> No one would reasonably look at this side by side with the current offering and think "that's not old!".

That is exactly what I did a short time ago when I was building a PC and deciding on parts for it. I thought it seemed like a perfectly reasonable option, given that:

1. It was readily available

2. Many other people were building computers with it, or recommending it for builds

3. I judged that it would function well and be compatible with the other hardware in the PC

You are letting the pace at which a company releases new products define what makes something "old" to you. Even if the model that is several releases "old" came out 5 years ago, still functions well and can be used effectively with the software and hardware coming out right now.

It's "old" because the company has released newer versions? It's "old" because it's less expensive? And because it is "old", according to actions taken by the company, it should not be supported, or repaired if there is fault with it? This is clearly exactly what companies want from their consumers to extract as much money as possible from them, and a recipe for massive consumption.

> Buying an old chip is done for the same reasons as buying an old car: If you don't really need it much, it also can't bring you a lot of value and so something something brand new won't mean much to you.

I don't understand. I do need a car, and my car from 14 years ago provides me tons of value. As does my main laptop computer from 6 years ago. I need that computer to make my living doing programming and IT work, and it does a fantastic job of it.

> If you believed this, it would invalidate your entire line of argument that the chip (and your car) cannot be considered old as age cannot be classified and is irrelevant: considering the chip not old is therefore also wrong.

To not have an objective definition does not mean that it means nothing, it means it has a subjective definition. We are disagreeing on our subjective definitions of "old" in this context, and I am saying that your definition leads to negative effects.

> I do not think you actually believe that the age should not be classified. At the same time, if you did not think it was objective, your argument would have focused on saying it was subjective or context-specific rather than saying the classification was wrong.

Yes, I was saying that it has a subjective definition. I thought "does not have an objective definition" in this context implied "has a subjective definition", not "has no meaning and classification of age is impossible".

> That consumerism is also why the chip is a bargain and new chips are affordable, and the only argument for buying an EOL chip is price.

What about all the people who bought the chip at full price 4-5 years ago? They're SOL the same as I am. And I didn't think it was EOL, and don't think it should be. There's no official EOL in the sense "this is how long we'll support this desktop CPU for before it stops receiving security updates". The only reason to believe that it wouldn't receive an update to fix a vulnerability several months later would've been a hazy guess, were I more tuned in to the CPU market. I believe in consumer protection laws that mandate support of products and repair of serious flaws for a longer period.

In terms of reasons for not keeping up with the Joneses: carbon emissions, slowing consumption, keeping things from the junk pile. These are immensely important.

> is not relevant as I make it very clear that being old does not mean it needs to be replaced. Even if it ends its service life with you, a responsible person would sell it or give it away so someone else can use it instead of buying new.

This whole discussion is about a flaw in the chip that leaves a serious vulnerability open. The problem is that if you are risk-averse, or sensitive to cyberattacks, it does need to be replaced. And as the chip could be unsafe, it can't (safely) just be handed off to someone else to use.

This isn't about free updates or improvements. It's about fixing a fixable flaw that leaves open a serious vulnerability that enables persistent infection of a computer. Few people will be capable of making a proper assessment of the risk, even among devs and IT folk.