[Kunzite]

This doesn't apply to the K-3iii, but I've described a configuration which would make the DSLRs every bit as accurate as a mirrorless - because the data would be read from the main sensor. Before claiming (or supporting claims) that "DSLRs are a dead end", consider such possible evolutions.

What I'm missing with this approach is: where is the advantage? Other than still having an optical viewfinder? Why put effort in a more complex (and likely more expensive) solution that catches up with mirrorless in one regard (AF precision), but still falls behind in many others (like real-time image preview)?

"Other than"? But that's the entire point! The optical viewfinder is very important to some - and EVFs don't quite work.
And - we're talking about a less complex DSLR configuration (because you'd no longer need dedicated AF and metering systems) while being able to match MILCs spec by spec (including AF coverage).

"Real-time image preview" is not an advantage IMHO. Seeing the actual scene is. If you disagree, that's fine, you have cameras doing it your way - but don't tell me every camera should be like that.

---

I already did. Again: what choice am I not respecting?
Come on, don't avoid the answer.

His choice to explain his opinion here. Isn't that obvious?

Anyway, I'm out, I made my point.

You mean his choice to bash Pentax and DSLRs in general, by spreading falsehoods about their capabilities. Yes, you made it thoroughly clear that you're supportive of that.