If we're going to be that pedantic, we might as well just say that because Intel and AMD aren't living entities so they can't be "dead". Or we could just accept that the original meaning of the phrase has evolved and is flexible enough to be used in situations where it's not absolutely literal.
I’ve noticed that as well. It beggars belief that people are seriously arguing about applying a centuries-old foreign metaphors about kings to modern large corporations. That’s straight over Pedantic territory into the Obnoxious Contrarian wilderness. Sigh…
Wars about semantics have been standard fare on geekdom since the dawn of time, and on Hacker News since the dawn of Arc.
What appears as "Obnoxious Contrarian wilderness" is good-old hacker "well, actually" pendanticness (with some sprinkling of on-the-spectrum focus on details and semantics).
Yes, I have noticed “an increase in arguing over the meaning of words on HN lately”. I also know how to discuss the meaning of words and how they form the context of a conversation, once taken together.
> Wars about semantics have been standard fare on geekdom since the dawn of time, and on Hacker News since the dawn of Arc.
Sure, and I enjoy very much some pedantry (and am not above doing my bit every now and then), but that’s not the point. If someone wants to have a heated discussion about how a centuries-old metaphor would apply to the kings of France but not to a multinational company, then sure, have at it, as long as you don’t derail otherwise useful threads. I will just opt out of spending my time that way and instead get some interesting pedantry.
I must admit I am not really sure what image you want to imply by “dawn of Arc”, though it does go a bit with the French king vibe. Would you care to explicit a little?
> What appears as "Obnoxious Contrarian wilderness" is good-old hacker "well, actually" pendanticness (with some sprinkling of on-the-spectrum focus on details and semantics).
Pedantry and semantics are fine, and indeed one of the reasons why I am here. But the point beyond that has to be knowledge and enlightenment, otherwise it’s just, yes, obnoxious. There is also a thin line between a good “well actually” and a nuisance (not even talking about bad faith trolling).
Please note that I did not address any of the people in question, because that would be stupid, rude, and counter-productive. I am happy if they have their arguments on their side. I was just replying to a fellow commenter that they were not alone with that feeling. There’s no need to be rude about it.
I'd guess it's a timing thing. This site likes to prioritize more highly the "current" discussions which are generating upvotes as long as they're not also generating a ton of downvotes.
Your point is about the factual statement (whether Intel x86 is actually dead).
But this subthread (as started by amusingimpala75), and your direct parent's question was about whether the idiomatic usage of "(old) X is dead, long live (new) X" was correct (given that the author believes AMD taking over Intel is the factual case). That is, not about whether the factual statement is correct or not, just whether it's expressed well idiomatically.
Perhaps it would be better phrased as "'intel x86'" vs "'AMD x86-64'". Specific sets of mandatory instructions and extension parameters - But AMD's set "won" at some point in the past, roughly corresponding to the launch of Intel's "Core" microarchitecture in 2006 when they started competing in the x86 space again