you are actually very wrong, the whole nanometer marketing has become huge misnomer many years ago.
Just to give you an example actual transistor size on 7nm TMSC node is 22 nm,
actual transistor size on 14+++ Intel node is in reality 24 nm in size.
The article does a good job explaing why.
Renaming the process nodes just brings it more into line with what they really are.
I agree that transistor naming already sucks.
But, I very strongly disagree that renaming the process "brings it more into line with what they really are".
That's the big lie here. That's what is upsetting. They are bringing the number further from the truth, and directly telling people that the new number is the "right" one. You say explaining, I say gaslighting.
Taking naming that was already misleading, and throwing it over the cliff of "words no longer have any meaning" is not an improvement.
There's a difference between Seagate successfully changing the legal definition of Gigabyte to "one billion bytes", Vs if somebody released a 500 Gigabyte flash drive with a disclaimer on their website saying "Gigabyte is a registered trademark, and is in no way an indicator of capacity. Actual drive capacity will vary by random, due to the manufacturing process". Then the hypothetical drive would actually just end up being a 256MB Wish scam with firmware that reports 2TB free, or whatever.
Process naming is probably somewhere in between. Maybe slightly worse than storage companies blaming their missing capacity on "formatting" (which hasn't been technically in decades. That's from decades ago when you could change the track layout of floppy disks, even back then there was still tons of other mismarketing).
Units of measurement have real world meaning. They're regulated. If the CEO of Exon decided tomorrow to redefine a gallon of gas to "100 ounces of air", then they would be held both civally and criminally liable. But IBM can a 1440KB (now KiB) floppy and get away with printing 1.44MB on the box, because no powerpoint presentation in the world is interesting enough to teach a government employee why there's no possible interpretation where that claim was correct.
That one was like printing "40ish ounces, maybe by weight" on a quart of ice cream.
I'm tired of false advertising. I'm tired of tech companies being able to do and say anything they want, whenever they want.
Computers have been around for over 50 years. It's not acceptable that the courts and consumer advocacy still don't understand them well enough to recognize even the most blatent abuses of customer trust.