Welcome to Gaia! ::

Saruwatari Kooji's avatar

Friendly Phantom

God Emperor Akhenaton
When something fails on me 3 times, then the anecdotal evidence is more than sufficient.


No, it is not. At least not in the manner you are using it. So you got 3 bad apples out of how many they produce? I have a 12 year old computer at home that still runs like a champ running a Foxconn board...at the same time, I have another computer at home with a dead MSI motherboard. Again, your experience is not the be all end all for a certain brand.

Now, if you were to simply say I had bad luck with X company using their Y boards and could provide sufficient evidence to show they are crap(eg. customer reviews, trusted hardware reviewer articles, etc) then that is fine. You anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine in that case...not because of your experience but because you were able to back it up.

Are you beginning to notice a pattern here? Back up your posts. Until you do that, me and every other regular here will not leave you alone. Show us the evidence that proves you right and we will concede. That is the nature of a computer geek. We hate being wrong, but our love of learning something new always outweighs that hate.

God Emperor Akhenaton
I know about motherboards, what works and what is crap


Then prove it with verifiable third party sources that back up what you are saying.

God Emperor Akhenaton
You are the god of ******** everything aren't you? You know everything even though you only work on one kind of computer


I never said I was the god of anything. I'm confident in my knowledge, and if pressed I can and will provide the evidence supporting my statements. The simple fact that you are getting so uppity about us calling you out tells us that you cannot and you are threatened by us. You are afraid to admit that you are wrong.

God Emperor Akhenaton
You know everything even though you only work on one kind of computer


Again, I never said I know everything. Also, the fact that you assume I can have the job I have and only have knowledge about one kind of computer is absolutely absurd. It just goes to show how out of touch with reality you really are...or how did psychic put it? Oh yeah:

Quote:
your head is deeply embedded in a pile of granulated silicates


God Emperor Akhenaton
Leave it at that or else


Or else what? Go on, tell us.

I'll keep saying it, I am confident in my knowledge and can back up everything I say with verifiable third party sources.

Go ahead, try and tear apart what I post.

If that's not what you mean...do your worst. I have nothing to fear.
Saruwatari Kooji
God Emperor Akhenaton
When something fails on me 3 times, then the anecdotal evidence is more than sufficient.


No, it is not. At least not in the manner you are using it. So you got 3 bad apples out of how many they produce? I have a 12 year old computer at home that still runs like a champ running a Foxconn board...at the same time, I have another computer at home with a dead MSI motherboard. Again, your experience is not the be all end all for a certain brand.

Now, if you were to simply say I had bad luck with X company using their Y boards and could provide sufficient evidence to show they are crap(eg. customer reviews, trusted hardware reviewer articles, etc) then that is fine. You anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine in that case...not because of your experience but because you were able to back it up.

Are you beginning to notice a pattern here? Back up your posts. Until you do that, me and every other regular here will not leave you alone. Show us the evidence that proves you right and we will concede. That is the nature of a computer geek. We hate being wrong, but our love of learning something new always outweighs that hate.

God Emperor Akhenaton
I know about motherboards, what works and what is crap


Then prove it with verifiable third party sources that back up what you are saying.

God Emperor Akhenaton
You are the god of ******** everything aren't you? You know everything even though you only work on one kind of computer


I never said I was the god of anything. I'm confident in my knowledge, and if pressed I can and will provide the evidence supporting my statements. The simple fact that you are getting so uppity about us calling you out tells us that you cannot and you are threatened by us. You are afraid to admit that you are wrong.

God Emperor Akhenaton
You know everything even though you only work on one kind of computer


Again, I never said I know everything. Also, the fact that you assume I can have the job I have and only have knowledge about one kind of computer is absolutely absurd. It just goes to show how out of touch with reality you really are...or how did psychic put it? Oh yeah:

Quote:
your head is deeply embedded in a pile of granulated silicates


God Emperor Akhenaton
Leave it at that or else


Or else what? Go on, tell us.

I'll keep saying it, I am confident in my knowledge and can back up everything I say with verifiable third party sources.

Go ahead, try and tear apart what I post.

If that's not what you mean...do your worst. I have nothing to fear.

You mean thiose so called "Studies" conducted by people who were paid off? In no way do I give any of those people credit. Studies are just words written by some stranger that you have no idea whether they are telling the truth or not. I go by what I experience as opposed to you who ends up supporting things that are a joke. And by the way, you have been warned.
God Emperor Akhenaton
When something fails on me 3 times, then the anecdotal evidence is more than sufficient. I know about motherboards, what works and what is crap. Oh right. I forgot. You are the god of ******** everything aren't you? You know everything even though you only work on one kind of computer while you got a certification that I have which says ******** all in terms of repair. If you don't stop replying to my posts, then I will start replying to yours. Leave it at that or else.
I'm quoting psychic just to make absolute certain you read this.
psychic stalker
This is getting old.

You do not know everything.

None of us knows everything.

I would strongly suggest you also stop acting like a ******** know-it-all, because you've demonstrated that you actually know very little. You've demonstrated that you know precious little about the hardware you disparage or recommend, that you rely on your narrow experiences to make sweeping industry-wide judgments, and that you rely on your "credentials," such as they are, to "prove" you're oh-so-special and that you "know" what you're talking about.

You need to step back and realize that you are not special. You too-often don't know what you're talking about. Your brief career and certifications as a computer repair tech do not entitle you to act like a jackass, nor do they entitle you to claim superior knowledge. Being a repair tech does not make you an "expert" of any kind.

Seriously dude. psychic is spot on here.

And what's this crap about people getting paid off? What deluded psychosis have you slipped into? It's as if you're starting to see things that conflict with your own view of the world, and one of the first things that you conclude is that it's all a massive conspiracy.

You're young. Clearly. But try to have a more open mind about things. If someone tells you you're wrong don't just instantly lash out. Be willing to entertain any and all possibilities. Try to research why you think you're right and why someone else thinks you're wrong. Assuming you are always right is a strategy that is going to bite you in the a**.

I'm trying to be somewhat kind about all of this because I'm hoping you can get yourself sorted out. If you enjoy helping people here that's fantastic and I applaud you for your efforts. Just reel in the extremism and empty accusations.Otherwise your stubbornness and lack of substance will prove to be detrimental to all.
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton
When something fails on me 3 times, then the anecdotal evidence is more than sufficient. I know about motherboards, what works and what is crap. Oh right. I forgot. You are the god of ******** everything aren't you? You know everything even though you only work on one kind of computer while you got a certification that I have which says ******** all in terms of repair. If you don't stop replying to my posts, then I will start replying to yours. Leave it at that or else.
I'm quoting psychic just to make absolute certain you read this.
psychic stalker
This is getting old.

You do not know everything.

None of us knows everything.

I would strongly suggest you also stop acting like a ******** know-it-all, because you've demonstrated that you actually know very little. You've demonstrated that you know precious little about the hardware you disparage or recommend, that you rely on your narrow experiences to make sweeping industry-wide judgments, and that you rely on your "credentials," such as they are, to "prove" you're oh-so-special and that you "know" what you're talking about.

You need to step back and realize that you are not special. You too-often don't know what you're talking about. Your brief career and certifications as a computer repair tech do not entitle you to act like a jackass, nor do they entitle you to claim superior knowledge. Being a repair tech does not make you an "expert" of any kind.

Seriously dude. psychic is spot on here.

And what's this crap about people getting paid off? What deluded psychosis have you slipped into? It's as if you're starting to see things that conflict with your own view of the world, and one of the first things that you conclude is that it's all a massive conspiracy.

You're young. Clearly. But try to have a more open mind about things. If someone tells you you're wrong don't just instantly lash out. Be willing to entertain any and all possibilities. Try to research why you think you're right and why someone else thinks you're wrong. Assuming you are always right is a strategy that is going to bite you in the a**.

I'm trying to be somewhat kind about all of this because I'm hoping you can get yourself sorted out. If you enjoy helping people here that's fantastic and I applaud you for your efforts. Just reel in the extremism and empty accusations.Otherwise your stubbornness and lack of substance will prove to be detrimental to all.

People get bought off all the time. It isn't just computer reviews, it's every review. If people believe differently, that's fine. but it's psychotic to have trust in strangers you never met promoting a product you never tried and safely assume that marketing and bribery had no influence in their decision. Especially when what they say is completely counter-intuitive to what one experiences. Money is always more important than integrity. Just look at congress if you doubt that.
God Emperor Akhenaton
People get bought off all the time. It isn't just computer reviews, it's every review. If people believe differently, that's fine. but it's psychotic to have trust in strangers you never met promoting a product you never tried and safely assume that marketing and bribery had no influence in their decision. Especially when what they say is completely counter-intuitive to what one experiences. Money is always more important than integrity. Just look at congress if you doubt that.
Not everyone is going to have the same experiences. Your personal experiences do not mean that someone else is necessarily wrong, only that they have not experienced what you have. But neither have you shared their experiences. There's nothing wrong with taking something at face value to a point. If something sounds blatantly false or manipulative then you should probably get a second opinion.

As far as product reviews and analysis goes however, Anandtech is undoubtedly one of the most honest and unbiased sites on the web. Fantastically technical articles and extremely forward and honest reviews.
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton
People get bought off all the time. It isn't just computer reviews, it's every review. If people believe differently, that's fine. but it's psychotic to have trust in strangers you never met promoting a product you never tried and safely assume that marketing and bribery had no influence in their decision. Especially when what they say is completely counter-intuitive to what one experiences. Money is always more important than integrity. Just look at congress if you doubt that.
Not everyone is going to have the same experiences. Your personal experiences do not mean that someone else is necessarily wrong, only that they have not experienced what you have. But neither have you shared their experiences. There's nothing wrong with taking something at face value to a point. If something sounds blatantly false or manipulative then you should probably get a second opinion.

As far as product reviews and analysis goes however, Anandtech is undoubtedly one of the most honest and unbiased sites on the web. Fantastically technical articles and extremely forward and honest reviews.

If I get a sample of the issues that computers face, then that is a statistic. Statisticians often sample very small numbers in the population to get a result. So for someone to say that for instance that HP doesn't have motherboard issues, then I really have to question them. Secondly, these reviews always get corrupted because money will always trump integrity.
God Emperor Akhenaton
If I get a sample of the issues that computers face, then that is a statistic.
No, it is not. It is a biased sampling. You get a sample of issues that some computers face. There are a large number of computers that have a different set of issues or have no issues at all that are not part of your sample.

Your position is like walking into a casino, and counting only the dice roll of a pair of twos at the two craps tables closest to the exit, discounting all other dice rolls, and estimating the likelihood of a roll of a pair of twos to be highly probable. When in reality, the odds of rolling a pair of twos is no higher than rolling "snake eyes" or a pair of sixes. Your statistical analysis has a high error, because you are only observing a sample that specifically includes hardware exhibiting problems.

This is the Gambler's Fallacy: To assume that just because you see something happen often, it implies statistical significance, is a failure to understand statistical significance.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Statisticians often sample very small numbers in the population to get a result.
And when they get results like yours from a sample like yours, they get laughed out of the room, because their sample size was too small and was biased towards failures.

Extrapolation does not demonstrate correlation. Any first-year statistician in college knows this.
God Emperor Akhenaton
So for someone to say that for instance that HP doesn't have motherboard issues, then I really have to question them.
For someone to make the claim that HP doesn't have motherboard issues, is making the same logical fallacy that you are making: The Texas Sharpshooter. Both you and they ignore the bigger picture in order to point to the small cluster of results that supports their argument. Especially when the reality is that the total population is so large that your sampling barely scratches a tiny fraction of a percent and ignores all of the other devices.

Statisticians usually call this "incompetence."
God Emperor Akhenaton
Secondly, these reviews always get corrupted because money will always trump integrity.
Be careful with your use of hyperbole and absolute words like "always." Reviews are not always corrupted. Money does not always trump integrity. It is not black or white. There are corrupt reviewers. There are also reviewers with a great deal of integrity. And there are many more that fall somewhere in the middle.

But that does not mean that they are all corruptible or that they are all saints. Again, that is a logical fallacy.
psychic stalker
God Emperor Akhenaton
If I get a sample of the issues that computers face, then that is a statistic.
No, it is not. It is a biased sampling. You get a sample of issues that some computers face. There are a large number of computers that have a different set of issues or have no issues at all that are not part of your sample.

Your position is like walking into a casino, and counting only the dice roll of a pair of twos at the two craps tables closest to the exit, discounting all other dice rolls, and estimating the likelihood of a roll of a pair of twos to be highly probable. When in reality, the odds of rolling a pair of twos is no higher than rolling "snake eyes" or a pair of sixes. Your statistical analysis has a high error, because you are only observing a sample that specifically includes hardware exhibiting problems.

This is the Gambler's Fallacy: To assume that just because you see something happen often, it implies statistical significance, is a failure to understand statistical significance.
God Emperor Akhenaton
Statisticians often sample very small numbers in the population to get a result.
And when they get results like yours from a sample like yours, they get laughed out of the room, because their sample size was too small and was biased towards failures.

Extrapolation does not demonstrate correlation. Any first-year statistician in college knows this.
God Emperor Akhenaton
So for someone to say that for instance that HP doesn't have motherboard issues, then I really have to question them.
For someone to make the claim that HP doesn't have motherboard issues, is making the same logical fallacy that you are making: The Texas Sharpshooter. Both you and they ignore the bigger picture in order to point to the small cluster of results that supports their argument. Especially when the reality is that the total population is so large that your sampling barely scratches a tiny fraction of a percent and ignores all of the other devices.

Statisticians usually call this "incompetence."
God Emperor Akhenaton
Secondly, these reviews always get corrupted because money will always trump integrity.
Be careful with your use of hyperbole and absolute words like "always." Reviews are not always corrupted. Money does not always trump integrity. It is not black or white. There are corrupt reviewers. There are also reviewers with a great deal of integrity. And there are many more that fall somewhere in the middle.

But that does not mean that they are all corruptible or that they are all saints. Again, that is a logical fallacy.

So riddle me this then. If absolution is a fallacy and this fallacy makes no exceptions, isn't that a paradox? Or is it exempt? Or are there exceptions?

There is a reason why I trust very few reviewers. These are companies that can afford these products, they can afford the professionals and the writer and they can profit. That money has to come from somewhere and advertisements won't cut it. Am I saying for 100% that they are liars who are bought off? No, but their appraisal of HP is more than enough for me not to trust them.
God Emperor Akhenaton
There is a reason why I trust very few reviewers. These are companies that can afford these products, they can afford the professionals and the writer and they can profit. That money has to come from somewhere and advertisements won't cut it. Am I saying for 100% that they are liars who are bought off? No, but their appraisal of HP is more than enough for me not to trust them.
You're insanely prejudicial.

Most review sites live off of ad revenue. How is that surprising. There are YouTubers who make a lot of money off of Google Adsense alone where they make pennies per view. If your site is successful companies are coming to you to advertise directly on your site. You can charge them whatever the hell you want. And if you did give a product a glowing review, they would be MORE inclined to want to advertise on your site as your readers would (conceivably) be more likely to buy that product.

That's just a random scenario. But just assuming that reviewers are inherently corrupt because they like products that you don't is asinine. They have legitimate reasons for liking something.

Does this HP laptop look like complete crap? Was this reviewer bribed? Or are only the bad reviews the honest ones?

Do you honestly think that HP is trying to bribe reviewers or convince them that they make good products? They sell more computers than anyone. They could completely stop advertising and innovating and could continue to make money off of brand recognition alone for the next several years. HP doesn't care what some review site says. Smaller companies on the other hand will fight tooth and nail as they desperately try to build their image and maintain their reputation. Not to say that HP doesn't care, but not like smaller companies.

However, some sites work like Anandtech whose advertising is completely cut off from the reviewers. Anand and the other columnists there don't handle the "money making" aspect of the business; they just review products. That's their job. And they do it well. They aren't bought off to review products or give them good reviews. They get product in a myriad of ways: sometimes they approach companies whose products they wish to review, other times companies approach them, and still others they have to go out and buy the product themselves.

But just because someone came to a different conclusion than you, or likes a product from a brand you don't, does not mean they're corrupt. It could just mean that you are close-minded and prejudicial. Which you clearly are.

“It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view.”
-- George Eliot
God Emperor Akhenaton
So riddle me this then. If absolution is a fallacy and this fallacy makes no exceptions, isn't that a paradox? Or is it exempt? Or are there exceptions?
That's circular reasoning, like several of your arguments. It makes no logical sense for you to ask these questions.
God Emperor Akhenaton
There is a reason why I trust very few reviewers. These are companies that can afford these products, they can afford the professionals and the writer and they can profit. That money has to come from somewhere and advertisements won't cut it. Am I saying for 100% that they are liars who are bought off? No, but their appraisal of HP is more than enough for me not to trust them.
I trust very few reviewers as well. But their appraisal of HP does not imply the existence or absence of financial ties to it. Now you're making the fallacious argument of False Cause: That just because a reviewer makes a positive appraisal of HP, they were "obviously" bought out by HP, when that simply doesn't follow, and it requires justification and proof. If you want to continue making this claim, you're going to have to show us proof of HP "greasing the palms" of respected reviewers.

I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling, at this point. Your arguments are composed of so many fallacies and logical inconsistencies, the only reasonable explanation is that you don't actually believe any of this crap and you're just leading us on.
Minion4Hire
God Emperor Akhenaton
There is a reason why I trust very few reviewers. These are companies that can afford these products, they can afford the professionals and the writer and they can profit. That money has to come from somewhere and advertisements won't cut it. Am I saying for 100% that they are liars who are bought off? No, but their appraisal of HP is more than enough for me not to trust them.
You're insanely prejudicial.

Most review sites live off of ad revenue. How is that surprising. There are YouTubers who make a lot of money off of Google Adsense alone where they make pennies per view. If your site is successful companies are coming to you to advertise directly on your site. You can charge them whatever the hell you want. And if you did give a product a glowing review, they would be MORE inclined to want to advertise on your site as your readers would (conceivably) be more likely to buy that product.

That's just a random scenario. But just assuming that reviewers are inherently corrupt because they like products that you don't is asinine. They have legitimate reasons for liking something.

Does this HP laptop look like complete crap? Was this reviewer bribed? Or are only the bad reviews the honest ones?

Do you honestly think that HP is trying to bribe reviewers or convince them that they make good products? They sell more computers than anyone. They could completely stop advertising and innovating and could continue to make money off of brand recognition alone for the next several years. HP doesn't care what some review site says. Smaller companies on the other hand will fight tooth and nail as they desperately try to build their image and maintain their reputation. Not to say that HP doesn't care, but not like smaller companies.

However, some sites work like Anandtech whose advertising is completely cut off from the reviewers. Anand and the other columnists there don't handle the "money making" aspect of the business; they just review products. That's their job. And they do it well. They aren't bought off to review products or give them good reviews. They get product in a myriad of ways: sometimes they approach companies whose products they wish to review, other times companies approach them, and still others they have to go out and buy the product themselves.

But just because someone came to a different conclusion than you, or likes a product from a brand you don't, does not mean they're corrupt. It could just mean that you are close-minded and prejudicial. Which you clearly are.

“It is a narrow mind which cannot look at a subject from various points of view.”
-- George Eliot

And how do you know they aren't bought off? Especially Cnet out of all people.
psychic stalker
That's circular reasoning, like several of your arguments. It makes no logical sense for you to ask these questions.

No, that is you not answering my question. For there to be absolutist logical fallacy, these fallacies seem so absolute and therefore a paradox.

psychic stalker
God Emperor Akhenaton
There is a reason why I trust very few reviewers. These are companies that can afford these products, they can afford the professionals and the writer and they can profit. That money has to come from somewhere and advertisements won't cut it. Am I saying for 100% that they are liars who are bought off? No, but their appraisal of HP is more than enough for me not to trust them.
I trust very few reviewers as well. But their appraisal of HP does not imply the existence or absence of financial ties to it. Now you're making the fallacious argument of False Cause: That just because a reviewer makes a positive appraisal of HP, they were "obviously" bought out by HP, when that simply doesn't follow, and it requires justification and proof. If you want to continue making this claim, you're going to have to show us proof of HP "greasing the palms" of respected reviewers.

I'm starting to wonder if you're just trolling, at this point. Your arguments are composed of so many fallacies and logical inconsistencies, the only reasonable explanation is that you don't actually believe any of this crap and you're just leading us on.

The correlation between HP and their systems failing goes beyond mere correlation. I could easily send you countless images of abandoned systems that we have from HP due to how frequently they fail. And no. I don't trust reviews at all. The risk of bribery is always too high. People in the automotive industry rate American cars as durable and they deliberately plan for obsolescence.
God Emperor Akhenaton
psychic stalker
That's circular reasoning, like several of your arguments. It makes no logical sense for you to ask these questions.

No, that is you not answering my question. For there to be absolutist logical fallacy, these fallacies seem so absolute and therefore a paradox.
It does not follow. In fact, your statement makes no sense on a grammatical or on a logical level.
God Emperor Akhenaton
The correlation between HP and their systems failing goes beyond mere correlation.
You do not understand correlation. You are saying that because you see many HP systems fail, that therefore all HP systems have a high failure rate. It's false logic. You are seeing only the failures in the population. You are not seeing the proportion of failures compared to the total population. Your assumption is flawed because your analysis is incomplete. The correlation does not exist.
God Emperor Akhenaton
I could easily send you countless images of abandoned systems that we have from HP due to how frequently they fail.
Good for you. But what about the systems that don't fail? How frequently do they not fail? How does the number of failures compare to the total set? How many HPs do people in your area own that do not require repairs?

You have not answered those simple questions.
God Emperor Akhenaton
And no. I don't trust reviews at all. The risk of bribery is always too high.
How are you assessing this risk? How do you know the risk is so high that there are no reliable reviews?

You are assuming that because there is a possibility of bribery, that there is therefore rampant bribery. That is not the case, and your logic is flawed. It is a fallacy.

Unless you can demonstrate that there is a high rate of successful bribery, you cannot claim there is a high risk of it.
God Emperor Akhenaton
People in the automotive industry rate American cars as durable and they deliberately plan for obsolescence.
Irrelevant. It does not support your hypothesis.
Saruwatari Kooji's avatar

Friendly Phantom

God Emperor Akhenaton
The correlation between HP and their systems failing goes beyond mere correlation.


No...not really. They produce more systems than other manufacturers, that simply means you will see a higher number of their machines failing. Simply because they produce more. Some of their lines have inherent issues, although that is primarily with their cheaper lines. Again, if you do something on the cheap corners will get cut...thus leading to various failures.

It is simply a matter of numbers.

God Emperor Akhenaton
I could easily send you countless images of abandoned systems that we have from HP due to how frequently they fail.


Just as any of us could send you countless images of abandoned systems from nearly any manufacturer...

The frequency of failure still just comes down to the amount they produce. Go back when Dell was the top manufacturer...there was countless cases of Dells failing. When a company is producing higher numbers of something, the number of failures is higher...

God Emperor Akhenaton
And no. I don't trust reviews at all. The risk of bribery is always too high


You keep saying this, over and over. You're paranoid and pessimistic, that's all. People are not always inherently evil, and not everyone is driven by money.

Just look at this section of Gaia. We don't get paid to help, yet we still try really hard to provide the best possible answers because we care. We want to help for the sake of helping...yet you still insist that reviewers can't do their job with the same mindset?

God Emperor Akhenaton
People in the automotive industry rate American cars as durable and they deliberately plan for obsolescence


No s**t?

We build something and it works. Awesome. Yet, how can I make this better?

Given enough improvement obsolescence happens. It's true with cars, it's true with computers...hell, you'd be hard pressed to find an industry that it isn't true.

If one isn't planning on their product becoming obsolete, they will quickly be in a world of hurt. If you don't better your product, someone else will.
Saruwatari Kooji
No...not really. They produce more systems than other manufacturers, that simply means you will see a higher number of their machines failing. Simply because they produce more. Some of their lines have inherent issues, although that is primarily with their cheaper lines. Again, if you do something on the cheap corners will get cut...thus leading to various failures.

It is simply a matter of numbers.

The ratio is too high for that excuse.

Saruwatari Kooji
Just as any of us could send you countless images of abandoned systems from nearly any manufacturer...

Except Asus.

Saruwatari Kooji
The frequency of failure still just comes down to the amount they produce. Go back when Dell was the top manufacturer...there was countless cases of Dells failing. When a company is producing higher numbers of something, the number of failures is higher...

Even during the time that Dell flooded the Pentium 4 market, I still see very few of those machines compared to a lot of others.

Saruwatari Kooji
You keep saying this, over and over. You're paranoid and pessimistic, that's all. People are not always inherently evil, and not everyone is driven by money.

I would say cautious instead of paranoid. And pessimism keeps someone safe because people are out to harm others and the alliance between customer and sales is a fragile one at best. Because when it comes to the realm of money, someone has to gain money by taking it from someone else. That means when money is involved, you always have to be aware.


Saruwatari Kooji
Just look at this section of Gaia. We don't get paid to help, yet we still try really hard to provide the best possible answers because we care. We want to help for the sake of helping...yet you still insist that reviewers can't do their job with the same mindset?

Because money is involved and money corrupts.
God Emperor Akhenaton
People in the automotive industry rate American cars as durable and they deliberately plan for obsolescence


Saruwatari Kooji
It's true with cars, it's true with computers...hell, you'd be hard pressed to find an industry that it isn't true.

A 1978 Toyota that never had an oil change can still be around like it drove off the lot today while a 2006 Ford Focus can have mechanical problems. Planned obsolescence is made purely to make money at the expense of the consumer. And as a result, Toyota is larger than Ford.
Saruwatari Kooji
If one isn't planning on their product becoming obsolete, they will quickly be in a world of hurt. If you don't better your product, someone else will.

With computers, planned obsolescence made it so that computers happen to be the most wasteful product on Earth which happens to contain lead, mercury, lithium and other toxins harmful to the environment and your health. And when someone wants to hold on to an XP machine from 2003, tough s**t, it's only useful for a year and a half now. That is wasteful and it harms the consumer.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games