> we similarly can't keep making sleep-sort faster by scaling the sleeps down. Technically, we can, at least to a certain limit - as long as the total time nee

> we similarly can't keep making sleep-sort faster by scaling the sleeps down. Technically, we can, at least to a certain limit - as long as the total time needed to schedule the sleeps is less than the shortest sleep duration, sleepsort will still work. Though we're just offloading the sorting to the scheduler, which has to implement the sorting algorithm anyway...