As a rule, Betteridge's Law applies to controversial statements where the author wants to provoke people but doesn't have enough evidence to say it affirmatively. I don't think that applies here.
>Betteridge's Law applies to controversial statements where the author wants to provoke people but doesn't have enough evidence to say it affirmatively
That applies perfectly here though, no?
Moore's law is dead, the statement is controversial, without enough evidence to prove their point and this is mostly a PR piece, as others have pointed out.
This seems like exactly the kind of controversial statement in which the author wants to provoke people by challenging the notion that moore's law is no longer valid.
