• Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

      • MotoAsh@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s literally not, but you go ahead and feel smart for lack of reading comprehension!

        • Victor@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          Kind of rude? It feels like it’s close, no?

          Could you explain in detail why it isn’t? Because from what I see:

          1. 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.
          2. 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.

          • MotoAsh@piefed.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            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.