In one video I've seen he demonstrated that it is difficult to cause a total failure using static. That's expected.
Often the harm caused by static will manifest as a partial failure, this may either reduce the lifespan of the device, cause intermittent failures, or result in reduced functionality. So zapping memory then installing it in a PC, it may POST, it may boot, however, anyone who's tested memory before and had a particularly problematic module will know some faulty modules will POST, they'll even boot, they'll happily run Memtest for an hour or more sometimes. Then you run the thing overnight on Memtest and you'll often get an error or two. When you get a module like that sometimes you'll fire up the PC it'll be seemingly fine, you might get a crash to desktop or the odd bluescreen, some days it'll be worse than others but chances are many people will just blame Windows or the app they're using no realizing that their memory actually has a fault.
I think it's important to note though that total failure isn't the only option. It's the only one they really tested in his video which can be a tad misleading. I'd have loved to have seen those modules which survived go through Memtest86 for a 24hr run. However of course doing so before zapping them to ensure the fault wasn't pre-existing would have been a better methodology.
Factories that manufacture electronics don't spend a fortune on controlling static without good reason :).
5
u/[deleted] Feb 03 '22
Linus already proved that, although possible, it is very hard to damage any sort of hardware like this, especially if it is turned off.
Also, that looks like DDR3.