Physical hardware products shouldn't lose features after launch. If this was a "mistaken" feature which they suggested it was they should have disabled it on future chips.
A lot of this has to do with segmenting the market into high-end and low-end products.
When they were the underdog to Intel, they gave away lots of premium features to beat Intel.
Since they got more popular, AMD has been taking away features, or not upgrading old tech, from their desktop/gaming CPUs: Their DDR5 interface is gimped, being slower than Intel now, and still limited to dual channel. Their chipset link is still PCIe 4x4 the same as two generations ago.
If you want these features now, you need a server product.
None of that is a good rationale for patching the firmware to retroactively remove things from devices that were sold years ago. It's an abuse of a mechanism that's ostensibly meant for security fixes and maybe perf improvements, which is a dangerous game because it incentivizes people to just not update the firmware at all, which is a worse scenario for both parties than just resolving to not include the feature in CPUs going forward if it's such a huge loss to include it.
"consumers don’t shop based on the endurance metrics even if they should"
Its been well over a decade now and neither I nor anyone I know has ever had an SSD endurance issue. So it seems like the type of problem where you should just go enterprise if you have it.
They hadn't bothered to add ipv6 support to most of their services and the ones that did have it usually were only dual stack - still requiring an ipv4 address.
Wickard V Filburn is simply bad law... The federal government has way too much power and MUCH more than was ever intended. Its not a feature it is indeed a bug. One caused by the Supreme Court.
>The federal government has way too much power and MUCH more than was ever intended. Its not a feature it is indeed a bug.
we got bigger and thus we got permutational orders of issues arising as a result. We had to redo the articles of confederation within 20 years of their drafting and that was with 13 states.
Bug or feature, I see it as an inevitability as we grew to 50 states and multiple territories that the federal government would need a stronger hand today than in 1787. Of course, that hand shouldn't be bypassing every section of the constitution to serve the federal government itself. These are the exact fears that caused Shay and Whiskey way back in the day coming to fruition.
Excel needed the x87 as well as they cared about maintaining the 80-bit precision in some places to get exactly the same recalc results. So they would have fixed it eventually most likely.
I can’t say I’m in the business of asking 10 or more friends to confirm this, but any number they provide without knowing the car is a guess at best, and likely erroring on side of caution. A Google search with the car model in the query virtually always returns the correct figure ranges for said car.
Ah but see the most important piece of information is not what the manufacturer specifies. Most mechanic friends would tell you manufacturers are over-extending the interval to make their cars look good to purchasers and because they only care about getting to the warranty end not total life of the car. While 3k miles old wisdom is out dated, if you do your own oil changes you can see a massive change in what comes out after 5k miles.
By over specifying the question you will miss out on the more important context.
Much of what you say is true, but again your mechanic friend can only provide a meaningful answer if they know the model of car. It’s the first question any half way competent mechanic will ask!
The cars sitting outside my home vary in oil service interval by over 10k miles, as just one simple example, and I don’t drive anything particularly exotic.
By under-specifying the question, you rob it of the context to be answered accurately.
