You must log in or register to comment.
Lucky it’s not an actual law of physics, just a business phrase.
just a business phrase.
Much more than a phrase. A hypothesis at least, maybe a theory. It could be observed, measured, and it was true for many years.
My slow watch is correct for a while sometimes too
The Ad Antiquitatem logical fallacy strikes again!
It’s literally not, but you go ahead and feel smart for lack of reading comprehension!
Kind of rude? It feels like it’s close, no?
Could you explain in detail why it isn’t? Because from what I see:
- The curve was accurate for some time, but innovation doesn’t really follow mathematical formulas, so the thesis would seem preposterous in hindsight, to me anyway.
- The appeal to tradition fallacy seems to be defined as just that? — Just because it’s been like that for some time doesn’t really necessarily mean it’s true. Right?
Why is this lack of reading comprehension? Please explain, if you would. Thank you kindly.
Lack of reading comprehension because they never claimed it was intended to literally be a physical law or an actual scientific theory meant to describe reality. Just shared charicteristics with those things, which they already listed. (falsifiable, measurable, etc)
Again, nobody is making an appeal to tradition to say Moore’s Law is literally a physical law or was ever meant to be one.
It was only ever called a “law” because it was hilarious that such a nigh off-hand postulate turned out to be even close to reality.
Since March 24 2023. That’s when he passed away so he can’t come kick our ass if we’re not following his law.
