4 ms·
> but features are still slowly getting smaller (your own link says so) From the link: "Although miniaturization is still happening, the Moore’s Law standard o
by ninetyninenine 2y ago
> but features are still slowly getting smaller (your own link says so)
From the link: "Although miniaturization is still happening, the Moore’s Law standard of doubling the components on a semiconductor chip every two years has been broken"
I'm not saying things aren't getting smaller. I'm saying moores law is broken.
- ben_w 2y ago> I'm not saying things aren't getting smaller. I'm saying moores law is broken. And I'm saying that Moore's original statement was already broken by 1975. And that the whole phrase means loads of different things that Moore never actually said, and the one of those which matters here is still true.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago> If you ask MIT Professor Charles Leiserson, Moore’s Law has been over since at least 2016. That’s from the link. I largely agree. Colloquially it’s over after 2016. Any other interpretation is too pedantic imo.
- ben_w 2y agoHow is anything other than joules per operation relevant in the context of this thread? That's the only variant that matters here. (Well, dollars per operation, but assuming energy costs are fixed…)
- ninetyninenine 2y agoThe context is improvement in general.