Which is cool I suppose but comparing it to Moore's Law seems a bit unfair.
And it's not even unreasonable. We collectively used transistors in general purpose CPUs in a way that wasn't most efficient but made it easy from a software and operational perspective. And that's changing now.
But multicore on a single (mostly) general purpose architecture (leaving aside vector instructions) is still easier from a software perspective than the very heterogeneous architecture--vector, array, FPGA, etc.--we're increasingly adopting.
are you referring to microsoft?
This was of course somewhat self-serving given all the criticism Intel caught for being slow to adopt multicore. But there were certainly concerns about software support at the time, especially on the desktop.
(In the end, it ended up not being as big a problem as some were fearing for various reasons. But it was a real fear at the time.)
Also it is extra silly because Moore's law is about transistor density and transistor cost.
Moore's law benefits all applications, by increasing performance across the board.
This new "Huang's law" increases performance for certain critical applications, while presumably decreasing performance of other applications (at fixed cost).
The difference is generally increasing transistor density vs. specializing hardware to perform critical tasks (like graphics rendering or tensor algebra).
The reason Moore's law was insightful was because he didn't make the simplistic generalization of computing power (which is more difficult to quantify anyway) and looked at what was really happening on a fundamental level from an engineering perspective.
Now the attention competition is at the article level, and the headline is near the top of the funnel. To not be subjected to (as much of) this insanity, you can use a smart aggregator like HN or a well-moderated subreddit.