Intel Hit Wil Massive Lawsuit

archive.is/AHwaq

Burn, bitches.

Other urls found in this thread:

archive.fo/2018.01.06-081406/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw
archive.fo/AHwaq
archive.fo/AHwaq>
extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw>;
archive.is/timegate/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw>;
archive.is/timemap/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw>;
archive.is/20180106081406/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw>;
forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=297707.0
newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/industry-testing-shows-recently-released-security-updates-not-impacting-performance-real-world-deployments/
8ch.net/v/res/14109085.html
epicgames.com/fortnite/forums/news/announcements/132642-epic-services-stability-update
archive.fo/rwC7y

Can I RMA a skylake CPU using this as justification?

Can I return my original 8086 using this as justification?

Yes.

Intel's in serious trouble if they don't do anything about it.
People don't seem to be buying their PR bullshit that downplays/red herrings the problem, and if they try to fix it in hardware, they'll lose their lead in server sales against AMD since their performance will drop without speculative execution.

Wait. Can you really sue any company which produces something with a security vulnerability?

For the most part, no. The (((lawyers))) involved may have some sort of byzantine way of justifying it due to the fix resulting in unavoidable performance loss.

Wouldn't they need to disclose their security vulnerability in advertisements if they opt to acknowledge the issue but still do nothing about it due to performance loss?
I though that was the whole point of denying there was an issue.

...

Depends on if they knew it had one and decided to go ahead anyway because it gave them an edge over the competition. Good luck proving that though, I'm sure they're already holding a bonfire at Intel HQ.
Alternatively, you can sue them for false advertising since they very likely knew about it before disclosing it, which led to sales based on performance data they knew to be fraudulent.
You can fairly likely pin something like that on them, especially considering that their CEO also likes himself some insider trading.

Post full links and not shortened please
archive.fo/2018.01.06-081406/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw

it's not a shortened link if it doesn't redirect to something else, which this doesn't. i don't know what your tripping on.
archive.fo/AHwaq
is the correct link
>>> archive.fo/AHwaq> --------------------------------------------> 200 OK> --------------------------------------------Status: 200 OKCode: 200Server: nginxDate: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 10:07:24 GMTContent-Type: text/html;charset=utf-8Connection: closeVary: Accept-LanguageCache-Control: maxage=300Expires: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 10:12:24 GMTMemento-Datetime: Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:14:06 GMTLink: extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw>; rel="original", archive.is/timegate/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw>; rel="timegate", archive.is/timemap/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw>; rel="timemap"; type="application/link-format"; from="Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:14:06 GMT"; until="Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:14:06 GMT", archive.is/20180106081406/https://www.extremetech.com/computing/261574-class-action-lawsuits-intel-ceo-meltdown-flaw>; rel="first last memento"; datetime="Sat, 06 Jan 2018 08:14:06 GMT"Access-Control-Allow-Origin: *Accept-Ranges: bytes
do you see a 301 or 302 here?

No normalfag can do this so just post the "long link" so that people can see on what website the "short link" links too.

Welcome new user. Do you mean you would prefer to see the title in the link? I believe you have inadvertently used technical terminology which you don't understand. We are very tolerant of new users here but just try to be more clear in what you hope to achieve. After lurking on boards terminology such as this will become apparent to you.
With regard to your assumed request, why would you prefer to see the whole link? Is that something you have become used to on another website or forum such as reddit?

With a security vulnerability that would severely hamper the performance of your device if patched, definitely. At least if your country has decent consumer protection laws.

No. There is no such thing as a 100% bug free computer.

But you could make a case if they KNEW about the problem and then continued to sell defective hardware. If they knew about the problem a year ago and didn't say or do shit to correct it then they should pay.

But it's ok when glorified sandniggers do it. Remeber 5.9763726 gorillions.

not only that they continued to produce the defective hardware and sell it. I haven't heard anything about their chips being fixed yet in hardware, or anything about them shutting down production after they got this news.

What's that meme about?

Pentium FDIV bug

No normalfag is welcome on this board, so it works out.

Intel recalled those CPU's.
Cost them almost half a $billion doing it.

Meanwhile, mods on the MSI forum don't think the vulnerability is a big deal.

forum-en.msi.com/index.php?topic=297707.0

reading that forum gave me cancer

Oh wow

F00F C7C8

look at this damage control using other companies damage control statements to reinforce your own damage control statement.

>Google: oy vey (((most))) of our customers won't see performance decreases on our cloud!
Microsoft: oy vey (((most))) of our customers won't see performance decreases on our cloud!
Amazon: oy vey (((most))) of our customers won't see performance decreases on our cloud!
Apple: oy vey keep buying our scam products (((most))) of your performance won't be lost as long as shown by our goyim approved kosher benchmarks
newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/industry-testing-shows-recently-released-security-updates-not-impacting-performance-real-world-deployments/

also how would they even know if "most" workloads aren't affected by their customers if they aren't spying on their customers to analyze which processes are being run to do what.

Not to sound like I'm defending Intel at this point because they can go bankrupt tomorrow for all I care, but for the sake of playing Devils Advocate, one country argue Google and Amazon likely left ample enough performance headroom for shit like this (cannot exactly say the same abound Unreal or Ubisoft though), it is likely not enough performance loss to warrant Rollins out an entirely new hardware cycle (which would cost far more in the long run than trying to mitigate performance loss over time through subsequent updates). Epyc rollout soon but it isn't happening overnight

This shit is actually cringey please don't do this

Dohohohoho, I don't believe you Intel.

You have absolutely zero idea about the nature of PTI . Of course this would impact servers the most, and no fucking shit programs that don't need to write to kernel space aren't going to be effected

AWS, Azure and GCE are primarily server workloads.

tbh when you said "everyone else" I assumed you meant non-server workloads
I do actually wonder how Amazon and Jewgle are handling it. My guess is that Google and Amazon, being the largest server providers on Earth, likely had over-provisioned server space laying around to anticipate further growth, but now they have to use it to correct for Intels fuckup. Unreal was much smaller so its unlikely they had the same kind of overprovisioning in place

Yeah I'm pretty sure Intel had payed them off behind closed doors. They're taking a hit and if you have $10 billion park, 10% hit is already $1 billion loss.

they aren't correcting for anyone's fuckup, this get's passed straight down to the idiots who buy servers with amazon and google. they'll correct for their own shit but everyone else buying vps's with their cloud is going to take the performance hit.

You think they're really going to allocate 30% more cpu resources and offer it for the same price they did before to their customers? of course not.

They'll probably argue that Intel knowingly sold faulty merchandise and thus misrepresented their products.

It's an archive not just a URL shortener though.

He is the one retard defending Intel in all these threads.

I was lookig for this thread.
What next? Google introducing his own CPU?

intel will pay off the big players to shut up about it, google, amazon, microsoft, etc and offer them discounts on new cpu's or something along with an NDA.

For all the other goyim they'll throw their marketing dept into overdrive claiming (((workload dependent))), "it's not that bad", etc, and eventually it will be memory holed and the goyim will never remember that they took a 30% performance hit, it will just be the new normal. Anyone who doesn't buy it will have to replace their CPU out of pocket and eat the cost.

(You)

assuming they haven't already cut deals with amazon, google, etc, which is why their marketing departments are shilling intel's talking points now too, while the real results are memory holed.

(ubisoft's always online game's servers went down when they ate a 100% increase in server load after the patch).
8ch.net/v/res/14109085.html

epicgames.com/fortnite/forums/news/announcements/132642-epic-services-stability-update

They also sold off stock before making the exploit publicly known, which is illegal. archive.fo/rwC7y