Maybe they did, 5 years (or more) ago when that essay came out. it was wrong even then, but repeating it is even more wrong.
> This is just a factual inaccuracy.
No. It's what we call A Strawman Argument, because no one in this thread claimed that C was uniquely close to the hardware.
Jumping in to destroy the argument when no one is making it is almost textbook example of strawmanning.
Maybe they did, 5 years (or more) ago when that essay came out. it was wrong even then, but repeating it is even more wrong.
> This is just a factual inaccuracy.
No. It's what we call A Strawman Argument, because no one in this thread claimed that C was uniquely close to the hardware.
Jumping in to destroy the argument when no one is making it is almost textbook example of strawmanning.