You must log in or # to comment.
Since March 24 2023. That’s when he passed away so he can’t come kick our ass if we’re not following his law.
Lucky it’s not an actual law of physics, just a business phrase.
just a business phrase.
Much more than a phrase. A hypothesis at least, maybe a theory. It could be observed, measured, and it was true for many years.
The Ad Antiquitatem logical fallacy strikes again!
It’s literally not, but you go ahead and feel smart for lack of reading comprehension!
Kind of rude? It feels like it’s close, no?
Could you explain in detail why it isn’t? Because from what I see:
- The curve was accurate for some time, but innovation doesn’t really follow mathematical formulas, so the thesis would seem preposterous in hindsight, to me anyway.
- The appeal to tradition fallacy seems to be defined as just that? — Just because it’s been like that for some time doesn’t really necessarily mean it’s true. Right?
Why is this lack of reading comprehension? Please explain, if you would. Thank you kindly.
Lack of reading comprehension because they never claimed it was intended to literally be a physical law or an actual scientific theory meant to describe reality. Just shared charicteristics with those things, which they already listed. (falsifiable, measurable, etc)
Again, nobody is making an appeal to tradition to say Moore’s Law is literally a physical law or was ever meant to be one.
It was only ever called a “law” because it was hilarious that such a nigh off-hand postulate turned out to be even close to reality.
So even if it would’ve been called “Moore’s thingamabob”, it was never really intended as a real theory? It was only like, tongue-in-cheek the whole time?
Yes.
In a 2015 interview, Moore noted of the 1965 article: “… I just did a wild extrapolation saying it’s going to continue to double every year for the next 10 years.”
He didn’t even think it’d be true for as long as it was.
It amuses me that you fail to comprehend what ad antiquitatem is about and attempt to mock others in the process.
Do go on, I’m bored.
rofl OK, enlighten us, little troll. What do YOU think “ad antiquitatem” means?
I suspect it may be something midway between those things. The shape of the curve is the same as the shape of the curve of growth of most biological systems. There are physical laws that make Moore’s Law a reasonable short-term hypothesis.
Eventually to maintain the law we would have to make the item bigger so it can contain more transistors. Which defeats the spirit of the law which is miniaturisation.
Reading Moore’s paper (which is the reference of the marketing person who coined the term), Moore’s law isn’t just miniaturisation, it was also an observation that’s the economics would improve. ie that building N transistors is cheaper on the next smaller node than the previous.
And without the economics working, the shrinking would never have occurred at the rate it did for so long.
So yes, it getting bigger would be against the spirit of the law.
biological systems also become bottlenecked. Unbounded growth does not exist in reality. The actual curve is the sigmoid. We’ve just only been seeing the first half of the curve.
You can only get smaller for so long until you run up against the limits of physics
I think she said that. But also this is 2026 so that’s what she or he said.
iirc we hit the end of Moore’s Law a couple of times already in my career.
Well the problem has no solution. You can do some fine tuning but we’ve been at the limit of solid state technology for a while.
The curve can continue if you use “money spent” instead of “time spent” as the horizontal axis.
Yeah I’ve been seeing Moore’s law as a function of tech advancement basically, like its not s doubling of cpu specifically, it’s a doubling of tech change rate
There should be a campaign to rename it to “Moore’s Suggestion” or “Moore’s Guideline”
It was more like Moore’s Observation.
May I suggest: “Moore is less law”
deleted by creator
Appreciate you not using fedopedia.
It physically can’t, from what I can tell.
