<i>The author explicitly asks: &quot;In what sense does technology grow “exponentially”?&quot; If the author wants to claim that the results of Moore&#x27;s law hasn&#x27;t trickled down to the common man, then he should do that. Pretending to not know about Moore&#x27;s law just fails for me as a rhetorical device.</i><p>If the author was searching their mind for ways that technology has grown exponentially, with business and society on the mind.  I find it quite reasonable that under-the-bonnet numbers didn&#x27;t spring to mind.<p>I don&#x27;t really see how missing this is a meaningful criticism.  Sure Moore&#x27;s law is a thing, but it&#x27;s not really useful and I forget it exists all the time too.