Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

On 30/09/2024 21:58, Brett wrote:

MitchAlsup1 <mitchalsup@aol.com> wrote:

On Mon, 30 Sep 2024 4:11:18 +0000, Brett wrote:

>
Based off of Hubble research 1000’s of theories were proposed to get a
Nobel prize, then the James Web telescope launched and all those
theories went into the toilet.
>
Had one of those theories been in the ball park you would have declared
success for predictive science. Ignoring the 999 failures, but
“science”completely failed.

>
just because there were thousands of conjectures that fail to meet the
rigors of science does not mean that science has failed.

 The false religion of “science” failed.
 

Science is not a religion.
And as someone (whose name I have forgotten) once said, "Science is about unanswered questions.  Religion is about unquestioned answers."
"Science does not know everything.  Science /knows/ it does not know everything - otherwise we'd stop doing it."  (That was Dara Ó Briain.)

Yes real science actually advances this way.
 

It's apparent from your postings that you have no concept of what "real science" is, or how it advances.
You look at modern science, and you see there are gaps - things that no one is explaining properly.  The scientific approach is to look at these holes and see opportunities to learn more and fill them in.  Perhaps someone will fulfil the dream of all scientists, and prove an existing theory wrong.
But your anti-scientific approach is to see these gaps or flaws and think that means scientists are lying to us, or that it's /all/ wrong. Then you listen to the first crackpot trisectors or conman that comes along, and happily give them your worship and your money just because they re-enforce your paranoia.
It is flat-earthers like you that make it very difficult for real scientists who do come up with unusual ideas - they are brought low by the weight of supporters like you who follow them simply because their ideas are different, not because they understand the science involved.