Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
84 79 88 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
Insufficient record: 2 predictions resolved, 5 needed for a score.
-
Promises
Commitments to the person's or organisation's own future action, with something to deliver: was it delivered?
Insufficient record: 3 promises resolved, 5 needed for a score.
-
Guidance
A company's own figures for its results over a period, checked against what it then reported.
Insufficient record: 1 guidance claim resolved, 5 needed for a score.
All types combined: 84 (likely 79 to 88, high confidence), from 90 claims: 90 factual claims. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Jeff Bezos's claims
35 claims
“Price performance of processing power is doubling about every 18 months (Moore’s Law)”
Jeff Bezos, CEO, writing in Amazon shareholder letter 2001 To our shareholders: Ouch. It's been a brutal year (2000 letter) (Amazon IR)
Price performance of processing power is doubling about every 18 months (Moore's Law).
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
The second judge said resolved true; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
Said for an organisation they lead or work for; it counts on both records.
What would count as true or false
Judged as of 2001. True: the generally cited rate of improvement in processing price-performance at that time, the popular form of Moore's Law, was a doubling about every 18 months (roughly 12–24 months counts as 'about'). Mostly true: the rate is right but attributed loosely, since Moore's own formulation concerned transistor counts doubling every two years rather than price-performance. Mostly false: the observed doubling period then was substantially different (e.g. 3+ years). False: processing price-performance was not improving exponentially at around that pace.
Evidence
- Two Centuries of Productivity Growth in Computing | The Journal of Economic History | Cambridge Core The Journal of Economic History (Cambridge University Press) · 4 March 2007
“Second, computational power actually grows more rapidly than Moore's Law would predict because computer performance is not identical to chip density. From 1982 to 2001, the rate of performance as measured by computer power grew 18 percent per year faster than Moore's Law would indicate.”
- The lives and death of Moore's law First Monday · 4 November 2002
“According to the estimates produced by Berndt, et al. (2000) for desktop computers, in the 1976–1989 the average price decrease corresponded to halving of price about every 50 months. At the beginning of the 1990s it corresponded to about 28 months.”
- The lives and death of Moore's law First Monday · 4 November 2002
“The historically inaccurate 18 months doubling time has been extremely widely used.”
- A Very Brief History of Computing, 1948-2015 Gresham College · 12 January 2016
“The increase in the ratio of computer performance to price continued to double every one to two years throughout the 1980s and 1990s, just as Moore's Law had predicted.”
Reasoning
E3 says the 18-month doubling time was extremely widely used, and E4 reports that computer performance-to-price doubled every one to two years through the 1980s and 1990s, which is within the 'about 18 months' range. E3 also calls the 18-month figure historically inaccurate as a statement of Moore's Law. Moore's own formulation was about transistor counts, so crediting price-performance to 'Moore's Law' is a loose attribution. E1 shows computing performance grew faster than chip density alone would predict, which is consistent with rapid exponential improvement.
Cite this claim
Jeff Bezos, “Price performance of processing power is doubling about every 18 months (Moore's Law).” (said 2001). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_d68c1a6a6771, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_d68c1a6a6771
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Jeff Bezos? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.