What you're advocating amounts to exposing users to possible harm, hoping that users that are harmed then act to punish Intel. That is not just a convoluted sc

What you're advocating amounts to exposing users to possible harm, hoping that users that are harmed then act to punish Intel. That is not just a convoluted scheme with no chance of effect, it is also morally reprehensible. You're willfully harming people for reasons almost entirely outside their control and expertise. Imagine the coast guard letting people drown "because that's what happens if you buy a cheap boat". Except these people didn't buy cheap boats: Intel is quite obviously the default option, and usually more expensive in case where there actually are alternative. And we haven't even gotten into the difficulty in making moral judgements about Intel's past behavior that led to these problems. Considering these bugs have existed for decades without being exposed, I would tend to think the pitchforks might just be an overreaction. There's a scale that goes intent to harm > accepting harm > accepting the possibility of harm (gross negligence) > not anticipating the risk of harm (negligence). One should calibrate one's outrage to it.