g.
$10m = 100km/h -> $20m = 200km/h -> $40m = 325km/h -> $80m = 525km/h