▲ 949 ▼ For some reason, I'm doubtful. (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by FlyingSquid@lemmy.world [M] to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 142 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] pop@lemmy.eco.br 2 points 2 years ago (3 children) Moore's law will speeddown and then die, tech advancement per space will stagnate. Also, no home PC needs 2 TB of RAM. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago 640K should be enough for anybody. permalink fedilink source parent [–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 2 years ago I'm reading the other comments, and wondering why do people need to be binary like that? Yes, diminishing returns are a thing, so we shouldn't expect the same degree of improvements, but stating hard limits is also something that usually gets laughed several years later. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 0 points 2 years ago We old-timers have heard that exact argument for like forever. Didn't happen. Even Intels chief engineer thought that after 3um there would be impossible to reach 1um. 1um = 1000nm BTW and we're at like 3nm permalink fedilink source parent
[–] WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago 640K should be enough for anybody. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nossaquesapao@lemmy.eco.br 0 points 2 years ago I'm reading the other comments, and wondering why do people need to be binary like that? Yes, diminishing returns are a thing, so we shouldn't expect the same degree of improvements, but stating hard limits is also something that usually gets laughed several years later. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.mindoki.com 0 points 2 years ago We old-timers have heard that exact argument for like forever. Didn't happen. Even Intels chief engineer thought that after 3um there would be impossible to reach 1um. 1um = 1000nm BTW and we're at like 3nm permalink fedilink source parent
