- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
- Messages
- 12,575 (5.80/day)
- Location
- Midlands, UK
System Name | Nebulon B |
---|---|
Processor | AMD Ryzen 7 7800X3D |
Motherboard | MSi PRO B650M-A WiFi |
Cooling | be quiet! Dark Rock 4 |
Memory | 2x 24 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR5-4800 |
Video Card(s) | AMD Radeon RX 6750 XT 12 GB |
Storage | 2 TB Corsair MP600 GS, 2 TB Corsair MP600 R2 |
Display(s) | Dell S3422DWG, 7" Waveshare touchscreen |
Case | Kolink Citadel Mesh black |
Audio Device(s) | Logitech Z333 2.1 speakers, AKG Y50 headphones |
Power Supply | Seasonic Prime GX-750 |
Mouse | Logitech MX Master 2S |
Keyboard | Logitech G413 SE |
Software | Bazzite (Fedora Linux) KDE |
That's why you never ask a lawyer or a politician (or a PR-person, as a matter of fact) any question that you assume has an obvious meaning without specifying said obvious meaning.No.
What happened here is that when the journalist asked about "desktop processors" they meant the common definition of "desktop processors", i.e. socketable CPUs available to consumers that can be swapped in and out of motherboards available to consumers. And the Intel executive understood this perfectly well, as would pretty much anyone who was asked this question.
But she chose to respond as if she'd been asked about _any_ sort of possibility of MTL _ever_ coming to desktop _in any form_ e.g. NUCs, because answering the intended question honestly - i.e. "no" - would be a bad look. In other words, she chose to act like a lawyer or politician and be "economical with the truth", as they say.
Except, that's lying. Sure, she's got an excuse that she can use to claim that she wasn't, i.e. "I interpreted the question differently" - but everyone knows that she chose to interpret the question in the way that she did, just like people know when a lawyer or politician does the same thing.
Last edited: