Re: Is Intel exceptionally unsuccessful as an architecture designer?

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 02:08:26 -0000 (UTC), Brett wrote:
 

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
 

Remember, this isn’t all just hand-waving: they have formulas, derived
from theory, into which they can plug in numbers, and the numbers agree
with actual measurements.

 
Theories are a dime a dozen, it is easy to back fit data to fit any
number of models.

 
Predicting results that haven’t been measured yet, and measuring them and
showing they are correct, is the true mark of science.

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.

These “scientists” are nothing more than monkeys at typewriters hoping to
get lucky.

Does your “alternative model” measure up to that? No it does not.