Originally Posted by tompe
But that was not what you claimed. You said 8 was not "much of a jump" but 16 was. If 8-16 is not much of a jump then for me 16-32 is not much of a jump either.
It is hard to evaluate these kind of things but the reasoning in the blog entry is for me much more logical than your reasoning.
Going from 8 to 16 is a jump of 8.
Going from 16 to 32 is a jump of 16.
16 is bigger than 8.
Whether you agree with it or not, his reasoning seems pretty clear.