Death of Moore's law means death of home computing.
Why?
Because you no longer can be competitive by creating something innovative with compute power available to an individual.
To have more compute you have to have more computers - i.e. more space and funding - something available only to institutions.

>>105885015 (OP)
Or we could be less lazy and actually program shit efficiently. That won’t lead to infinite gains either but there’s a lot of room for improvement

Or you can write more efficient code. That way you can accomplish greater things with less compute.

>>105885015 (OP)
You don't need continually increasing clock speeds, you just need more cores.
>but parallelizing is hard!!!
Skill issue. Devs who can leverage multithreading will succeed and those who can't will fail.

>>105885033
>you just need more cores
More cores means more transistors - you still need Moore's law for that, or your home PC will take as much power as an electric kettle (or two).

>>105885015 (OP)
dude, chips have been fast enough for home computers for quite a while now. why do you think win11 tries to cut off old chips? do you see how that's going? people don't want to throw away perfectly usable hardware just to run win11. and no one wants to buy a new computer to run shitty local AI.

>>105885015 (OP)
Can't tell if seriously this retarded or just meaningless kidpost

>>105885033
Also parallelization is kinda a meme when you only have like 4-8 cores available.
Take a PRAM course - you'll learn that parallel algorithms only get significantly faster (like O(n^2) becoming O(n log n)) when you have n parallel threads - which obviously is impractical for most applications - but clearly suggests that you need like a 1000 of parallel threads to see a truly meaningful benefit - something GPUs provide, not those silly CPUs with 4 or even 16 cores that regular consumers can buy.

>>105885015 (OP)
Moore's Law canonically hadn't concerned itself with cost. That was an ancillary benefit and not even jokingly a law.
Processors were always capital investment and a technology.
And PC is dying because all existing x64 designs focused on clock rate instead of IPC so there are only marginal gains for massive costs since Dennard scaling slowed to a crawl.

>>105885015 (OP)
trying to figure out in which order i would rape and kill her