I have not objected to your posts. I am looking for information you obviously have about how the present hardware with video features makes the cameras less desirable for stills work. If you can't give a simple explanation, then don't worry about it. I'll just keep taking great stills with a camera that is far better than anything I have ever owned despite the video hardware hacks you say it has.You can read up it here. It's still speculation, but at least it doesn't contradict common sense and basic physics, unlike the claims that a camera uses dual-pixel architecture for both dual-gain acquisition and autofocus at the same time, and that reading a half-pixel for exposure will lead to increased DR.
As to generating heat, there is not much more than amplifying, converting, transferring and processing those (extra) bits per second that generates heat in the camera. If only the EVF.
Please reread the posts you are replying to. I don't see how repeating the arguments again and again would be helpful if you don't read them.
If you have any particular objections to my arguments there, you are free to post them.
In my opinion, if you cannot provide a camera without the video hardware hacks in pure stills format, then all you probably have is just conjecture and faith in an idea you cannot possibly prove. Unless, of course, you have a simple explanation. Otherwise, my ignorance truly is bliss.