this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
180 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

58492 readers
3965 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

this sounds like it's confirming my original comment with more specificity, that Intel was consistently playing catch up to tsmc and the only thing that might happen in the future is that maybe tsmc doesn't progress at the rate they have been and Intel develops a theoretical technology.

lots of maybes and ifs.

maybes and ifs are not evidence of TSMCs downfall, they're playthings that may or may not happen without any reasonable data to interpret.

I don't have a horse in this race, but I am allegiant to facts and logical consistency.

juggling what ifs is not very interesting for me.

[–] GamingChairModel@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Intel was consistently playing catch up to tsmc

Yes, this has been true since about 2017, because 10nm was about 3 years late, losing its previous 3-year lead.

The future is uncertain, but the past is already set.

[–] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago

"losing its previous 3-year lead."

what three-year lead?

"The future is uncertain, but the past is already set."

or you think it is.