CrayonDevourer

Likely a bios update you need to apply. At one point the B450s weren't going to support Zen 3. AMD reversed course later, but that likely means that a bios update had to come along in order to add the support.

Lots of motherboards, even new ones, still ship with old-ass bios.

Also, remember that memory-training is a thing now -- don't assume that 10 seconds of a black screen means it won't post. Easily wait a minute or more - board could just be in memory-training to get the best speeds.

Wonderful, biking on a road with no shoulder, around barely visible curves. Good luck!

No company in the history of electronics has ever been in the habit of remotely bricking devices, get real.

And yes, I've read it - ON TOP of that, I'm familiar with these types of clauses in a real world basis. Let me tell you, you're off in lala land with your interpretation.

Here's an example one: https://www.meetup.com/101-dating-relationships/events/307612236/

No, Bricking would be rendering the firmware useless. It has a definition and this is not it. Rendering the Switch unable to play games, does not make it a brick. Definitions matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brick_(electronics)

A brick (or bricked device) is a mobile device, game console, router, computer or other electronic device that is no longer functional due to corrupted firmware, a hardware problem, or other damage

Banning you from using their online service, does not make the Switch a brick, as the firmware still functions as intended.

So now, you're arguing over a "What if" -- AND you're getting definitions completely wrong, resulting in the spread of misinformation.

You don't know what form will be taken when this happens. They haven't used it yet. I could say in a EULA that I have the right to destroy earth, doesn't make it true. Certain things are unenforceable, and you don't know what route or method Nintendo is going to use that this clause is supposedly protecting.

The EULA is a "we CAN do this". It doesn't dictate what form it will take, how they approach it, etc. Until someone breaks this clause, we won't know how it's approached, or even if it's enforced, or how.

Whatever you do, steer clear of meetup.com - all of their social activities on there now are scientologists thinly veiling their seminars as get-togethers.

If they allow local games and all that's lost is the online service, then we don't know this for sure - it's all speculation. We're all arguing over a bunch of "what ifs".

Context matters here, they are specifically talking about Nintendo Account Services - and they have to include the device, because disabling nintendo account services could render the device "unusable". They are not about to flash your firmware out from under you and brick the device.

There are digital license versions from what I understand, and then there are full-fat versions. Unless something has changed.

That STILL doesn't make the "they'll brick your switch!" thing true. If the hardware can be hacked, then it's still usable.

"Bricked" has a very special, specific meaning - generally that the lowest level firmware is completely unworkable, and you cannot use the system at all - no screen, no buttons, no lights, nothing.

If you can fire the thing up, and it log into a network, and then tell you that you've been banned from Nintendo Online and refuse certain functionality -- You've been banned, not bricked.

I'm pretty sure at this point that most of them think that Legal jargon is the equivalent to a druidic incantation and they just need to find the right incantation for it all to work in their favor.

It has to do with their online services; not the switch itself.

There's nothing in here about bricking your console if you mod it.

This is clearly them saying they'll ban your switch from Nintendo Online services if they notice something fishy. If your Switch requires online services for something, that something may not work any longer.