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.
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.
Again, nobody is making an appeal to tradition to say Moore’s Law is literally a physical law or ever meant to be one.
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?
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.”
I guess that’s one of the reasons why it was spoken of for so long — the fact that it remained somewhat accurate for longer than expected.
But anyone who is a computer scientist or programmer or anything close to that should know that continuing to double anything grows out of hand very quickly, even if you double it only once a year. 😅
Kind of rude? It feels like it’s close, no?
Could you explain in detail why it isn’t? Because from what I see:
Why is this lack of reading comprehension? Please explain, if you would. Thank you kindly.
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.
Again, nobody is making an appeal to tradition to say Moore’s Law is literally a physical law or ever meant to be one.
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.
I guess that’s one of the reasons why it was spoken of for so long — the fact that it remained somewhat accurate for longer than expected.
But anyone who is a computer scientist or programmer or anything close to that should know that continuing to double anything grows out of hand very quickly, even if you double it only once a year. 😅
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?