Dude, I was making like a buck and a half over minimum wage. Don't tell me how awful Moore's Law was for people without money. I barely had any and thought it was fantastic. In any case, doesn't matter whether we like it or not, point is that it's gone.

As for phones, I have an iPhone 6s and my girlfriend has a 13, and they're not all that different.

But sure, people are still engineering clever new things. That's great, but it's not Moore's Law, which was an absolute tsunami of raw new computing power every year.

I was making eight bucks an hour for most of that time, but it was still fantastic.

Now it doesn't matter how much money you have, you're still not going to buy that kind of performance leap every couple years. Everything's just gonna stay about the same, with just small incremental improvements.

That's the end of Moore's Law. We're going to be stuck with pretty much the same computers we have now, until someone invents a whole new computing technology that's not based on silicon chips.

I wouldn't say it's better. Those years were tremendous fun. You could keep running your old stuff if you wanted, but if you had money you didn't because the new stuff was so much better.

Maybe it depends on your definitions of "Moore's Law" and "end." From the article:

> In the 15 years from 1986 to 2001, processor performance increased by an average of 52 percent per year, but by 2018, this had slowed to just 3.5 percent yearly – a virtual standstill.

I'm feeling that. I got my first computer around 1986 and those first fifteen years were incredible. A new computer was way faster than one just a couple years old. RAM and disk space was growing like crazy.

Ain't like that anymore. I bought a Macbook Pro eight years ago and it doesn't even seem slow. New ones that cost about the same have the same RAM and just double the storage. This is not the Moore's Law we enjoyed in the '90s.

Well we have no idea how to give human values to a robot, so...hope you guys like paperclips.

Asteroid mining starts to make sense when someone like SpaceX succeeds with full-rapid-reuse rockets and gets launch costs to $50/kg. For a trip to an asteroid, probably a few hundred per kg.

At that point, mining asteroids for rocket fuel is less of an advantage, but mining them for precious metals makes more sense. Gold is $54K/kg, platinum is $30K/kg.

And sure, they'd get cheaper if someone started importing them from space in sufficient quantities. But we're already mining about 2500 to 3000 tons of gold every year, so an asteroid miner could make a lot of money before crashing the price.