[HN Gopher] Gordon Moore has died
___________________________________________________________________
Gordon Moore has died
Author : mepian
Score : 2492 points
Date : 2023-03-25 00:07 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.moore.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.moore.org)
| topkai22 wrote:
| Incredibly, his eponymous law has held out long then him. RIP.
| Erikun wrote:
| I'm a little curious, is there a reason why the ultra rich, once
| they've cashed out, create foundations that hand out grants? Is
| it because they suddenly find themselves wanting to do something
| good for society with the money or just because that is what
| everyone in that situation does? Is there a ranking of what
| foundations have done the most good work? Is that ever evaluated?
|
| Anyway rest in peace Gordon Moore, a true captain of industry.
| [deleted]
| dotnet00 wrote:
| They've been through the struggle themselves, and especially in
| the tech sector, they must've been very interested in their
| specific field to devote their life to building a large
| business around it.
|
| Thus when they find themselves with the time and money to
| support new innovators, they end up handing out grants as
| that's an easy way to support fundamental research of the sort
| that they too once did.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Those donations can often be arranged to be tax deductible, so
| instead of letting $Government spend the money you get to
| direct its course a little more precisely. At larger income
| levels they often manage to make a donation pay off as "taxes",
| but also obligate others of their strata socially, and wield
| control over the recipients ("we'll sponsor your publication
| for a year of you dont talk about $controversy").
| forkerenok wrote:
| > why the ultra rich, once they've cashed out, create
| foundations that hand out grants?
|
| Not qualified to say whether this is exactly the case here, but
| I think this video about charities/funds as power-wielding
| vehicles bears some relevance:
| https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0Cu6EbELZ6I
|
| Disclaimer: not a big fan of the delivery style in the video.
| Kevin_S wrote:
| You've hit on a few reasons. Basically: taxes, no more need for
| money, desire to give back, desire to have a lasting legacy,
| societal pressure...
|
| And no, there really is very little work done evaluating
| private foundations. They operate with very few guardrails and
| oversight is extremely minimal. It is difficult to evaluate the
| effectiveness of charities, so how do you evaluate foundations
| that give grants to charities?
|
| I am an academic that studies foundations and would be happy to
| talk more about it if you have other questions.
| KyleABenzle wrote:
| [dead]
| kyleabenzleeee wrote:
| [flagged]
| vgchh wrote:
| I have never had any brush with the giant. But I have my own
| little story to share. Way back in 1998, I was a newly minted
| engineer in India and was visiting Bangalore. While roaming
| around on MG Road, I picked up a book named "Inside Intel". It is
| through that book that I learned about Gordon Moore. On the 48
| hour train journey back to Delhi, I devoured the book. It left an
| impression and I was in awe. It also ignited something in me. I
| wanted to become a better engineer, so I bought my first computer
| soon after. I wanted to be in the "Silicon Valley". As the fate
| would have it, 3 years later, I landed there. Little did I know
| that this serendipity and random inspiration would weave my life
| story. I remain awestruck with the person and the impact that he
| left. RIP
| tintedfireglass wrote:
| Blossom book house <3
| rcach001 wrote:
| There are small moments in life that can change us forever!
| achow wrote:
| We are results of many accidents.
| hirundo wrote:
| My dad told me it was just one.
| servercobra wrote:
| Mine did the same before my mom whacked him and corrected
| that I was "a happy surprise" while glaring daggers at
| him.
| agiamas wrote:
| As I grow older I witness that the people that built the
| computing industry are slowly but surely fading out. The next
| generation now stands on their shoulders and keeps on building
| the next generations of computing. Thank you Gordon Moore. RIP.
| nvr219 wrote:
| RIP to a real one.
| bilekas wrote:
| For reference to anyone who doesn't know : He is the Moore of
| Moore's law :
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
|
| We lost a visionary and a pioneer. I like to think we have people
| who not only think like he did, but who can get the message
| across.
| [deleted]
| singularity2001 wrote:
| Moores law lives on in Kurzweils law (in spirit)
| riceart wrote:
| No it doesn't - take that singularity bullshit elsewhere.
| Gordon Moore never aligned himself with that pseudoscientific
| nonsense https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projec
| ts/2010-...
| tim333 wrote:
| Though the basic point that computers keep increasing in
| processing power still seems to hold, even if it's not just
| by having more transistors per area.
| maushu wrote:
| I don't understand what you linked. Don't they believe in
| technological singularity?
|
| I would think a intelligence capable of self modification
| could use the scientific method to increase it's
| performance (even if it means scaling in size like a
| matrioshka brain).
| riceart wrote:
| > Don't they believe in technological singularity?
|
| " In fact, in a 2005 interview, Moore personally stated
| that his prediction of exponential growth would not hold
| indefinitely, simply due to "the nature of exponentials."
|
| No.
| dang wrote:
| Can you please make your substantive points without name-
| calling? It's not hard, and we're trying for something a
| bit different from internet default here.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| theodric wrote:
| Was there an edit? I don't see any name-calling in GP.
| dang wrote:
| "That singularity bullshit" and "that pseudoscientific
| nonsense" count as name-calling in the sense that
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html uses the
| term:
|
| " _When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead
| of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3'
| can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3._"
|
| (a bit more explanation if anyone cares: aggressive
| pejoratives tend to poison curious conversation and are
| easy to cut, so this isn't a hard one. I think mostly
| people write like that online because it's how many of us
| would talk in person with people we're friendly with--and
| there it's totally normal, because there's already a
| 'contract' that takes care of understanding each other's
| good intention. That's absent online, so many commenters
| are on a hair trigger with this kind of thing and will
| react in ways that take the conversation to less
| interesting, more conflictual places.)
| kuprel wrote:
| Long live Moore's law
| mjhay wrote:
| Sad to say, I think his law died with him.
| splatzone wrote:
| Do you have a source or further info you could share on this?
| visarga wrote:
| One of the earlier scaling laws of computing. Now we're into
| AI scaling laws.
| nullsense wrote:
| It has probably just always been an exponential and any
| curve can be a straight line if you zoom far enough in and
| Moore's law was just that. Now we've got some perspective
| and are starting to see the actual exponential.
| dkersten wrote:
| Model size will double every 18 months?
| moffkalast wrote:
| And number of jobs automated.
| StrangeATractor wrote:
| Fuck me I feel old.
| rezaprima wrote:
| I mistakenly immediately thought of of the (color)FORTH one.
| crest wrote:
| I guess we can put Moore's law to it's final rest beside him.
| geerlingguy wrote:
| This seems like a good reason to change the bar color on HN.
| tigerlily wrote:
| I once had a nightmare that Knuth died, and at first there was
| a thin black bar on the HN site. Clicking around, suddenly the
| whole topcolor turned black. Lastly the entire HN page turned
| black text on black background. I was just like "it's cool,
| they're taking this seriously". It was just so weird and
| believable at the same time.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| Agreed
| arthurcolle wrote:
| Yeah, no question. I'm sure it is coming.
| ulkesh wrote:
| I was thinking the same thing. I'm surprised it's taking this
| long, honestly. He's such an icon and major player in the
| history of the computer industry.
|
| Edit>> Though I suppose there's a confirmation process HN
| goes through before sporting the black band.
| ulkesh wrote:
| Wow, you downvoters are harsh. Okay I learned my lesson not
| to assume someone has a phone or PC next to them and can
| simply flip a switch in a matter of 30 seconds. Cool.
| zymhan wrote:
| > Edit>> Though I suppose there's a confirmation process HN
| goes through before sporting the black band.
|
| I'm sure HN is willing to defer that research to someone
| like Intel in this case.
| splatzone wrote:
| Let's not assume badly of them. The real reason is likely
| that the person who changes it to black (dang?) isn't
| around to do it right now.
| bombcar wrote:
| dang is not permitted to sleep and it can't be reasoned
| with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it
| absolutely will not stop... ever, until you are dead!
| 93po wrote:
| how dare he not be on hacker news on a friday evening
| arthurcolle wrote:
| As of 00:44 EST, black bar is showing.
|
| Please chill with your inane takes on why this "wasn't fast
| enough"
| SigmaBale wrote:
| [dead]
| russ wrote:
| In 2004 or 2005, Gordon came to UCD and gave a talk about
| computing -- both history and future. It was unintentionally
| intimate: the overhang of the dotcom bust lead to the CS
| department's lowest enrollment in history. Gordon had a really
| thoughtful response to my question about a particular chart. I
| remember walking away inspired and excited about the future of
| the industry I'd soon be working in. All these years later, I'm
| still just as excited. Thank you, Gordon. RIP
| imwillofficial wrote:
| A legend. RIP
| GalenErso wrote:
| Oddly, www.intel.com has nothing about this on its Canadian
| frontpage
| (https://www.intel.com/content/www/ca/en/homepage.html), but
| their newsroom does:
| https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/home.html
| paxys wrote:
| The US one does
| https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/homepage.html
| whalesalad wrote:
| His perspective must have been pretty gnarly. Starting from
| literally the ground floor when it comes to transistors and
| personal computers - and living to see stuff like the 13900k.
| RIP.
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| Wow, we have lost a true legend. As I get older, I marvel a bit
| at the giants I once shared time on the earth with. Sometimes it
| feels like we don't have giants in the 21st century in the same
| way.
| Aperocky wrote:
| In Antarctic exploration, there was a time called Heroic Age of
| Antarctic Exploration:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroic_Age_of_Antarctic_Explor...
|
| People attempted to use dog sleds to traverse up the antarctic
| plateau, which is nearly the same altitude as Tibet, and reach
| the pole.
|
| Many died in the process, their names are remembered (though
| slid out of public discourse as its over a century ago).
|
| In our industry fortunately people don't die, but trailblazer
| had to do a similar thing - they used the proverbial dog sleds
| to build a camp in the middle of antarctic plateau.
| behnamoh wrote:
| > Sometimes it feels like we don't have giants in the 21st
| century in the same way.
|
| Somehow it feels like we'll never have legends in an age when
| GPT-4/5/... are accessible to everyone.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I mean, not yet. Right now in tech, we are subject to 38 year
| olds careening through life, dying in their mid 50s
|
| Whatever legacy and mature rebranding they attempt wont be
| apparent until 2070
| madamelic wrote:
| I think it is hard to see giants when they are just innovators.
|
| To everyone around them and especially themselves, they were
| just pushing the ball forward day-by-day; they weren't heroes
| or insanely prescient, they were just doing the next logical
| thing to do. It's only after they've climbed the mountain that
| you can appreciate what they did.
|
| That's probably the hardest thing about innovation. To everyone
| who wants to innovate, they only see the mountain. They have
| the grand idea of where they will end up, when the reality of
| innovation is just pushing the ball forward one step at a time.
| It's not heroism or being a genius necessarily, it's
| persistence and being able to think on the fly.
|
| I think "genius" knows where the general destination is but I
| feel like most aren't doing it for the destination, they are
| doing it because they feel it is a calling and what they must
| do.
| GalenErso wrote:
| I sometimes make myself a mental list of famous people who are
| expected to die soon. The following people will all die in the
| next few years: Jimmy Carter (98), Henry Kissinger (99), Dick
| Cheney (82), Pope Francis (86), Paul McCartney (80), John
| Williams (91), William Shatner (92), and Ali Khamenei (83).
| tcbawo wrote:
| Buzz Aldrin (93), although he might outlive all of us
| ericmcer wrote:
| Even in death Ringo will be in Paul McCartney's shadow haha.
|
| A huge one for me is Mel Brooks, it is pretty rare for a
| celebrity death to have an impact on me but that one will.
| TheGrassyKnoll wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Fosbury
| bilekas wrote:
| Not to diminish your list, but notably they're all non
| scientific, there's a push with Kissinger. (One could see
| economics as a science)
|
| Point being: they only serve the generation who survive them,
| Moore, will outlive us all, in fact and in legacy.
|
| Edit: What I said isn't true, music, movies and arts will
| outlive us. We have different lists.
| azinman2 wrote:
| Their impacts go beyond their generation by having shifted
| the world in some way.
| WalterBright wrote:
| > music, movies and arts will outlive us.
|
| Will they? Who watches old movies?
| vmladenov wrote:
| I just watched Some Like It Hot (1959) a few weeks ago.
| Great comedy, looks phenomenal in 4K
| WalterBright wrote:
| I watch old ones, too, but always by myself. Nobody else
| wants to. It's always "eww, black and white!"
|
| Often they're right. They'd be much more watchable with
| an AI that could sharpen the picture and colorize it.
| the_only_law wrote:
| I don't know. Sometimes poor contrast black and white
| film does really well for the atmosphere/vibe/whatever
| the hell you want to call it.
| WalterBright wrote:
| "Sometimes" is the right word. Usually, it's just
| inferior. B+W was used for artistic purposes only rarely,
| the rest of the time it was because it was cheap and
| easy.
| vmladenov wrote:
| Watched it with the family! Was a hit
|
| Hard disagree on the colorization bit. I don't see how
| color would improve some thing like Psycho or Citizen
| Kane
| WalterBright wrote:
| Nice!
| ta1243 wrote:
| Peter Parker for one. > Hey guys, you ever see that
| really old movie, The Empire Strikes Back
|
| As a kid I watched many films from my parent's
| generation. Mary Poppins (1964) or Great Escape (1963)
| come to mind as being staples every christmas -- Great
| Escape on boxing day especially
|
| A generation before that people watched "It's a Wonderful
| Life" (1946) for much the same reason.
|
| I've subjected my kids to a few old films from well
| before they were born, but they were films from my youth
| -- Bill and Ted, Back to the Future, Men in Black, Muppet
| Christmas Carol etc. And yes they've seen Star Wars,
| which was from before I was born (just), but that's an
| ongoing franchise.
|
| I don't see them watching films from the 1960s like I did
| though, and I doubt they'll make their kids sit through
| films from the 90s.
| jfk13 wrote:
| > A generation before that people watched "It's a
| Wonderful Life" (1946) for much the same reason.
|
| Some of us still watch it!
|
| Of course the vast majority of old movies are long
| forgotten (and no great loss), just as the vast majority
| of what we're producing today will be. But there are a
| minority of classics that endure. Just as there's still a
| market for Shakespeare, Dickens, and Mozart, despite all
| the plays, books and music that have been written since.
| ankit70 wrote:
| Alan Alda.
| dghughes wrote:
| And Mike Farrell.
| lordnacho wrote:
| Attenborough. That will be the end of our planet's
| conscience, symbolic of the era where we discovered how truly
| incredible a place we live in, and what we are doing to it.
| childintime wrote:
| Sadly Mick Jagger is on my list, his death would mark the end
| of an era.
| pjmorris wrote:
| Related:
|
| "I think youngsters need to start thinking about the kind
| of world they are going to leave for me and Keith Richards
| (79)." - Willie Nelson (89)
| spinlock_ wrote:
| Warren Buffett (92)
| jjeaff wrote:
| And Charlie Munger (99) is still somehow doing press
| junkets.
| Andrew_nenakhov wrote:
| There is a website for such predictions:
| https://deathlist.net/
| nly wrote:
| Well, that's delightfully morbid.
| Scottn1 wrote:
| Gene Hackman (93)
| jseliger wrote:
| Moore lived long enough to see Intel financialized, and its
| engineering crown taken by its rivals.
|
| Only the paranoid survive, one of his colleagues once said, and
| I guess Intel stopped being sufficiently paranoid.
| melling wrote:
| That "colleague" was Andy Grove, also a rather impressive
| person.
|
| https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/664484-only-the-
| parano...
|
| He got Parkinson's and died 7 years ago.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11333402
| bpye wrote:
| Intel is not dead, wounded perhaps. I would still be very
| surprised to see them disappear.
| ren_engineer wrote:
| they'll survive due to geopolitics if nothing else, the US
| government has no choice but to make sure they stay viable
| due to the potential issues in Taiwan
| [deleted]
| imhoguy wrote:
| This, anything happening to Taiwan will shaken IT and
| electronics industry severely. We are ahead of "chip-
| covid" event in my opinion as IT wasn't enough shaken by
| SARS-Cov2 or Ukraine, I hope I am wrong. Intel stock
| price would sky rocket then.
| osigurdson wrote:
| Try to become a giant yourself - why not?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| A giant typically means famous. There are many giants that we
| will never know the name of. For me, I'd rather die famous
| with my friends and family and have changed the world in my
| silent way. I've been fortunate enough to do it a few times
| already, and I hope I'll get another chance before I die as
| most people never get the first chance. That's I think a
| better goal - when a chance comes to change everything, jump
| into it head first. But don't bother trying to be famous.
| It's meaningless.
|
| Regardless, I bid Dr Moore a fond farewell. He lived to see
| the horizon of his law.
| dctoedt wrote:
| > _There are many giants that we will never know the name
| of._
|
| And sadly, there are millions living out their lives in
| poorer parts of the world who might have become giants, if
| only they'd had access to nutrition, good parenting,
| education, connections, etc.
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| His law was probably self fulfilling. In some ways more
| like an actual law than laws if nature
| acjohnson55 wrote:
| I've thought about that a lot. Right now, I think it's just
| not what drives me. I'm motivated by novelty and certain
| types of experiences. Not really by years-long projects
| trying to break new ground.
|
| But my comment doesn't come out of a sense of desire to
| emulate. Just out of a sense that especially in the early-to-
| mid 20th century, we had these titanic characters: Einstein,
| Tesla, Von Neumann, The Beatles, and so forth.
|
| In a lot of ways, I think it comes down to these folks
| existing in the beginnings of the information age, and how
| many advances were unlocked by the increase in communication
| speed.
|
| That was probably a lot more groundbreaking than the digital
| revolution. For all the progress we've seen since I was born
| in the 80s, there's not a lot of things that have
| fundamentally changed in terms of human capability. Although,
| we may see in the next decade or two the same sort of
| paradigm shift.
| JamesAdir wrote:
| It takes time to understand who is the true giant. Robert
| Metcalfe just received the ACM Turing award last week and his
| contributions where from the 70's. It's the same with Nobel
| laureates, it takes year for your work to be recognized.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Not really, no. He may have just recently received an award
| (he's received many awards) but Metcalfe has been recognized
| for his achievements for decades. He got the ACM Grace Hopper
| award in 1980:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_Murray_Hopper_Award
| davnicwil wrote:
| I think this is tautological - this is how it must always be,
| and I would guess has been the common view at any given point
| of time in history.
|
| You can only properly assess and appreciate the impact
| sufficient to assign 'legend' status to an individual or
| institution retroactively, decades hence from the actions that
| elevated them there.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Not at all. Moore himself has been recognized and celebrated
| for decades.
|
| But many other such figures achieved 'legendary' status while
| they were very much alive and in their prime: Edison, Ford,
| Bell, Wright Bros, Disney, Carnegie, Einstein, Oppenheimer,
| etc.
|
| Moore himself was a member of an elite crew and one of
| Shockley's (the inventor of the transistor) "Traitorous
| Eight" which spun out from their former mentor to join
| Fairchild Semiconductor before all of them spun out from that
| enterprise to found their own companies and in the process
| create Silicon Valley proper.
| darknavi wrote:
| Reminds me of this silly quote from The Office (US)
|
| > I wish there was a way to know you were in the good old
| days before you actually left them. > - Andy Bernard
| flangola7 wrote:
| Fortunately we have that opportunity today
| conroydave wrote:
| do you mind elaborating?
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I wouldn't be who I am today without Intel enabling what I did in
| my childhood years, so paying my respects isn't nearly enough to
| make up.
|
| A big, sincere pressing of the F to pay respects. May he rest in
| peace.
| zabzonk wrote:
| Well, for me getting started it was Zilog (but the Z80 was
| based on the Intel 8080), Mostech and Motorola. But Intel had a
| big input too, and of course an overwhelming influence with the
| 8086.
|
| And as John Donne said:
|
| "any man's death diminishes me"
|
| but some more than others.
| pcblues wrote:
| In 2 years time, he will have died at 188. (edit for maths
| failure)
| Sparkyte wrote:
| So Moore's Law is literally dead?
|
| RIP, we will continue to break your law.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Wow just yesterday a few days ago I watched his Oral History:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcLzokagAw
|
| What I learned is that I had no idea how semiconductors are
| actually made and how they made them early on.
|
| Its really interesting interview!
| dylan604 wrote:
| >yesterday a few days ago
|
| i like this. keeps people guessing as to why it was phrased as
| such. makes it more mysterious
| panick21_ wrote:
| Dyslexia is my superpower
| klyrs wrote:
| Typing in small textboxes always makes me feel stupid.
| sn41 wrote:
| I parse it as:
|
| Yesterday, it was a few days ago.
|
| Today, it was many days ago :)
| dylan604 wrote:
| this was my interp as well
| Kemax wrote:
| Thank you for your contributions Mr. Moore. The world appreciates
| it. Rest on.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| So Moore's Law is officially dead.
|
| RIP and we will continue to kill the law. Hope the humor reaches
| you. Rest well.
| bombcar wrote:
| > We at Intel remain inspired by Moore's Law, and intend to
| pursue it until the periodic table is exhausted.
|
| Interesting way for them to put it, i think I like it.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| LOL
| betimsl wrote:
| I qofte dheu i lehte.
| fb03 wrote:
| Can we get a black bar, please?
| gustavodemari wrote:
| Rest in peace, legend.
| pizlonator wrote:
| What a giant in our field. Rest in peace.
| drawkbox wrote:
| It isn't often one person or a group like the "Traitorous Eight"
| [1] go on to make entire industries and new platforms. They did
| it though and that included Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce. Moore
| and Noyce later split from that and made NM Electronics which
| became Intel.
|
| This was back when engineers/product people ran things and
| competition via skill not just funding was the driving force.
| Imagine a new company today fully controlled by the
| engineers/creatives/product people, it happens but not as often.
| We need to get back to that.
|
| The Moore's Law is an interesting case study in creating a
| term/law that supersedes you and inspires your self interest but
| also the interest of the industry and innovation. The root of
| Moore's Law was making more products and cheaper, allowing more
| to use computing.[2]
|
| > _Prior to establishing Intel, Moore and Noyce participated in
| the founding of Fairchild Semiconductor, where they played
| central roles in the first commercial production of diffused
| silicon transistors and later the world's first commercially
| viable integrated circuits. The two had previously worked
| together under William Shockley, the co-inventor of the
| transistor and founder of Shockley Semiconductor, which was the
| first semiconductor company established in what would become
| Silicon Valley. Upon striking out on their own, Moore and Noyce
| hired future Intel CEO Andy Grove as the third employee, and the
| three of them built Intel into one of the world's great
| companies. Together they became known as the "Intel Trinity," and
| their legacy continues today._
|
| > _In addition to Moore's seminal role in founding two of the
| world's pioneering technology companies, he famously forecast in
| 1965 that the number of transistors on an integrated circuit
| would double every year - a prediction that came to be known as
| Moore's Law._
|
| > _" All I was trying to do was get that message across, that by
| putting more and more stuff on a chip we were going to make all
| electronics cheaper," Moore said in a 2008 interview._
|
| > _With his 1965 prediction proven correct, in 1975 Moore revised
| his estimate to the doubling of transistors on an integrated
| circuit every two years for the next 10 years. Regardless, the
| idea of chip technology growing at an exponential rate,
| continually making electronics faster, smaller and cheaper,
| became the driving force behind the semiconductor industry and
| paved the way for the ubiquitous use of chips in millions of
| everyday products._
|
| When he did become successful he also gave back.
|
| Moore gave us more. Then when he made it he gave even more.
|
| > _During his lifetime, Moore also dedicated his focus and energy
| to philanthropy, particularly environmental conservation, science
| and patient care improvements. Along with his wife of 72 years,
| he established the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which has
| donated more than $5.1 billion to charitable causes since its
| founding in 2000._ [2]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traitorous_eight
|
| [2]
| https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/gordon...
| stevespang wrote:
| Scroll to 2:20 in the video below
|
| Moore admits as a kid he had an explosives lab at home
| (unlicensed) back in the day. Even Elon Musk admitted he made
| pipe bombs as a kid.
|
| Wonder how many similar promising science kids today would be /
| have been arrested and imprisoned today by the goons at Homeland
| for experiments like these ?
|
| https://www.sciencehistory.org/files/scientists-you-must-kno...
| sizzle wrote:
| RIP to a legend
| brushkeetalk wrote:
| [dead]
| stevespang wrote:
| [dead]
| medv wrote:
| well dead and dead
| [deleted]
| xjconlyme wrote:
| Thank you Mr.Moore, RIP.
| supernova87a wrote:
| What a respect-worthy man, and a lucky man to have been born at
| the beginning of an age of exponential innovation. Also, from all
| that I've read about him he gave back to the world in equal
| measure and was the best of a past generation of Silicon Valley
| entrepreneur.
|
| For anyone who has interest / time and lives in the Bay Area,
| watch this PBS program for the history of the "Fairchildren" and
| the roots of Silicon Valley. (of which Gordon Moore was one of
| the "traitorous eight" who contributed to making SV what it is
| today) If you live, drive, work around the area, there are so
| many landmarks and legacies of this phase of history that you can
| still see today (but only if you keep an eye out and take a
| little effort to learn the past).
|
| https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/silicon/#f...
|
| (links to Amazon Prime, Apple TV there, and you can also find
| this on your favorite BitTorrent source...)
| rvz wrote:
| A _true_ legend and a giant in the foundations of multiple tech
| industries and devices all using semiconductor technology and the
| co-creator and center of "Silicon Valley" and the creator of
| Moore's Law.
|
| RIP.
| cronix wrote:
| When you zoom out on the timeline of humanity, this man, among
| others, will have left a huge spike in our technological
| progress. When I look back at the last 50 years and compare it to
| all known previous human history, I'm quite humbled to be alive
| during this timeline with them, despite some things I also
| greatly abhor.
| dang wrote:
| We changed the url from https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-
| releases/detail/1611/... to the one from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35297487, which has more
| background.
| abvdasker wrote:
| RIP to an absolute giant, on whose shoulders we all stand.
| jedberg wrote:
| Oh man, I was just at the Monterey Bay Aquarium earlier today
| reading a sign that said, "This exhibit made possible by Dr. and
| Mrs. Gordon Moore".
| moffkalast wrote:
| No tapping on the glass. Moore's law.
| nxmode wrote:
| The age of the titans is leaving fast. Another titan's candle is
| out, I am sad.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| armatav wrote:
| :(
| geenew wrote:
| RIP. Nothing more to add.
| electrosphere wrote:
| *nothing Moore.
| ar9av wrote:
| I really hope his casket has an Intel Inside sticker on it. RIP
| jhpankow wrote:
| I hope the company is not buried with his passing.
| mc32 wrote:
| He definitely deserves the memorial banner. But wow, what a well
| lived life
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| RIP
| smodad wrote:
| We should all be so lucky. It's always sad when it happens
| though. RIP
| uptownfunk wrote:
| Ah the creator of the famous Moore's law. I didn't realize they
| were the same person. RIP. An incredible innovator, responsible
| for so much.
| pjmorris wrote:
| I was a kid reading 'Popular Electronics' in the mid 70's in a
| rural Florida high school. I did an English class presentation on
| transistors, mentioning Moore's Law. My electronics never got
| past the Radio Shack 150-in-1 Electronics kit and I went into
| software. I feel like I owe my career there to the work of the
| geniuses like Moore who not only made something rare and special,
| they made it common, nearly universal.
| danielrpa wrote:
| These kits were awesome, BTW. I had one too. I know you can
| find them still on Amazon, but I never got my kid, who's
| otherwise into computers, interested in them.
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| Dad was an electrical automotive mechanic so I didn't have a
| choice there.
|
| Did EE/CS and have all the standard electronic lab bits from a
| trinocular microscope w/ polarized ring light to the JBC knock-
| off soldering station. I keep meaning to buy an HP 54600B to
| get the Tetris easter egg.
|
| Software and systems are where the money's at now (until the
| tech singularity ruins it), hardware is just for fun.
| cushychicken wrote:
| Wait, didn't someone post about how he was still alive just
| today?! Way to jinx it!
| qrybam wrote:
| How incredible is it, that I'm writing software on a laptop,
| connected to the internet over wifi, all while being 38,000 feet
| in the air. And all this enabled by billions of tiny transistors
| made from sand. And to make this all the more surreal, I'm
| sitting next to someone who knew him.
|
| Thank you Gordon Moore. RIP.
| simonebrunozzi wrote:
| > I'm sitting next to someone who knew him
|
| Is this person someone who is (was) traveling with you, and
| therefore you knew that he/she knew Gordon Moore, or did you
| just got to know this person by random chance?
|
| Given he/she knew him, can you ask to share some memories, and
| post it here?
|
| RIP.
| qrybam wrote:
| Random chance
| NiloCK wrote:
| Holy smokes!
| iamsanteri wrote:
| Hacker Newsing above the clouds? What a world we live in...
| kirubakaran wrote:
| Cloud computing!
| matwood wrote:
| > all while being 38,000 feet in the air
|
| I was pushing code while on a transatlantic flight the other
| day and I got a little overwhelmed with just how cool it was.
| There I was in a metal tube staying aloft with 2 jet engines,
| and had wifi at 30k feet while traveling at ~600 mph.
| Razengan wrote:
| And all of this..all of us..basically coalesced from star
| dust that will one day again be star dust :)
| selectodude wrote:
| Maybe. Might just end up being a dense ball of nothing.
| TheCoreh wrote:
| A dense ball of _everything_.
| andrewflnr wrote:
| To be fair, "star dust" is not rigorously defined, and
| the cosmological definition of "dust" includes some
| pretty big chunks. So after the sun swallows the earth,
| there's a very good chance we'll qualify. :)
| tim333 wrote:
| Also we are more patterns in the dust given that most of
| the atoms in our bodies swap for new ones over a couple
| of years. The patterns may be able to continue separately
| from the dust.
| ChickenNugger wrote:
| At the cosmological scale, stars are dust.
| Aperocky wrote:
| That's what we are, entropy generating star dust.
| blueprint wrote:
| just totally destroying the planet for future generations and
| living beyond my means. it was awesome.
| vtashkov_oblon wrote:
| [flagged]
| fisherjeff wrote:
| Weird how this works sometimes... I was just at the Monterey Bay
| Aquarium for the first time today, saw the name on the auditorium
| and thought " _that_ Gordon (and Betty) Moore?"
|
| Truly an incredible place, and thanks in very large part to the
| Moores. RIP Gordon.
| pronto-columnar wrote:
| Wow this has made me realise that the maths library at
| Cambridge was also sponsored by them. Never really gave a
| thought to it until now, just assumed they were some random
| rich alumni!
| roddylindsay wrote:
| The Monterey Bay Aquarium was founded by two daughters of David
| Packard of Hewlett-Packard fame (along with Stanford professor
| Chuck Baxter who died last year.) Deep tech roots there.
| [deleted]
| spullara wrote:
| I once got the opportunity to ask Gordon Moore a question, "what
| is the equivalent of Moore's Law for software?" His response,
| "number of bugs doubles every year". Great man.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Wirth's law :)
| layer8 wrote:
| I suspect the same holds true for hardware bugs in silicon,
| given the increasing complexity of CPUs. ;)
| nequo wrote:
| Establishing an equivalent law for firmware would be
| interesting too.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Maybe I'm naive but i think hardware cannot afford such
| condition. Even the name is a hint, software was termed so
| because it was easier to modify, allowing more errors to get
| in because you can fix it later at a lower cost.
| rfoo wrote:
| Reading errata for Intel/AMD processors would be an eye
| opening experience then.
|
| There are so many bugs in features you never heard of, just
| like software. It is inevitable given the complexity.
| girvo wrote:
| Reading errata for just the various STM32
| microcontrollers was enough to dissuade me of the notion
| that hardware is infallible!
| fest wrote:
| My personal favourite is from STM32F427:
|
| "When PA12 is used as GPIO or alternate function in input
| or output mode, the data read from flash memory (bank2,
| upper 1MB) might be corrupted."
|
| I can't even imagine the head scratching one might go
| through if hit by this, particularly late in development
| process (when the firmware becomes larger than 1MB).
| agumonkey wrote:
| I'm sure there are tons of bugs, I was told a few stories
| by people in aerospace industry. But I think they cannot
| survive if they don't keep the number ultra low, because
| they can't fix it (well except microcode level).
| bostik wrote:
| Reminds me of the classic aerospace joke.
|
| Q: In the age of Pentium, how do you pronounce IEEE-754?
| -- A: AAAAAAIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEE!
| ethbr0 wrote:
| They can't fix it, but compiler teams can.
|
| It's a testament to those unsung heroes that most high-
| level language users can remain blissfully unaware of how
| much is automatically fixed by compilers in their emitted
| instructions.
| komali2 wrote:
| Would fabrication failure be considered a bug? Isn't the
| rate kinda up there for chips that don't make it out of the
| factory? Not to mention on arrival there's a failure rate.
|
| But also, I don't know too much about this, but when Linus
| tech tips did a tour of a chip fabrication plant, I
| remember learning that apparently the high end chips are
| chips where all the little bits inside all work, and if
| they detect like, busted wee transistors or whatever, they
| can just use that chip as a lower power processor. If
| that's the case that's like... Kinda a bug, but they just
| "code around it," right?
| tester756 wrote:
| I'd say defect, not bug.
| kqr wrote:
| Since IIRC bug count is roughly proportional to source code
| line count, this implies the aggregate complexity of software
| doubles too. That might sound foreign, but if you think
| duplicated effort and accidental complexity rather than problem
| domain complexity it wouldn't surprise me if it was close to
| true.
|
| Points to the value of sticking close to the problem domain.
| kitd wrote:
| I heard error count is proportional to LoC + # of developers
| involved in writing it. So as well as the accidental
| complexity from LoC, the more people touch a code base, the
| greater the chance of broken communication and
| misunderstandings. Ie bugs.
| kqr wrote:
| I suspect lines of code and number of developers are
| strongly enough correlated that it's hard to get any
| additional predictive power from the latter!
| kitd wrote:
| I think that's true when the source is first written. But
| # of devs only ever goes up during maintenance lifecycle,
| while loc may not change much.
| kqr wrote:
| Maybe. In my experience it's common for developers who
| were not part of the original effort to maintain by
| addition, because they are worried changing the existing
| code might break stuff. So with increased maintainer
| count the code size grows too.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| I love that!
|
| Thanks for sharing it.
| tephra wrote:
| This made me immediately think of "The bug count also rises"
| http://www.snider.com/jeff/hemingway.html and of course Bryan
| Cantrills reading of it: https://youtu.be/4PaWFYm0kEw?t=1243
| adityapatadia wrote:
| Rest in peace sir
|
| Your actions have powered billions of dreamers and saved
| trillions of hours for the mankind.
| [deleted]
| DennisAleynikov wrote:
| Tragic news
| eashish93 wrote:
| how's the scrolling so fast on this website
| donohoe wrote:
| Its called scroll-jacking and it made me close the tab within 3
| seconds.
| grishka wrote:
| It's made by people who have never tested it on a Mac. They
| tried to "improve" the scrolling by making it "smoother".
| cduzz wrote:
| I would like to propose "Grove's Axiom" which basically states:
|
| If you're failing, pivot to what your replacement will do
| _before_ you fail.
|
| "In the midst of the doldrums of 1985, Grove posed a hypothetical
| question to his colleague Gordon Moore: "If we got kicked out and
| the board brought in a new CEO, what do you think he would do?"
| Moore answered without hesitation, "He would get us out of
| memories." To which Grove responded, "Why shouldn't you and I
| walk out the door, come back and do it ourselves?" [1]
|
| [1] https://hbr.org/1996/11/inside-intel
| alexpotato wrote:
| This reminds me of the advice:
|
| When deciding what to do, imagine that you are not talking to
| yourself but rather what you would tell someone else to do in
| your situation.
|
| This simple mental shift apparently removes a lot of cognitive
| biases and emotional baggage that might be affecting your
| decision making process.
| Smaug123 wrote:
| (Prompt engineering is a powerful technique with humans as
| well as LLMs!)
| sitkack wrote:
| People ask me for advice and I immediately realize why am I
| not following it myself? I have had multiple people come back
| years later and tell me that they would have never done X or
| achieved Y if it weren't for a discussion we had years
| earlier.
|
| The analytical knowing mind has to drag all this other stuff
| around!
| mabbo wrote:
| That's a pretty powerful axiom. I wonder how applicable it is
| to life in general.
|
| Relationship is failing (and you want to save it): what will
| their next partner do differently? Do it now!
|
| Worried you might be kicked off a sports team: what will the
| new player do better than you? Practice that!
|
| Imposter syndrome has you worried your boss will fire you: what
| will the replacement, the "real" person do that you aren't?
| Start doing that today.
| memorythought wrote:
| I would be careful applying this one to imposter syndrome. I
| think of imposter syndrome as a failure to calibrate your
| expectations of yourself with the reality of what your work
| requires. Asking yourself what the "real" person would do
| that you aren't doing seems to me like it would play into
| that miscalibration. You might be better of asking _someone
| else_ what your replacement would do.
| uptownfunk wrote:
| Wow
|
| >> By the 50th anniversary of Moore's Law in 2015, Intel
| estimated that the pace of innovation engendered by Moore's Law
| had ushered in some $3 trillion in additional value to the U.S.
| gross domestic product over the prior 20 years. Moore's Law had
| become the cornerstone of the semiconductor industry, and of the
| constantly evolving technologies that depend on it.
|
| Critical to that engine of growth had been U.S. investment in
| basic research and STEM education, ten percent of the U.S.
| Federal Budget in 1968. By 2015, however, that had been reduced
| to a mere four percent. To Gordon, investment in discovery-driven
| science was another key impetus behind creating the Gordon and
| Betty Moore Foundation in 2000, especially in the context of a
| widening funding gap for something he recognized as critical to
| human progress.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| Before anyone says that Moore's law is dead, remember that
| transistors are still getting smaller and more dense (not to
| mention more expensive, which was another part of his
| prediction).
|
| In every thread people confuse Moore's law with Dennard scaling
| (which states roughly that, as transistors get smaller, their
| power density stays constant, so that the power use stays in
| proportion with area; both voltage and current scale (downward)
| with length.)
| stevenjgarner wrote:
| I think the spirit of Moore's Law (the context in which it is
| most often used) is better referred to as the Law of
| Accelerating Returns [1] [2] (e.g. by Ray Kurzweil). Moore's
| Law is a sub-section (in time and technology) of the Law of
| Accelerating Returns.
|
| [1] https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns
|
| [2]
| https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-662-05642-4_...
| dahart wrote:
| Naw, this is from a _quarter century_ after Moore's
| predictions, and Moore's law had already started slowing down
| by then. Kurzweil was also selling snake oil (immortality)
| here, and the proof is in the final figure in the article,
| it's 100% misleading and has left me with mistrust for all
| the rest of what Kurzweil said. Why did he leave out all the
| population data between 1920 and 2000, data which we have
| available at our fingertips? Because then he couldn't have
| drawn a completely fabricated plot showing continuous
| lifespan acceleration, acceleration that doesn't exist. Why
| does he conflate life expectancy with longevity to imply to
| the reader that genetics are improving as opposed to, say,
| the truth about poverty, wars, sanitation, and medicine?
| Because then it wouldn't tell an amazing sounding (but
| completely untrue) story about humans being able to live
| longer and see the "singularity". This article proved to me
| that Kurzweil is a charlatan, which is disappointing because
| I loved his keynote at Siggraph right around this time where
| he was pitching these ideas.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Moore himself said (mentioned in the link) that the "law" was
| just supposed to convey that the way to cheaper electronics at
| the time was to focus on transistors, I don't think he ever
| meant it was supposed to be a law of physics that stays true 50
| years or 100 years later. In fact he said it would be true for
| 10 years
| junon wrote:
| This is interesting, I never knew this. Is there somewhere I
| can read more on his thoughts? I was under the impression
| (naively so) that this was some invariant that had been
| somehow proven to an extent.
| philiplu wrote:
| I searched on "Moore's law is not a law" and found [1],
| "Moore's Law Is Not Really A Law But It Is Still Obeyed",
| from someone who was a semiconductor engineer at Intel 40
| years ago. As he says, Moore's law was more a roadmap than
| a law. Companies strove to keep it going for fear their
| competitors would succeed while they failed; sort of a
| self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
| [1] https://medium.datadriveninvestor.com/moores-law-is-
| not-real...
| terafo wrote:
| Dennard scaling died 2 decades ago. Moore's law is dead for
| less than a dexade. It took 4 years for density to double(from
| N7 to N3). And with density doubled the cost. It will get only
| worse from here.
| panick21_ wrote:
| Actually Moores law is dead. His prediction was not transistors
| would get smaller. His prediction was initial that for 10 years
| was that density would double every year. And then later that
| it would double every 18 month.
|
| And this held longer then even he thought. But it has ended.
| While things still get denser, its no longer on that same
| trend.
|
| This interview with Moore explains it:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtcLzokagAw
|
| History by Cantrill:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TM9h89Vo_Qo
|
| David Patterson perspective:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFT54hO1X8M
|
| Opposing point of view Jim Keller:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIG9ztQw2Gc
|
| Patterson response to Keller:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz0eJA1TP3Y
|
| There are talks by David Patterson, Jim Keller and
| pclmulqdq wrote:
| The prediction wasn't that density would double. It was that
| "number of transistors on a chip" would double every year,
| and it was basically just marketing. That actually held up
| somewhat longer than the density doubling did, since chip
| area grew to fill the gap.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| _density would double every year_
|
| I'm not a physicist, but I think they need to get smaller to
| do that.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Smaller transistors is one way to get more transistors per
| chip. Chips could also get bigger, or the transistors could
| be packed in more densely (my VLSI is rusty, but not all
| transistors are minimally sized; a wider transistor can be
| used to push more power for example).
| panick21_ wrote:
| Chips are not getting bigger really. Its just very large
| 'chips' are multible chiplets package in on bigger part.
| And that's not what Moore was talking about.
| bee_rider wrote:
| GPU dies are pretty big, right?
|
| I'm just saying it is possible to follow Moore's law.
| Physics didn't limit us, engineering and economics did.
| Multi-chip packaging is a fantastic response to the
| engineering/economic problem of low yields.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| And how sustainable is making chips bigger or packing
| transistors more densely without making them smaller as a
| solution to getting chips with more transistors?
| bee_rider wrote:
| This is more of an engineering question than a physics
| one I think.
|
| GPU dies are quite large compared to CPU, ballpark 2X to
| 3X, so I guess we could get a generation to generation
| and a half of transistor doubling out of increasing the
| size of the chips at least.
|
| But the question is, do workloads benefit from all these
| transistors? Server workloads, I guess so, you can get
| some pretty big Xeons, or lots of transistors per package
| with AMD and multi-chip packaging. Consumer workloads, I
| think the issue is more that consumers don't have these
| massively parallel workloads that servers and
| workstations have. Consumers have stated their preference
| by not paying for more than a handful of cores per chip.
|
| The obvious way to get more transistors per core is
| fewer, bigger cores per chip. But changing the cores is a
| big engineering project. And yield issues are already a
| big problem, which would only become worse with more
| complex circuits. But until we end up with one core per
| chip, I think we have hit an engineering/economics
| problem rather than a physics one.
|
| And the engineering/economics problem is a really big
| one, I mean AMD has had great success by going in the
| opposite direction; breaking things up further with
| multi-chip packages.
| CyberDildonics wrote:
| _But the question is, do workloads benefit from all these
| transistors?_
|
| That's not the question at all, this was about
| transistors getting smaller. Now you're way out in left
| field talking about how gpu chips being bigger than cpus
| somehow means that transistors don't need to get smaller,
| benefits, workloads, cores per chips and a lot of other
| irrelevant strange goal post shifting.
|
| All I said was that transistors are still shrinking and
| density is increasing, I don't know where all this other
| stuff is coming from.
| blihp wrote:
| They haven't been doing so at that rate for a very long
| time.
| hedgehog wrote:
| Moore's Law has been dead for a while. The most common
| confusion I see is that people don't understand he was
| referring to economical scaling. These days we're getting more
| density and bigger chips but prices are going up a lot too.
| More for more instead of more for less.
| xipix wrote:
| Prices of the chips may be rising, but power usage is falling
| and in the end, that's often the bigger cost.
| fwlr wrote:
| Eve if Moore's law is dead, it lived way longer than any law
| claiming a _doubling_ every two years has a right to. Compound
| annual growth of 41% per year for 40+ years is astonishing.
| stevefan1999 wrote:
| Moore's law is really dead now
| moffkalast wrote:
| Moore died so his law could live on.
| wpnx wrote:
| I bet i'm not the only one that was looking through comments
| for this.
| turbobooster wrote:
| True pioneer in backdooring CPUs
| sponaugle wrote:
| Gordon built something amazing, and I was lucky to have started
| my career at his creation.
|
| I was fortunate to be able to meet Gordon at his house in Hawaii
| a few years back, which was an amazing experience for an engineer
| that grew up learning from his wisdoms and accomplishments.
|
| Rest in peace
| Balgair wrote:
| Rest in peace.
|
| Truly, one of the giants upon whose shoulders we all stand.
| hahamaster wrote:
| Poor guy considering the obesity epidemic.
| neilpanchal wrote:
| RIP. As an ex-Intel employee, this one stings. He was a godly
| figure internally and even during Intel's deteriorating years,
| engineers and technologists looked up to him as a constant north
| star of inspiration and engineering culture. Hope his demise
| gives a long pause to Intel's leadership and bring back some of
| good parts of the engineering culture from the 80's and 90's.
| orionblastar wrote:
| RIP he funded a park near me. Did more than just computers.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-25 23:02 UTC)