Hacker News Reader

There's no (natural) law that prescribes that integers must be used, is it? Also, from what I understand that nanometer count is a bit symbolic, less literal.

EDIT: for instance IMEC talks about "sub 1nm" process, that is 0.7nm (https://www.tomshardware.com/news/imec-reveals-sub-1nm-trans...)

Going from 1 nm to 0.7 nm is hardly as impressive as going from 3 nm to 2 nm. It’s only 0.3 nm less!

(relative) size (still) matters!

They are joking too

Next up is picometers, femtometers, attometers, zeptometers, yoctometers, rontometers, and quectometers (not to be confused with quesometers). They can just keep going until they hit the Planck length as they continue to divorce their marketing from reality.

Those units sound made up. Nobody will believe them.

They're all made up.

Not too long ago nanometer was made up.

Intel has gone with ångstroms.

Not just # of atoms?

And if we run out of prefixes we will add new ones.

0.5nm, 0.25nm, 0.125nm ...