> heavy use mostly doesn't apply to solid-state devices
Sorry, but this is pretty much incorrect. Copper migrates, even in solid state devices, and those copper migrations cause breaks and shorts, which cause errors and failures. The smaller the scale, the faster this happens. There is absolutely a MTBF even for solid-state devices.
This entire slide deck is worth the perusal, if only for the "whoah, that actually happens?!" moments. But here's a relevant slide for this claim:
We've definitely seen 'memory go bad'. But, our failure rate is in the single digits, across a huge sample set across multiple years and in relatively extreme conditions (4 seasons, outdoors).
If you're buying something for like half of retail and rolling the dice on it, I think it is a fair bet. Even if you only get 1-2 more years out of a card that has been used before (for any purpose), then you've done well.
There is no conflict of interest, I'm not trying to sell cards here on HN.
You are literally making stuff up now. The 10m+ of stock is worthless if nobody would buy it. If anything, it'll cost us to e-waste it. So, the price ceiling, if we were to sell it, is simply the cost e-waste and moving it around.
That was a winky face... a joke. I was kidding because the OP was unhappy with the statement of half price, which I also made up as a random baseline.
The goal is changing the public discourse. Thus the word propaganda. You wouldn't be propagandizing this point of view if you didn't think you would change people's minds. You are fully aware that this forum has an outsized influence on the tech/programming community.
Edit: to me it's clear that you are acting in bad faith since you called me crazy for pointing out an obvious conflict of interest.
1. I didn't call you crazy, I said "it is amazing how crazy HN can get."
2. Tell me exactly how would it benefit me to change public discourse around the long term reliability of GPUs? The most I can think of is that it might drive up the prices of used cards a tiny bit in a very saturated market, but I doubt it. Especially since I'm just one data point and I'm only posting here on HN. Plus, as I said, I don't care what our cards sell for. Our baseline cost at this point, is to offset any price of e-waste and shipping.
3. I shared my findings about long term reliability because this is a tech community and I thought they'd be interested in it! OMG, I'm such a horrible person for thinking this way! That is sarcasm.
4. Allowing people to realize that mined on GPUs are actually ok (not all, but generally better than common thought) might mean that a few more find useful homes and not end up as e-waste. That's a good thing! I even suggested that people use it as a way to negotiate the price down!
Fwiw, I don't think you're a bad person. I think you have a conflict of interest and they way you are responding to criticism is weird. You also handwaved the copper migration issue. Meh. Carry on. Personally, I took that as you calling me crazy. If that wasn't your intention, fair enough.
Your criticism is to say that I'm spreading propaganda, which is untrue and it is fair for me to respond to that.
Now you're at it again with the criticism. I'm not handwaving anything. I'm stating what I saw after having the fairly rare experience of running 100k+ GPUs over multiple years in harsh environments.
Let's turn that around, do you have any experience with this at all? Or do you just criticize people?
It also doesn't benefit me in any way to share information like this. I'm only sharing this information now because we're pretty much done with this phase of the business, so I can talk about things a bit more openly, and it seems relevant to share on a thread about RX cards.
I didn't say it was not ok to respond. Calling people crazy is the weird part.
You did handwave that, we can agree to disagree.
I didn't even say you are or aren't doing anything nefarious. I pointed out a conflict of interest (incentive to propagandize) and you responded by calling me crazy. Now you are saying "All I do is criticize". Boohoo to you sir.
"Assume good intent." This comment, as with all of your other ones in this chain, blatantly violate HN guidelines. Accusing people of "shilling" or "spreading propaganda" only makes this forum worse.
Sorry, but this is pretty much incorrect. Copper migrates, even in solid state devices, and those copper migrations cause breaks and shorts, which cause errors and failures. The smaller the scale, the faster this happens. There is absolutely a MTBF even for solid-state devices.
This entire slide deck is worth the perusal, if only for the "whoah, that actually happens?!" moments. But here's a relevant slide for this claim:
https://c3.ndc.nasa.gov/dashlink/static/media/other/Observed...
The money quote: "Commercial semiconductor road maps show component reliability timescales are being reduced to 5-7 years." (with attribution)
Another fascinating slide is this one, which shows how an IC can start to have a timing issue after being in service for a time.
https://c3.ndc.nasa.gov/dashlink/static/media/other/Observed...