I find the author's insistence on his thesis - that we must retire Ahmdal's Law - very strange. I don't even think of Ahmdal's Law as being necessarily about pa

I find the author's insistence on his thesis - that we must retire Ahmdal's Law - very strange. I don't even think of Ahmdal's Law as being necessarily about parallelism; it's also useful when reasoning about improving the performance of a sequential program. The reason I find his insistence strange is that the rest of the article is a good explanation of what has changed in the decades since Ahmdal published his paper. But I disagree that all of those matters change the fundamental lesson: your ability to improve overall performance will be limited by the parts that you are unable to improve.