2 ms·

Perhaps one of the following, seeing as the naming scheme is pretty arbitrary at this point? 1nm, 500um, 350um, 250um, 180um, 130um, 100um, 90um ... 1nm, 0.7n

Perhaps one of the following, seeing as the naming scheme is pretty arbitrary at this point? 1nm, 500um, 350um, 250um, 180um, 130um, 100um, 90um ... 1nm, 0.7nm, 0.5nm, 0.3nm, 0.2nm, 0.1nm, 0.07nm, 0.05nm ... 1nm, 1/2nm, 1/3nm, 1/5nm, 1/7nm, 1/10nm, 1/14nm ... 1nm, 0nm, -1nm, -3nm, -5nm, -7nm, -10nm, -14nm ... 1nm, 1b nm, 1a nm, 1g nm, 1n nm, 1ac nm, 1ax nm ... 1nm, 360nm, one nm, one x nm, series x nm ...

divbzero 5y ago
I was about to say “negative doesn’t make sense” but I guess that’s exactly your point: it’s no more or less nonsense than “1nm” feature size. Might as well try names of large cats or Californian locales.
- CivBase 5y ago
  I can see it now. "TSMC Claims Breakthrough on Cougar Production"