The author explicitly asks: "In what sense does technology grow “exponentially”?" If the author wants to claim that the results of Moore's law hasn't trickled d

The author explicitly asks: "In what sense does technology grow “exponentially”?" If the author wants to claim that the results of Moore's law hasn't trickled down to the common man, then he should do that. Pretending to not know about Moore's law just fails for me as a rhetorical device. If the author was searching their mind for ways that technology has grown exponentially, with business and society on the mind. I find it quite reasonable that under-the-bonnet numbers didn't spring to mind. I don't really see how missing this is a meaningful criticism. Sure Moore's law is a thing, but it's not really useful and I forget it exists all the time too.