BennVenn has a video on Youtube called "Can a bootleg/flash cart prematurely age or damage your console?!?!?" which may provide a more complete picture of how these cartridges operate in reality and shed a little light on lurking variables that the author of the article in question may have overlooked.
That being said, I am going to respond to statements made by another member here to clarify my position as to why Krikzz does not need to prove that his items do not damage consoles, or cause cancer, or attract bears, etc. I am not doing this to be antagonistic.
You didn't do your research...
...you are not an engineer.
This guy is repeating the same errors of the previous posts, as well as a few new errors. Although it is beginning to try my patience, the discussion isn't necessarily pointless. As my views are yet again being misrepresented I will civilly respond one last time. There are many fantastic examples of erroneous reasoning, so this will be good reading if you like that sort of thing.
You didn't do your research. This much was clear to me.
It is clear to me that much less is clear to this person than he believes to be the case.
And yes, you are not an engineer.
This is the logical fallacy we call "appeal to accomplishment". It is where a person erroneously attempts to evaluate a statement based on the accomplishments of the person making the statement and not the merits of the statement being made. The fact that he keeps repeating this in each response is telling.
He keeps stating that one has to be a licensed professional engineer to be able to think critically or advocate a position with sound reasoning. He seems oblivious to the fact that this suggestion is insulting to everyone here as well as being plainly wrong.
I don't claim to be a super-intelligent person, but I do have multiple university degrees in the field of computer science and discussed this article with an actual engineer and a retired air force officer who used to work with the United Space Alliance (No, that isn't something from Star Trek, look it up). They agreed with my view. Further, there are engineers, teachers, computer programmers, and law enforcement detectives in my family. It isn't like I'm living in a vacuum of stupidity and technological ignorance.
Prove then that he profited from the site traffic.
Asking me how I could know that someone could profit off of an article that leads traffic directly to their store is kind of like asking me how could I possibly know the tooth fairy is really one of his parents. No words.
Prove then that the 3 older everdrive models on the store do not consume faster a console's lifespan.
This is the logical fallacy we call "denying the antecedent". If a person claims bigfoot is stealing cars in New Jersey and I state he has not proven it, he doesn't get to tell me that I have to prove that bigfoot is NOT stealing cars in New Jersey to prove him wrong.
You claim that all of your suggestions are reasonable because they sound reasonable...
Wrong again. Reasonable in this context means that I submit that the statements are plainly obvious to any reasonable and informed person. The fact that he persists in expressing his view while attempting to support it with logical fallacies puts him at odds with reason.
...yet you reject scientific research because...
Wrong again, on two counts. The first error here is the "false dilemma" logical fallacy in which a statement is claimed to be "either/or" when there are additional options. I never rejected content of the article IN TOTAL and clearly stated that it contained a grain of truth. Meaning that there were valid points but that the overall picture is misleading (BennVenn Electronics has a great video explaining this in layman's terms).
The article this thread is referring to is not scientific research. It was one guy stating a dubious claim based on misleading and incomplete information. Although he has valid points, the article is not a carefully documented, systematic study of impartial scientific rigor published in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
Many people incorrectly think using technical terminology and schematics in an article amounts to bonafide scientific research. It does not.
At the end of the day, all Krikzz has to substantiate his argument is an old document...
"Denying the antecedent fallacy" again. Krikzz isn't the one making the argument. These devices have been out for years. We would have proof by now if there was anything to the premise of the article in question. It is incumbent upon the author making the claim to prove Krikzz is damaging consoles. It is NOT incumbent upon Krikzz to prove the reverse of the author's claim.
Having a console fail faster due to the use of out of spec devices is difficult to prove unless the failure is immediate, which is not the case here...
Wrong again. He keeps repeating this absurd claim. These devices have been out for many years now and there are forums of hundreds Everdrive users that would have no problem screaming to the heavens about Krikzz and his diabolical cartridges. So no, the failure would NOT have to be immediate in this case because there has been plenty of time for valid examples to come to light.
People who work in tech support will know this.
There are intelligent people in technical support. However, many technical support jobs require no more technical expertise or education than operating the burger cooker at McDonalds. That doesn't carry much weight here. I've talked to technical support staff in the Philippines that admitted they never completed high school.
...the evil pedestal he was put in.
Yet another straw-man fallacy. I didn't say the author was a cannibalistic devil worshiper.
Let's leave conjecture behind and this argument to the engineers from now on, shall we?
Here he's repeating the "call to accomplishment" logical fallacy yet again and doesn't understand what is meant by the term "conjecture". Here's a hint. It is a conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
Concrete evidence is not conjecture. Stating that there is no concrete evidence to support a claim is ALSO not conjecture.
For example, there is no concrete evidence supporting the claim that "bigfoot hid an atomic bomb under the foundations of the Great Pyramids of Egypt". My statement that there is no evidence to support this claim is simply a FACTUAL OBSERVATION. This is NOT conjecture. I don't have to prove bigfoot does not exist.
The article--sophisticated though it may be--actually IS a piece of CONJECTURE. That doesn't mean that it does not contain factual information. Though it offers highly technical argumentation, it is based on an incomplete analysis with no body of statistics and no concrete proof.
Now my patience has reached its limit.