- Joined
- Jan 14, 2019
- Messages
- 14,168 (6.39/day)
- Location
- Midlands, UK
Processor | Various Intel and AMD CPUs |
---|---|
Motherboard | Micro-ATX and mini-ITX |
Cooling | Yes |
Memory | Overclocking is overrated |
Video Card(s) | Various Nvidia and AMD GPUs |
Storage | A lot |
Display(s) | Monitors and TVs |
Case | It's not about size, but how you use it |
Audio Device(s) | Speakers and headphones |
Power Supply | 300 to 750 W, bronze to gold |
Mouse | Wireless |
Keyboard | Mechanic |
VR HMD | Not yet |
Software | Linux gaming master race |
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: