31 ms·

Hey, just because layman don't care does not mean that there are not people who actually care and use terminology correctly and discuss it. You should never be

Hey, just because layman don't care does not mean that there are not people who actually care and use terminology correctly and discuss it. You should never be proud about dumbing down concepts in Hacker News. This is not consumer forum.

coldtea 7y ago
>Hey, just because layman don't care does not mean that there are not people who actually care and use terminology correctly and discuss it. What matters is the way the grandparent meant it, since that's what we are discussing here, not the etymology or lexicographical definition of the term. That said... >You should never be proud about dumbing down concepts in Hacker News. This is not consumer forum. Thanks for the sanctimonious sermon. If one actually did their research they would find out that it's not just some "layman doesn't care" thing, but that industry insiders, pundits, and others, have used Moore's law in several different ways over the decades, regardless of the original observation by Moore. Also note that the law was since forever linked with performance increases. Wikipedia: "Moore did not predict a doubling "every 18 months". Rather, David House, an Intel colleague, had factored in the increasing performance of transistors to conclude that integrated circuits would double in performance every 18 months. Note also despite the name it's neither a physical "law", nor a scientific or technical term or high concept to be closely guarded from laymen. It's just a casual ad-hoc statistical observation.
- Nokinside 7y ago
  Everyone can go and check what was said: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~agrawvd/COURSE/E7770_Spr07/READ/Gordon_Moore_1975_Speech.pdf http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~agrawvd/COURSE/E7770_Spr07/READ/G... It's all about complexity per chip. Complexity as number of components per chip.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    Not what TFA said, what "Quarrelsome" said that started this subthread: "I thought Moore's Law effectively ended over a decade ago when we switched to multi-core chips? This ruined all sorts of single-threaded architectures that relied on these performance increases over time and resulted in programmers being less able to realise performance gains in released chips without having to rework their code to accommodate the change." To which someone pedantically replied that Moore's Law is not about performance increases, but transistor count -- to which I replied that that's just one way it has been used (and not the most popular one either, or the more pertinent to the grandparent's question).

coldtea 7y ago

>Hey, just because layman don't care does not mean that there are not people who actually care and use terminology correctly and discuss it. What matters is the way the grandparent meant it, since that's what we are discussing here, not the etymology or lexicographical definition of the term. That said... >You should never be proud about dumbing down concepts in Hacker News. This is not consumer forum. Thanks for the sanctimonious sermon. If one actually did their research they would find out that it's not just some "layman doesn't care" thing, but that industry insiders, pundits, and others, have used Moore's law in several different ways over the decades, regardless of the original observation by Moore. Also note that the law was since forever linked with performance increases. Wikipedia: "Moore did not predict a doubling "every 18 months". Rather, David House, an Intel colleague, had factored in the increasing performance of transistors to conclude that integrated circuits would double in performance every 18 months. Note also despite the name it's neither a physical "law", nor a scientific or technical term or high concept to be closely guarded from laymen. It's just a casual ad-hoc statistical observation.

Nokinside 7y ago
Everyone can go and check what was said: http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~agrawvd/COURSE/E7770_Spr07/READ/Gordon_Moore_1975_Speech.pdf http://www.eng.auburn.edu/~agrawvd/COURSE/E7770_Spr07/READ/G... It's all about complexity per chip. Complexity as number of components per chip.
- coldtea 7y ago
  Not what TFA said, what "Quarrelsome" said that started this subthread: "I thought Moore's Law effectively ended over a decade ago when we switched to multi-core chips? This ruined all sorts of single-threaded architectures that relied on these performance increases over time and resulted in programmers being less able to realise performance gains in released chips without having to rework their code to accommodate the change." To which someone pedantically replied that Moore's Law is not about performance increases, but transistor count -- to which I replied that that's just one way it has been used (and not the most popular one either, or the more pertinent to the grandparent's question).