[CyberDildonics]

Except that he didn't say that at all and has given extremely detailed accounts of the current thinking at the time in history (they were already looking towards the upcoming limitations and bottlenecks they would face in expanding RAM sizes).

Although it is true that solar and wind are dropping in prices recently I don't think an urban legend misquote has any relevance.

[puranjay]

Which is why I said that it is "attributed" to Bill Gates. I know he didn't say it

[dalke]

In the future you might want say 'misattributed' or 'wrongly attributed' for this case.

The term 'attributed to X' can mean "is widely but wrongly attributed to X", but can also mean "I heard it somewhere and it sounds true so I'll go with my gut feeling instead of verifying it" or "I hear there are doubts, so while I have no opinion, I'll keep my bases covered."

Personally, rather than be stuck in that mire, I would suggest quoting Prof. Frink from Simpsons:

> 'I predict that within 100 years, computers will be twice as powerful, 10000 times larger, and so expensive that only the five richest kings of Europe will own them.'

This in turn came from the quote widely but wrongly attributed to Thomas J. Watson of IBM:

> 'I think there is a world market for maybe five computers'

Quoting from https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Watson :

> Often dated to 1943. Thorough research of Watson's writings and statements have produced no example of him saying this. It appears to be a corruption of a remark by Howard Aiken that four or five computers could meet all of the United Kingdom's computing needs. See Ralph Keyes (2006), The Quote Verifier.

Of these, only the Frink version has an accurate attribution. I think the other two come with some malice. By repeating the urban legend as if it's relevant, I think you are forwarding that malice, even if unintentionally.