I remember an older less-computer savvy gentlemen asking for support because "the program isn't working", when after a few questions we realized his computer won't boot up (screen dark, etc.). We thought his terminology was all screwed up. But now I realize he just lacked the necessary PR skill. He should have said that "the program isn't working" is a well-known term of art for power users such as himself. The fact that people who actually have a clue about computing find this imprecise term upsetting if there problem.
It so happens that aside from developing software, I'm physicist working on particle physics (specifically, I make my living in industry from cosmic rays). So I can assure you that "cosmic rays" actually mean something. Something very specific. Books have been written full of specific intelligent things we can say about cosmic rays. If you go an appropriate it to describe a whole bunch of phenomena because you can't be bothered to distinguish between them, you're in the exact same boat as that gentlemen from the start of the story.
Using wrong terms prevents understanding, as can be seen in all the stories linked elsethread so far. For example, using thinner silicon typically reduces the rate of Single-Event Upsets (the malfunctions caused by cosmic rays) but using smaller silicon components typically increases the rate of malfunctions due to quantum fluctuations. The latter typically happen in specific hardware that we manufactured not-quite-as-well as the rest. SEUs happen in the same rate in all hardware.
Go easy on the old guy. It sounds to me like he was completely correct, at the appropriate level of abstraction for him.
And as for cosmic rays...this may be a sensitive topic for you (or maybe you're just in a condescending mood), so I'll tread carefully, but seems simple to me.
The actual cause of the problem, given the instrumentation in place at the time of incident, is unknowable. But it might have been a subatomic particle. It absolutely definitively is, sometimes.
Metonymy might be imprecise, but it's human. I'm not sure what standard you intend to hold commenters here (or old guys with computers) to.
> If you go an appropriate it to describe a whole bunch of phenomena because you can't be bothered to distinguish between them
Cosmic ray is the appropriate colloquial term. Just like "bug" is the appropriate term to describe computer problems that have nothing to do with insects. It's a well established colloquialism and not simply terminology made up on the spot like in your example.
You're saying you have to engineer chip components so they're small enough not to be hit as often by cosmic rays, but large enough to avoid quantum fluctuations? Are quantum fluctuations something Intel is dealing with regularly as they get down under 3nm?
Yes, quantum tunneling (an electron "teleporting" into or out of transistors) has been an issue everyone has had to design around for multiple process nodes now.
