5 ms·

Moore's law as commonly understood (single-threaded computing power doubles every X amount of time) is already false. Moore's law as originally stated (number

• eru 14y ago
  > (number of transistors per chip doubles every X amount of time) That's closer, but still not there. Moore was more specific: He talked about the chip that currently has the lowest price per transistor. What really amazes me, is that Moore's law works backwards, too, for much longer periods than Moore had fitted the data to. You need to relax the definition of transistor somewhat, though. But punch-card looms still fit the pattern. On a tangent: I wonder how long exponential progress in falling prices will last in the fields of genome sequencing and synthesis. (I've also read that rechargeable batteries currently improve by around 8% a year. I don't remember by which metric exactly, though.)
• dmckeon 14y ago
  A reference to Moore's law in the lead paragraphs of an article in popular media is a useful diagnostic. If the law is mentioned at all, usually in ~200 words, I expect the writer to handwave with low signal/noise about some supposedly latest-and-greatest tech and I can decide whether to read the rest of the article. If the writer butchers an explanation of Moore's law, I can simply skip the rest of the article, confident that there will be enough other errors to drown out any surviving signal.
  • eru 14y ago
    I'd guess, if they know (and mention) Moore's second law, you are almost guaranteed a good article.