Which is also a somewhat faulty logic. The paper assumes that because a machine can have its lifetime extended from 10 to 20 years, its inevitable to extend it to 1000 years or infinite timespans.Anyone else look at the paper? This about sums up the level of argument:
But with every incremental step your faced with newer more complex problems, and you hit limits you didn’t previously know existed.
It might be possible…or it might be impossible and we just don’t know yet.