Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't "nm" as a naming scheme been kind of misleading since 157nm immersion lithography failed?

Like, before then, nanometer was a measure of distance between transistors, and a smaller difference meant a faster calculation that also used less energy, and could be made cheaper because the transistors would require less silicon for the same calculation.

But as finfet started coming onto the scene, you could essentially raise the transistor in a third dimension, which adjusted the performance profile of that transistor, allowing you to gain "effective nanometer reduction", so things like TSMC 16nm and onward weren't really "nanometer" anymore, but an essentially abstract number that indicated roughly the performance compared to previous generations, which is also why intel 10, for instance, is roughly as dense, in terms of literal nanometers, as TSMC 6/7, but doesn't necessarily perform the same in all instances.

IMO Moore's Law, as originally described is dead (a doubling of transistors, and performance every 8 months), but the "Layman's Moore's Law", that "Computation will advance geometrically and we'll be able to acquire higher levels of performance for the same money", is still well alive.

There's plenty of interesting and technically challenging ways to improve performance, such as 3d stacking (IBM, AMD), disaggregation (AMD, Apple), heterogenous compute (Arm, Intel) and so on, without even going into the upcoming AI accelerators that will take advantage of improved multi-threading / parallel compute to shore up on our lack of raw single threaded improvements we've seen as of late, so as a tech enthusiast I'm absolutely hyped for upcoming products, but I don't quite think that it's quite right to say that Moore's Law is still alive as it was originally used.