XPost: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: brock.mcnuggets@gmail.com
On Feb 9, 2026 at 8:37:58 PM MST, "Gremlin" wrote
:
https://chatgpt.com/share/698cbbef-0908-800c-acfb-2b81ea0196ec
Here’s a clean breakdown you can use.
⸻
Psychological profile of the author (Gremlin)
Tone & persona
• Confrontational, dismissive of opponents’ intelligence, and prone
to
ad hominem (“unable to think for himself,” “I even dumbed it down”).
• Performs expertise. The long technical digressions and personal
anecdotes serve to establish authority and seniority in computing culture.
• Strong identity investment in “PC/open architecture vs Apple/closed
systems.” This looks less like neutral analysis and more like a long-standing
grievance.
Cognitive style
• Mixes real technical knowledge with overconfident extrapolation. He
knows enough about SSD wear-leveling, firmware/option ROMs, and historical
platforms to sound credible.
• Tends to argue by assertion and volume rather than tight sourcing.
The
“google query + generic answer” reads like cargo-cult citation rather than
rigorous evidence.
• Framing bias: anything that disadvantages Apple is labeled a
“flaw,”
while counterpoints are treated as ignorance or bad faith.
Motivation
• Status-seeking in technical communities. He wants to be seen as the
person who “really understands” what others supposedly don’t.
• Long memory of platform wars (Apple vs PC) that still colors
present-day judgments.
• Not especially interested in persuading opponents; more interested in
scoring points and asserting dominance.
⸻
Fact and logic check of key claims
1. “Apple’s SSD design is a flaw even if intentional.”
• This is mostly a value judgment, not a technical fact. Apple’s
design
(soldered SSD/NAND tied to Secure Enclave on modern Macs) is an intentional
tradeoff: security, performance, thinness vs repairability and modularity.
• Calling it a “flaw” is subjective. It’s accurate to say it
reduces
repairability and user serviceability.
2. SSDs go read-only at end of life and may remain readable for some time.
• Largely correct. Many SSD controllers switch to read-only when wear
thresholds are reached, to preserve data. Data retention after endurance
limits can be months to a year under decent conditions. That’s a reasonable
summary.
3. “Once the internal SSD dies, external booting and usage will no longer be
possible on modern Macs, turning them into paperweights.”
• This is overstated and partly wrong.
• On Apple Silicon Macs, the internal storage is tightly integrated
with
the boot process, and a completely dead internal SSD can indeed make the
machine unbootable.
• However, this isn’t universally true for all “modern Apple
computers,”
and failure modes vary. Some failures still allow DFU restore or limited
recovery depending on what exactly died.
• Calling them guaranteed “paperweights” is rhetoric, not a precise
technical description.
4. “Apple uses proprietary NAND.”
• The pushback is fair. Apple does not fabricate proprietary NAND flash
silicon. They use standard NAND from suppliers.
• The author’s retreat to “semantics” is weak: making a storage
subsystem non-user-replaceable or cryptographically tied to the SoC is not the
same thing as using proprietary NAND chips.
5. BIOS/UEFI option ROMs and Windows auto-executing them (LoJack example).
• Historically, there were real issues with option ROM execution and
pre-OS persistence mechanisms. Absolute/LoJack firmware persistence was a
known thing.
• The claim that Windows XP “auto executes any option ROMs it
finds” is
sloppy wording. Option ROMs execute in firmware/boot stages, not because
Windows “decides” to run them. The persistence mechanism is real, but the
technical description is muddled.
Overall factual reliability:
• Mixed. Some solid understanding, but padded with exaggeration,
imprecise language, and argumentative framing.
⸻
Is there anything worth replying to?
Yes, but only narrowly. The worthwhile discussion points are:
• The tradeoff between security/performance and repairability in
Apple’s
storage design.
• The real-world implications of soldered SSDs for longevity and
e-waste.
• Clarifying what actually happens when an Apple Silicon Mac’s
internal
storage fails (and where the limits really are).
Engaging the personal jabs or platform-war rhetoric is probably a waste of
time. A reply that sticks to factual correction and design tradeoffs could be
useful to the thread. Trying to “win” against the persona likely won’t
change
anything.
⸻
Short Usenet-style summary suitable for posting
Gremlin’s post mixes valid points about SSD wear and Apple’s
non-user-replaceable storage with a lot of overstatement and platform-war
rhetoric. Yes, SSDs can go read-only at end of life, and Apple’s design
choices reduce repairability and increase the impact of storage failure. No,
Apple doesn’t use “proprietary NAND,” and modern Macs aren’t
universally
guaranteed to become instant paperweights the moment internal storage fails –
the reality is more nuanced and depends on failure mode and model. The useful
part of the discussion is about security/performance tradeoffs vs
serviceability; the rest is mostly bluster.
--
It's impossible for someone who is at war with themselves to be at peace with
you.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
