Two big problems 1) NOBODY knows what IBM's definition of "sub 1nm" means 2) IBM bullshits so much more than anyone including Intel (remember the "teleportation" ads years ago) that nobody is going to waste time researching what they mean in reality
Two big problems 1) NOBODY knows what IBM's definition of "sub 1nm" means 2) IBM bullshits so much more than anyone including Intel (remember the "teleportation" ads years ago) that nobody is going to waste time researching what they mean in reality
> remember the "teleportation" ads years ago
Never heard of this, care to elaborate?
I think the OP references Intel ads with Jim Parsons from like a decade ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQWpYQm60P4
There were more of them, including some with other celebrities.
Maybe it is done to pump their stock with low effort? It seems that way for many companies.
I know what it means. Something isn't automatically bullshit because it's outside your field of expertise.
People love to hate on IBM, ask why it is relevant today, while several of their beloved FOSS projects are in some way, form or fashion, made possible with IBM's money.
which beloved FOSS were funded by IBM?
They effectively funded the legal defense against SCO that was trying to claim ownership of the IPR to Unix/Linux.
They bought and funded (and still fund) Redhat which funds Fedora and GNOME and Wayland and systemd.
Seems they own Red Hat, which is some no-name company that has nothing to do with Linux.
“I’m able to parse a marketing term” isn’t a great claim here. Pointing out it’s an unclear term largely abused is valid.
That's not what I meant. IBM published some scientific papers which explain the details. If you don't have the background to understand the papers and you don't trust the marketing that still doesn't justify rhetorically flipping the table.