Whichever way you read the article it has no substantiated sources nor does its premise for delays make any sense. You're the only one who is taking the article as gospel. And getting really defensive about it for some reason.
Whichever way you read the article it has no substantiated sources nor does its premise for delays make any sense. You're the only one who is taking the article as gospel. And getting really defensive about it for some reason.**stuff**
Hey, check this out:
Here's what this boils down to. Either you:
a. Accept that the premise outlined in the article is plausible.
b. Believe that supply and demand are both always high. There can never be any shortage in raw materials and OEMs/retailers/customers are always in the market for as many CPUs as possible. Supply can never fall and demand can never fall.
Which is it?
THANK YOU. I agree with you 100%. See, sirmo? It's possible to express yourself intelligently.
Yes no correlation.. he also said this, which has been the point I've been making all along.He's literally not.
You: "Whichever way you read the article it has no substantiated sources nor does its premise for delays make any sense."
Him: "I understand the plausibility but I fail to see correlation."
Do you see the difference?
but for AMD to delay launching a new product they desperately need to improve their standing because of upstream channel saturation seems very unlikely to me.
You are arguing semantics, he literally says the same thingThis is you. Do you remember writing this post? Here is a post in which you claim raw material supply and OEM demand cannot be both low (false), and then explicitly state that you think the scenario is implausible. Implausible, as you might not be aware, is the opposite of plausible. Get your shit together.
He understands the plausibility you're trying to argue, but there is no correlation, which means the premise is actually not plausible.I understand the plausibility but I fail to see correlation.
you can argue semantics all day, it's still not going to make the article's premise for a delay any more likely.. it's simply not plausible
You are absolutely arguing semantics. You aren't arguing the meaning of coercitiv's post in its entirety you are dissecting his post out of context in order to prove a semantics point.I'm not arguing semantics. The scenario is plausible. He agrees that it is plausible. You do not. Deal with it. The likelihood that it's true is an entirely different and irrelevant question. Honestly, you need to grow up and stop your childish little rant, you are accomplishing nothing here.
I am not wrong, as other posters have pointed out.Not until you either admit you're wrong or stop posting here. So long as you're here and confused you will continue to create more derails. You are the root of the problem, not me.
But I am not wrong. I have argued the article's premise for a Zen delay is obviously wrong since the start. And you've agreed with that point from coercitiv's post. So who is really wrong here? You or me?The existence of other wrong people does not make you right. So again, admit you are wrong, stop posting, or stop complaining that I have the common decency to try and educate you.
It is possible for both the supply and demand to be low, but it is impossible for supply to be low because the demand is low.No one said they were right. I've repeated that numerous times. What you keep saying is that they've described an impossible scenario. Coercitive and I disagree, and we're obviously right, since OF COURSE it's possible for material supply to be low, and OF COURSE it's possible for demand for CPUs to be low. How could you disagree? Those things happen in every industry all the time.