15 ms·
Gordon Moore has died
- mc32 4y agoHe definitely deserves the memorial banner. But wow, what a well lived life
- smodad 4y agoWe should all be so lucky. It's always sad when it happens though. RIP
- DennisAleynikov 4y agoRIP
- DennisAleynikov 4y agoTragic news
- CyberDildonics 4y agoBefore anyone says that Moore's law is dead, remember that transistors are still getting smaller and more dense (not to mention more expensive, which was another part of his prediction). In every thread people confuse Moore's law with Dennard scaling (which states roughly that, as transistors get smaller, their power density stays constant, so that the power use stays in proportion with area; both voltage and current scale (downward) with length.)
- coffeebeqn 4y agoMoore himself said (mentioned in the link) that the “law” was just supposed to convey that the way to cheaper electronics at the time was to focus on transistors, I don’t think he ever meant it was supposed to be a law of physics that stays true 50 years or 100 years later. In fact he said it would be true for 10 years
- junon 4y agoThis is interesting, I never knew this. Is there somewhere I can read more on his thoughts? I was under the impression (naively so) that this was some invariant that had been somehow proven to an extent.
- philiplu 4y agoI searched on "Moore's law is not a law" and found [1], "Moore’s Law Is Not Really A Law But It Is Still Obeyed", from someone who was a semiconductor engineer at Intel 40 years ago. As he says, Moore's law was more a roadmap than a law. Companies strove to keep it going for fear their competitors would succeed while they failed; sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. [1] https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/moores-law-is-not-really-a-law-but-it-is-still-obeyed-2e0c2b596525 https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/moores-law-is-not-real...
- terafo 4y agoDennard scaling died 2 decades ago. Moore's law is dead for less than a dexade. It took 4 years for density to double(from N7 to N3). And with density doubled the cost. It will get only worse from here.
- panick21_ 4y agoActually Moores law is dead. His prediction was not transistors would get smaller. His prediction was initial that for 10 years was that density would double every year. And then later that it would double every 18 month. And this held longer then even he thought. But it has ended. While things still get denser, its no longer on that same trend. This interview with Moore explains it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcLzokagAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcLzokagAw History by Cantrill: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM9h89Vo_Qo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM9h89Vo_Qo David Patterson perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFT54hO1X8M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFT54hO1X8M Opposing point of view Jim Keller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIG9ztQw2Gc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIG9ztQw2Gc Patterson response to Keller: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0eJA1TP3Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0eJA1TP3Y There are talks by David Patterson, Jim Keller and
- CyberDildonics 4y agodensity would double every year I'm not a physicist, but I think they need to get smaller to do that.
- blihp 4y agoThey haven't been doing so at that rate for a very long time.
- bee_rider 4y agoSmaller transistors is one way to get more transistors per chip. Chips could also get bigger, or the transistors could be packed in more densely (my VLSI is rusty, but not all transistors are minimally sized; a wider transistor can be used to push more power for example).
- CyberDildonics 4y agoAnd how sustainable is making chips bigger or packing transistors more densely without making them smaller as a solution to getting chips with more transistors?
- hedgehog 4y agoMoore's Law has been dead for a while. The most common confusion I see is that people don't understand he was referring to economical scaling. These days we're getting more density and bigger chips but prices are going up a lot too. More for more instead of more for less.
- xipix 4y agoPrices of the chips may be rising, but power usage is falling and in the end, that's often the bigger cost.
- fwlr 4y agoEve if Moore’s law is dead, it lived way longer than any law claiming a doubling every two years has a right to. Compound annual growth of 41% per year for 40+ years is astonishing.
- stevenjgarner 4y agoI think the spirit of Moore's Law (the context in which it is most often used) is better referred to as the Law of Accelerating Returns [1] [2] (e.g. by Ray Kurzweil). Moore's Law is a sub-section (in time and technology) of the Law of Accelerating Returns. [1] https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns [2] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-05642-4_16 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-05642-4_...
- dahart 4y agoNaw, this is from a quarter century after Moore’s predictions, and Moore’s law had already started slowing down by then. Kurzweil was also selling snake oil (immortality) here, and the proof is in the final figure in the article, it’s 100% misleading and has left me with mistrust for all the rest of what Kurzweil said. Why did he leave out all the population data between 1920 and 2000, data which we have available at our fingertips? Because then he couldn’t have drawn a completely fabricated plot showing continuous lifespan acceleration, acceleration that doesn’t exist. Why does he conflate life expectancy with longevity to imply to the reader that genetics are improving as opposed to, say, the truth about poverty, wars, sanitation, and medicine? Because then it wouldn’t tell an amazing sounding (but completely untrue) story about humans being able to live longer and see the “singularity”. This article proved to me that Kurzweil is a charlatan, which is disappointing because I loved his keynote at Siggraph right around this time where he was pitching these ideas.
- stevenjgarner 4y agoReally? I thought the exponential growth of calculations per second per dollar was rather well-established at least from 1900 through 2010 [1], a period of time that is much broader than Moore's Law? [1] https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*vlmZ_Y3a-PGsK0SJImZWaA.png https://miro.medium.com/v2/resize:fit:1400/1*vlmZ_Y3a-PGsK0S...
- dahart 4y agoYes really, there is no law of accelerating returns as far as I’m concerned. Kurzweil clearly tried to opportunistically generalize Moore’s law and take credit for what he thought was a bigger idea, but sadly doesn’t produce a compelling argument, given that 1) Moore’s law died a decade ago, it no longer holds, and cost of calculations per second is no longer decreasing exponentially, and 2) Kurzweil claimed that things like US GDP and human life expectancy are evidence of his so-called law, and these claims are clearly bullshit. And not just wrong but intentionally misleading, that’s the part that bothers me. Did you look at the final figure? It’s not possible to make that diagram or write the accompanying text without knowing you’re lying. How about the first or second ones, wtf even are they? The majority of plots in Kurzweil’s piece, some 20-odd figures, are direct byproducts of Moore’s law from after Moore observed/predicted it, and nothing more. In case you missed it, my point is not that flops didn’t increased exponentially for most of the last century, it’s that Kurzweil wasn’t the first to observe it, and didn’t add anything rigorous to what Moore & others had already done. Kurzweil only made a mockery of it by fabricating some of the data and using the larger argument to claim we’re headed toward immortality, joining an illustrious list of people who get attention by hawking the fountain of youth. BTW feel free to re-read Kurzweil’s predictions about computation growth in the article and ask yourself whether they’re true. One of his scheduled predictions is up this year. He’s off by a few orders of magnitude according to his own definitions, and furthermore his definitions are off by a few more orders of magnitude according to other researchers, and on top of that his claim that enough flops equal human brain capability are, to date, false. These things put the remainder of his predictions really far behind schedule, and possibly slipping at an exponential rate, which kinda undermines the whole point, right?
- KyleABenzle 4y ago[dead]
- kyleabenzleeee 4y ago[flagged]
- imwillofficial 4y agoA legend. RIP
- GalenErso 4y agoOddly, www.intel.com has nothing about this on its Canadian frontpage (https://www.intel.com/content/www/ca/en/homepage.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/ca/en/homepage.html), but their newsroom does: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/home.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/home.html
- paxys 4y agoThe US one does https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/homepage.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/homepage.html
- acjohnson55 4y agoWow, we have lost a true legend. As I get older, I marvel a bit at the giants I once shared time on the earth with. Sometimes it feels like we don't have giants in the 21st century in the same way.
- madamelic 4y agoI think it is hard to see giants when they are just innovators. To everyone around them and especially themselves, they were just pushing the ball forward day-by-day; they weren't heroes or insanely prescient, they were just doing the next logical thing to do. It's only after they've climbed the mountain that you can appreciate what they did. That's probably the hardest thing about innovation. To everyone who wants to innovate, they only see the mountain. They have the grand idea of where they will end up, when the reality of innovation is just pushing the ball forward one step at a time. It's not heroism or being a genius necessarily, it's persistence and being able to think on the fly. I think "genius" knows where the general destination is but I feel like most aren't doing it for the destination, they are doing it because they feel it is a calling and what they must do.
- GalenErso 4y agoI sometimes make myself a mental list of famous people who are expected to die soon. The following people will all die in the next few years: Jimmy Carter (98), Henry Kissinger (99), Dick Cheney (82), Pope Francis (86), Paul McCartney (80), John Williams (91), William Shatner (92), and Ali Khamenei (83).
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y agoThere is a website for such predictions: https://deathlist.net/ https://deathlist.net/
- nly 4y agoWell, that's delightfully morbid.
- tcbawo 4y ago
- panick21_ 4y agoWow just yesterday a few days ago I watched his Oral History: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcLzokagAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcLzokagAw What I learned is that I had no idea how semiconductors are actually made and how they made them early on. Its really interesting interview!
- dylan604 4y ago>yesterday a few days ago i like this. keeps people guessing as to why it was phrased as such. makes it more mysterious
- rvz 4y agoA true legend and a giant in the foundations of multiple tech industries and devices all using semiconductor technology and the co-creator and center of "Silicon Valley" and the creator of Moore's Law. RIP.
- cushychicken 4y agoWait, didn’t someone post about how he was still alive just today?! Way to jinx it!
- orionblastar 4y agoRIP he funded a park near me. Did more than just computers.
- bilekas 4y agoFor reference to anyone who doesn't know : He is the Moore of Moore's law : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law We lost a visionary and a pioneer. I like to think we have people who not only think like he did, but who can get the message across.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- singularity2001 4y agoMoores law lives on in Kurzweils law (in spirit)
- riceart 4y agoNo it doesn’t - take that singularity bullshit elsewhere. Gordon Moore never aligned himself with that pseudoscientific nonsense https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-11/TechnologicalSingularity/pageview2efb.html?file=againstfeasibility.html https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/2010-...
- maushu 4y agoI don't understand what you linked. Don't they believe in technological singularity? I would think a intelligence capable of self modification could use the scientific method to increase it's performance (even if it means scaling in size like a matrioshka brain).
- riceart 4y ago> Don't they believe in technological singularity? “ In fact, in a 2005 interview, Moore personally stated that his prediction of exponential growth would not hold indefinitely, simply due to "the nature of exponentials." No.
- dang 4y agoCan you please make your substantive points without name-calling? It's not hard, and we're trying for something a bit different from internet default here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- geerlingguy 4y agoThis seems like a good reason to change the bar color on HN.
- arthurcolle 4y agoYeah, no question. I'm sure it is coming.
- ulkesh 4y agoI was thinking the same thing. I'm surprised it's taking this long, honestly. He's such an icon and major player in the history of the computer industry. Edit>> Though I suppose there's a confirmation process HN goes through before sporting the black band.
- zymhan 4y ago> Edit>> Though I suppose there's a confirmation process HN goes through before sporting the black band. I'm sure HN is willing to defer that research to someone like Intel in this case.
- splatzone 4y agoLet’s not assume badly of them. The real reason is likely that the person who changes it to black (dang?) isn’t around to do it right now.
- ulkesh 4y ago
- Dalewyn 4y agoI wouldn't be who I am today without Intel enabling what I did in my childhood years, so paying my respects isn't nearly enough to make up. A big, sincere pressing of the F to pay respects. May he rest in peace.
- zabzonk 4y agoWell, for me getting started it was Zilog (but the Z80 was based on the Intel 8080), Mostech and Motorola. But Intel had a big input too, and of course an overwhelming influence with the 8086. And as John Donne said: "any man's death diminishes me" but some more than others.
- pcblues 4y agoIn 2 years time, he will have died at 188. (edit for maths failure)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- cronix 4y agoWhen you zoom out on the timeline of humanity, this man, among others, will have left a huge spike in our technological progress. When I look back at the last 50 years and compare it to all known previous human history, I'm quite humbled to be alive during this timeline with them, despite some things I also greatly abhor.
- kuprel 4y agoLong live Moore's law
- mjhay 4y agoSad to say, I think his law died with him.
- splatzone 4y agoDo you have a source or further info you could share on this?
- visarga 4y agoOne of the earlier scaling laws of computing. Now we're into AI scaling laws.
- nullsense 4y agoIt has probably just always been an exponential and any curve can be a straight line if you zoom far enough in and Moore's law was just that. Now we've got some perspective and are starting to see the actual exponential.
- dkersten 4y agoModel size will double every 18 months?
- moffkalast 4y agoAnd number of jobs automated.
- brushkeetalk 4y ago[dead]
- stevespang 4y ago[dead]
- pizlonator 4y agoWhat a giant in our field. Rest in peace.
- stevespang 4y agoScroll to 2:20 in the video below Moore admits as a kid he had an explosives lab at home (unlicensed) back in the day. Even Elon Musk admitted he made pipe bombs as a kid. Wonder how many similar promising science kids today would be / have been arrested and imprisoned today by the goons at Homeland for experiments like these ? https://www.sciencehistory.org/files/scientists-you-must-know-intel-founder-gordon-moore https://www.sciencehistory.org/files/scientists-you-must-kno...
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Sparkyte 4y agoSo Moore's Law is literally dead? RIP, we will continue to break your law.
- Kemax 4y agoThank you for your contributions Mr. Moore. The world appreciates it. Rest on.
- Sparkyte 4y agoSo Moore's Law is officially dead. RIP and we will continue to kill the law. Hope the humor reaches you. Rest well.
- fb03 4y agoCan we get a black bar, please?
- pjmorris 4y agoI was a kid reading 'Popular Electronics' in the mid 70's in a rural Florida high school. I did an English class presentation on transistors, mentioning Moore's Law. My electronics never got past the Radio Shack 150-in-1 Electronics kit and I went into software. I feel like I owe my career there to the work of the geniuses like Moore who not only made something rare and special, they made it common, nearly universal.
- sacnoradhq 4y agoDad was an electrical automotive mechanic so I didn't have a choice there. Did EE/CS and have all the standard electronic lab bits from a trinocular microscope w/ polarized ring light to the JBC knock-off soldering station. I keep meaning to buy an HP 54600B to get the Tetris easter egg. Software and systems are where the money's at now (until the tech singularity ruins it), hardware is just for fun.
- danielrpa 4y agoThese kits were awesome, BTW. I had one too. I know you can find them still on Amazon, but I never got my kid, who's otherwise into computers, interested in them.
- gustavodemari 4y agoRest in peace, legend.
- dang 4y agoWe changed the url from https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1611/gordon-moore-intel-co-founder-dies-at-94 https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1611/... to the one from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35297487 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35297487, which has more background.
- stevefan1999 4y agoMoore's law is really dead now
- wpnx 4y agoI bet i’m not the only one that was looking through comments for this.
- moffkalast 4y agoMoore died so his law could live on.
- iancmceachern 4y agoIn death, members of project meyham have names. His was Robert err.. Gordon Moore.
- Balgair 4y agoRest in peace. Truly, one of the giants upon whose shoulders we all stand.
- hahamaster 4y agoPoor guy considering the obesity epidemic.
- whalesalad 4y agoHis perspective must have been pretty gnarly. Starting from literally the ground floor when it comes to transistors and personal computers - and living to see stuff like the 13900k. RIP.
- ar9av 4y agoI really hope his casket has an Intel Inside sticker on it. RIP
- jhpankow 4y agoI hope the company is not buried with his passing.
- spullara 4y agoI once got the opportunity to ask Gordon Moore a question, “what is the equivalent of Moore’s Law for software?” His response, “number of bugs doubles every year”. Great man.
- layer8 4y agoI suspect the same holds true for hardware bugs in silicon, given the increasing complexity of CPUs. ;)
- nequo 4y agoEstablishing an equivalent law for firmware would be interesting too.
- agumonkey 4y agoMaybe I'm naive but i think hardware cannot afford such condition. Even the name is a hint, software was termed so because it was easier to modify, allowing more errors to get in because you can fix it later at a lower cost.
- rfoo 4y agoReading errata for Intel/AMD processors would be an eye opening experience then. There are so many bugs in features you never heard of, just like software. It is inevitable given the complexity.
- agumonkey 4y agoI'm sure there are tons of bugs, I was told a few stories by people in aerospace industry. But I think they cannot survive if they don't keep the number ultra low, because they can't fix it (well except microcode level).
- ethbr0 4y agoThey can't fix it, but compiler teams can. It's a testament to those unsung heroes that most high-level language users can remain blissfully unaware of how much is automatically fixed by compilers in their emitted instructions.
- neilpanchal 4y agoRIP. As an ex-Intel employee, this one stings. He was a godly figure internally and even during Intel's deteriorating years, engineers and technologists looked up to him as a constant north star of inspiration and engineering culture. Hope his demise gives a long pause to Intel's leadership and bring back some of good parts of the engineering culture from the 80's and 90's.
- abvdasker 4y agoRIP to an absolute giant, on whose shoulders we all stand.
- armatav 4y ago:(
- geenew 4y agoRIP. Nothing more to add.
- electrosphere 4y ago*nothing Moore.
- fisherjeff 4y agoWeird how this works sometimes… I was just at the Monterey Bay Aquarium for the first time today, saw the name on the auditorium and thought “that Gordon (and Betty) Moore?” Truly an incredible place, and thanks in very large part to the Moores. RIP Gordon.
- roddylindsay 4y agoThe Monterey Bay Aquarium was founded by two daughters of David Packard of Hewlett-Packard fame (along with Stanford professor Chuck Baxter who died last year.) Deep tech roots there.
- pronto-columnar 4y agoWow this has made me realise that the maths library at Cambridge was also sponsored by them. Never really gave a thought to it until now, just assumed they were some random rich alumni!
- adityapatadia 4y agoRest in peace sir Your actions have powered billions of dreamers and saved trillions of hours for the mankind.
- rezaprima 4y agoI mistakenly immediately thought of of the (color)FORTH one.
- sizzle 4y agoRIP to a legend
- supernova87a 4y agoWhat a respect-worthy man, and a lucky man to have been born at the beginning of an age of exponential innovation. Also, from all that I've read about him he gave back to the world in equal measure and was the best of a past generation of Silicon Valley entrepreneur. For anyone who has interest / time and lives in the Bay Area, watch this PBS program for the history of the "Fairchildren" and the roots of Silicon Valley. (of which Gordon Moore was one of the "traitorous eight" who contributed to making SV what it is today) If you live, drive, work around the area, there are so many landmarks and legacies of this phase of history that you can still see today (but only if you keep an eye out and take a little effort to learn the past). https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/silicon/#film_description https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/silicon/#f... (links to Amazon Prime, Apple TV there, and you can also find this on your favorite BitTorrent source...)
- qrybam 4y agoHow incredible is it, that I'm writing software on a laptop, connected to the internet over wifi, all while being 38,000 feet in the air. And all this enabled by billions of tiny transistors made from sand. And to make this all the more surreal, I'm sitting next to someone who knew him. Thank you Gordon Moore. RIP.
- simonebrunozzi 4y ago> I'm sitting next to someone who knew him Is this person someone who is (was) traveling with you, and therefore you knew that he/she knew Gordon Moore, or did you just got to know this person by random chance? Given he/she knew him, can you ask to share some memories, and post it here? RIP.
- iamsanteri 4y agoHacker Newsing above the clouds? What a world we live in…
- matwood 4y ago> all while being 38,000 feet in the air I was pushing code while on a transatlantic flight the other day and I got a little overwhelmed with just how cool it was. There I was in a metal tube staying aloft with 2 jet engines, and had wifi at 30k feet while traveling at ~600 mph.
- Razengan 4y agoAnd all of this..all of us..basically coalesced from star dust that will one day again be star dust :)
- sponaugle 4y agoGordon built something amazing, and I was lucky to have started my career at his creation. I was fortunate to be able to meet Gordon at his house in Hawaii a few years back, which was an amazing experience for an engineer that grew up learning from his wisdoms and accomplishments. Rest in peace
- topkai22 4y agoIncredibly, his eponymous law has held out long then him. RIP.
- StrangeATractor 4y agoFuck me I feel old.
- agiamas 4y agoAs I grow older I witness that the people that built the computing industry are slowly but surely fading out. The next generation now stands on their shoulders and keeps on building the next generations of computing. Thank you Gordon Moore. RIP.
- jedberg 4y agoOh man, I was just at the Monterey Bay Aquarium earlier today reading a sign that said, "This exhibit made possible by Dr. and Mrs. Gordon Moore".
- moffkalast 4y agoNo tapping on the glass. Moore's law.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- Erikun 4y agoI'm a little curious, is there a reason why the ultra rich, once they've cashed out, create foundations that hand out grants? Is it because they suddenly find themselves wanting to do something good for society with the money or just because that is what everyone in that situation does? Is there a ranking of what foundations have done the most good work? Is that ever evaluated? Anyway rest in peace Gordon Moore, a true captain of industry.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- forkerenok 4y ago> why the ultra rich, once they've cashed out, create foundations that hand out grants? Not qualified to say whether this is exactly the case here, but I think this video about charities/funds as power-wielding vehicles bears some relevance: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I Disclaimer: not a big fan of the delivery style in the video.
- h2odragon 4y agoThose donations can often be arranged to be tax deductible, so instead of letting $Government spend the money you get to direct its course a little more precisely. At larger income levels they often manage to make a donation pay off as "taxes", but also obligate others of their strata socially, and wield control over the recipients ("we'll sponsor your publication for a year of you dont talk about $controversy").
- dotnet00 4y agoThey've been through the struggle themselves, and especially in the tech sector, they must've been very interested in their specific field to devote their life to building a large business around it. Thus when they find themselves with the time and money to support new innovators, they end up handing out grants as that's an easy way to support fundamental research of the sort that they too once did.
- Kevin_S 4y agoYou've hit on a few reasons. Basically: taxes, no more need for money, desire to give back, desire to have a lasting legacy, societal pressure... And no, there really is very little work done evaluating private foundations. They operate with very few guardrails and oversight is extremely minimal. It is difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of charities, so how do you evaluate foundations that give grants to charities? I am an academic that studies foundations and would be happy to talk more about it if you have other questions.
- xjconlyme 4y agoThank you Mr.Moore, RIP.
- nxmode 4y agoThe age of the titans is leaving fast. Another titan's candle is out, I am sad.
- eashish93 4y agohow's the scrolling so fast on this website
- drawkbox 4y agoIt isn't often one person or a group like the "Traitorous Eight" [1] go on to make entire industries and new platforms. They did it though and that included Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. Moore and Noyce later split from that and made NM Electronics which became Intel. This was back when engineers/product people ran things and competition via skill not just funding was the driving force. Imagine a new company today fully controlled by the engineers/creatives/product people, it happens but not as often. We need to get back to that. The Moore's Law is an interesting case study in creating a term/law that supersedes you and inspires your self interest but also the interest of the industry and innovation. The root of Moore's Law was making more products and cheaper, allowing more to use computing.[2] > Prior to establishing Intel, Moore and Noyce participated in the founding of Fairchild Semiconductor, where they played central roles in the first commercial production of diffused silicon transistors and later the world’s first commercially viable integrated circuits. The two had previously worked together under William Shockley, the co-inventor of the transistor and founder of Shockley Semiconductor, which was the first semiconductor company established in what would become Silicon Valley. Upon striking out on their own, Moore and Noyce hired future Intel CEO Andy Grove as the third employee, and the three of them built Intel into one of the world’s great companies. Together they became known as the “Intel Trinity,” and their legacy continues today. > In addition to Moore’s seminal role in founding two of the world’s pioneering technology companies, he famously forecast in 1965 that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit would double every year – a prediction that came to be known as Moore’s Law. > "All I was trying to do was get that message across, that by putting more and more stuff on a chip we were going to make all electronics cheaper," Moore said in a 2008 interview. > With his 1965 prediction proven correct, in 1975 Moore revised his estimate to the doubling of transistors on an integrated circuit every two years for the next 10 years. Regardless, the idea of chip technology growing at an exponential rate, continually making electronics faster, smaller and cheaper, became the driving force behind the semiconductor industry and paved the way for the ubiquitous use of chips in millions of everyday products. When he did become successful he also gave back. Moore gave us more. Then when he made it he gave even more. > During his lifetime, Moore also dedicated his focus and energy to philanthropy, particularly environmental conservation, science and patient care improvements. Along with his wife of 72 years, he established the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which has donated more than $5.1 billion to charitable causes since its founding in 2000. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight [2] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/gordon-moore-obituary.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/gordon...
- medv 4y agowell dead and dead
- turbobooster 4y agoTrue pioneer in backdooring CPUs
- vgchh 4y agoI have never had any brush with the giant. But I have my own little story to share. Way back in 1998, I was a newly minted engineer in India and was visiting Bangalore. While roaming around on MG Road, I picked up a book named “Inside Intel”. It is through that book that I learned about Gordon Moore. On the 48 hour train journey back to Delhi, I devoured the book. It left an impression and I was in awe. It also ignited something in me. I wanted to become a better engineer, so I bought my first computer soon after. I wanted to be in the “Silicon Valley”. As the fate would have it, 3 years later, I landed there. Little did I know that this serendipity and random inspiration would weave my life story. I remain awestruck with the person and the impact that he left. RIP
- rcach001 4y agoThere are small moments in life that can change us forever!
- achow 4y agoWe are results of many accidents.
- hirundo 4y agoMy dad told me it was just one.
- joshgachnang 4y agoMine did the same before my mom whacked him and corrected that I was "a happy surprise" while glaring daggers at him.
- tintedfireglass 4y agoBlossom book house <3
- shas3 4y ago
- SigmaBale 4y ago[dead]
- cduzz 4y agoI would like to propose "Grove's Axiom" which basically states: If you're failing, pivot to what your replacement will do before you fail. "In the midst of the doldrums of 1985, Grove posed a hypothetical question to his colleague Gordon Moore: “If we got kicked out and the board brought in a new CEO, what do you think he would do?” Moore answered without hesitation, “He would get us out of memories.” To which Grove responded, “Why shouldn’t you and I walk out the door, come back and do it ourselves?” [1] [1] https://hbr.org/1996/11/inside-intel https://hbr.org/1996/11/inside-intel
- mabbo 4y agoThat's a pretty powerful axiom. I wonder how applicable it is to life in general. Relationship is failing (and you want to save it): what will their next partner do differently? Do it now! Worried you might be kicked off a sports team: what will the new player do better than you? Practice that! Imposter syndrome has you worried your boss will fire you: what will the replacement, the "real" person do that you aren't? Start doing that today.
- memorythought 4y agoI would be careful applying this one to imposter syndrome. I think of imposter syndrome as a failure to calibrate your expectations of yourself with the reality of what your work requires. Asking yourself what the "real" person would do that you aren't doing seems to me like it would play into that miscalibration. You might be better of asking _someone else_ what your replacement would do.
- alexpotato 4y agoThis reminds me of the advice: When deciding what to do, imagine that you are not talking to yourself but rather what you would tell someone else to do in your situation. This simple mental shift apparently removes a lot of cognitive biases and emotional baggage that might be affecting your decision making process.
- sitkack 4y ago
- uptownfunk 4y agoAh the creator of the famous Moore’s law. I didn’t realize they were the same person. RIP. An incredible innovator, responsible for so much.
- uptownfunk 4y agoWow >> By the 50th anniversary of Moore’s Law in 2015, Intel estimated that the pace of innovation engendered by Moore’s Law had ushered in some $3 trillion in additional value to the U.S. gross domestic product over the prior 20 years. Moore’s Law had become the cornerstone of the semiconductor industry, and of the constantly evolving technologies that depend on it. Critical to that engine of growth had been U.S. investment in basic research and STEM education, ten percent of the U.S. Federal Budget in 1968. By 2015, however, that had been reduced to a mere four percent. To Gordon, investment in discovery-driven science was another key impetus behind creating the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation in 2000, especially in the context of a widening funding gap for something he recognized as critical to human progress.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- betimsl 4y agoI qofte dheu i lehte.
- russ 4y agoIn 2004 or 2005, Gordon came to UCD and gave a talk about computing — both history and future. It was unintentionally intimate: the overhang of the dotcom bust lead to the CS department’s lowest enrollment in history. Gordon had a really thoughtful response to my question about a particular chart. I remember walking away inspired and excited about the future of the industry I’d soon be working in. All these years later, I’m still just as excited. Thank you, Gordon. RIP
- crest 4y agoI guess we can put Moore's law to it's final rest beside him.
- nvr219 4y agoRIP to a real one.
- rektide 4y ago2500 points. Wow. I haven't seen upvotes like this... ever. Unmentioned so far- I was watching the University of Utah's 50th Anniversary of CS sessions[1], and- apologies I forget who- someone mentioned that it was Carver Mead who largely promoted "Moore's Law" as an idea. Just some random trivia, to highlight how such a strong piece of identity around such a more dynamic & wide-ranging man came about. Hopefully not the "Douglas Engelbart: creator of the mouse" identity. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUFp6sjKbkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUFp6sjKbkE
- MasterYoda 4y agoMoore is no more. :(