Doesn't the observation of any turbulence in the statistic contradicts already with the specific understanding (which is how? physically?) of the term law? Or doesn't it make it obsolete? However, the next question could be, how many technical changes in chip construction/integration/assembly are we going to still understand as an updated [version of] Moore's law? James Bridle writes in „New Dark Age“:
„[…] But Moore’s law, despite the name by which it came to be known (one which Moore himself wouldn’t use for two decades), is not a law. Rat
Gave an upvote because you deserve it.
To keep it short as brevity is the soul of wit: check the macro effects in top500 supercomputer speeds. You will see Moore's Law update: it is logarithmic, not linear or exponential. Classical computing of course not speaking on bio or optical or quantum computing, etc.
Doesn't the observation of any turbulence in the statistic contradicts already with the specific understanding (which is how? physically?) of the term law? Or doesn't it make it obsolete? However, the next question could be, how many technical changes in chip construction/integration/assembly are we going to still understand as an updated [version of] Moore's law? James Bridle writes in „New Dark Age“:
... (read more)