> The author appears to be saying that ‘X’ is slow despite a lot of effort has already gone into making it fast, so what remains must be that it is doing irredu

> The author appears to be saying that ‘X’ is slow despite a lot of effort has already gone into making it fast, so what remains must be that it is doing irreducible hard work. This is the literal opposite of what the author is saying though? The article even closes with him expressing annoyance because people who claim that X is justifiably slow have almost certainly not done enough analysis to say so.