On Wednesday, December 29, 2021 at 4:21:37 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2021-12-29 3:13 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, December 28, 2021 at 8:58:13 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >> On 2021-12-28 5:51 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 25, 2021 at 9:50:47 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>> On 2021-12-25 7:05 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 12:37:59 PM UTC-5, Alan wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2021-12-11 9:04 a.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, December 11, 2021 at 8:21:38 AM UTC-5, -hh
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Friday, December 10, 2021 at 11:33:07 PM UTC-5, Thomas
> >>>>>>>> E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 7:16:29 AM UTC-5, -hh
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 11:33:53 PM UTC-5,
> >>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 2021-12-08 8:24 p.m., Thomas E. wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, December 8, 2021 at 3:44:15 PM UTC-5,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> -hh wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... While we also know that the degree of SSD
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> overprovisioning is another factor which will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> affect the product's useful lifetime, it is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nevertheless a good point that the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "SSD-as-RAM-surrogate" aspect to the M1 designs
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> will have an impact at some point in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> product's lifecycle, and for some percentage of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> its users will probably be the determinant for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> when its useful life has been curtailed.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Pragmatically, the design is such that it does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> indeed become a disposable item at that point,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and while Apple does offer trade-ins, the degree
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to which SSD wear will become another criteria
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (or already is) by which they adjust their
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> trade-in price offer is a good question.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Pragmatically Apple should not solder in parts
> >>>>>>>>>>>> known to wear out over time. There is no reason to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> do so unless you want to limit a product's useful
> >>>>>>>>>>>> life.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Every part wears out over time, Idiot.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So according to you, nothing should be soldered in at
> >>>>>>>>>>> all.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Its also ignoring that there's benefits to soldering in
> >>>>>>>>>> the trade-off, such as:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> a) reduced cube b) reduced costs c) increased
> >>>>>>>>>> reliability
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Reliability? Sources please.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Besides the Master’s Degree I have in Engineering? Well,
> >>>>>>>> there’s the MILSPEC/HNDBK on it at work that the EE-centric
> >>>>>>>> teams use on TRL 6+ designs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Basically, its the design principle of fewer parts, as
> >>>>>>>> provisioning a removable connector adds two parts (each
> >>>>>>>> side of the connector), a solder joint, plus the
> >>>>>>>> reliability hit from the connector pin connection too.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Graphically:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Part A) —— sj —— (Part B)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> vs
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> (Part A) —— sj —— (connector/M) —— cp —— (connector/F) ——
> >>>>>>>> sj —— (Part B)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> …where: “sj” = solder joint interface “cp” = connector pin
> >>>>>>>> interface
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It’s one (1) failure point vs five (5) failure points….
> >>>>>>>> since 1<5, 1 wins on reliability.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> -hh
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> All true, but solder joints fail too. So, the tradeoff is
> >>>>>>> that you know that some parts are more likely to fail from
> >>>>>>> normal use. Do you accept the small chance of an easily
> >>>>>>> replaceable part's connection failing versus the making that
> >>>>>>> junction more reliable at the expense of making the failed
> >>>>>>> part difficult or impossible to replace? Does a soldered SSD
> >>>>>>> lead to trashing an otherwise functional piece of equipment?
> >>>>>> Can you really not read simple English, Idiot?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Making a part removable means using MORE SOLDER JOINTS.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can't you understand that at least you have the option of
> >>>>> replacement of a key part that is sure to eventually fail?
> >>>> Can't you understand that adding more connections means creating
> >>>> more ways for the whole system to fail?
> >>>>
> >>>> Transistors are "sure to fail", too. Should we go back to vacuum
> >>>> tubes?
> >>>
> >>> Another Baker deflection. Transistor MTBF is several magnitudes above
> >>> a vacuum tube. A well-crafted connector for a SSD or RAM chip is not
> >>> likely to fail.
> >> Nope. A legitimate discourse on the fact that there is more to it than
> >> simply something is "sure to fail".
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, I really doubt you could build a modern laptop using 30
> >>> billion or so vacuum tubes.
> >>>
> >>> Check this out:
> >>>
> >>> https://frame.work/blog/introducing-the-framework-laptop
> >>> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/framework-announces-marketplace-for-expansion-cards
> >> It's been tried before.
> >>
> >> How's that worked out?
> >>
> >> :-)
> >
> > Pretty well in a limited sense. PCMIA was a good idea, then the USB standard replaced it. Today's Dells get high repairability scores due to their modular construction, and they are reliable.
> PCMIA is not an entire modular laptop.
>
> USB isn't either.

Perhaps you use it wrong. Do you not fathom the use of VPN?

What do you get out of lying? I noted specific examples of Bilby focusing
on ego and not tech, focusing on ego and not tech, etc. His response: to
repeat the same nonsense.

Bilby's posts are quite fully dishonest. There's no question that as soon
as any exonerated 'filtered person' does whatever to hurt the little milksop's
feelings that they'll be ignored again. I do not understand that. Denseness
is denseness and there are many who are fine with it. Some are even programmers.

--
Puppy Videos
https://gibiru.com/results.html?q=Steve+Petruzzellis+%22NARCISSISTIC+BIGOT%22
Dustin Cook is a functionally illiterate fraud