I never said it didn't deserve criticism, just that the criticism is not absolved of the responsibility to make useful, supported arguments as well.
I thought the GP post had a point that could be made, but I think they went about it sloppily, and the analogy used in the criticism was hyperbolic in the opposite direction as the article. The article's title was mostly link-bait, but there were some weak assertions in the article that tried to back it up. The sibling comment at your level by avoid3d actually does a good job of trying to address some specifics problems of the claim, and if something similar to that was at the top level, I would either not bothered to reply, or actually looked into the criticisms by researching the chip if my interest was piqued (and if not beat to it by a useful reply from someone else). That's much more useful for discussion.
I thought the GP post had a point that could be made, but I think they went about it sloppily, and the analogy used in the criticism was hyperbolic in the opposite direction as the article. The article's title was mostly link-bait, but there were some weak assertions in the article that tried to back it up. The sibling comment at your level by avoid3d actually does a good job of trying to address some specifics problems of the claim, and if something similar to that was at the top level, I would either not bothered to reply, or actually looked into the criticisms by researching the chip if my interest was piqued (and if not beat to it by a useful reply from someone else). That's much more useful for discussion.