Sorry Archie and CB...
but I am a "word person"... literally.
And - boy-oh-boy - this is gonna cost me a whole BUNCH of brownie points

BUT "personal interpretations"
should not be the definitive answer
above understanding and using correct application of a word.

If we "redefine" the meaning of "obsolete" ...
why use the word "obsolete" at all?
Wouldn't it just be better to make something up?
An appropriate "chip-term"?
Something not already linguistically defined to define whatever we're trying to define???

BECAUSE "obsolete" ALREADY MEANS something SPECIFIC. (like DEAD. like WET. but NOT like "RARE" on ebay.)
And it's implication is relevant IN ANY APPLICATION - whether it be applied to chips, freeways, computer equipment, stocks and bonds... or research. Tangibles or intangibles. SAME THEORY.

It is the misuse and misunderstanding of the word "obsolete" that evokes different interpretations.

Therefore perhaps a solution would be to modify the word "obsolete" to accompany the modified definition. I suggest: "CHOBS" (CHip- OBSolete)

In doing so - those (millions) who correctly use and apply "THE WORD"
WILL NOT BE CONFUSED OR MISLED by our unsanctioned, selectively applied amendment to Webster -- because "obsolete" would NOT MEAN "obsolete" here AT ALL.

I don't get it... sorry!

Signed:
An apologetic but "LITERAL" TROUBLEMAKER today