Wait a sec, you're quoting yourself for proof but you were pretty much objectively wrong in that case? HN unanimously agrees that the M1 was the biggest jump in capabilities and has had many many years of usability since launch.
Except what they didn't tell you was that the software was not optimized and did not work correctly for the M1 and you had to wait it to be ready; especially in the case for developers.
That means, users (especially pro users / developers) lost months of productivity and had to wait for a year for the software to catch up with the hardware.
In that time-frame, you might as well have waited and bought an M2 or above. Nice try though.
You might need to talk to the power users both here and beyond HN.
Developers who use Docker on Mac, Android Studio, homebrew usage and usage on embedded devices all had persistent issues and had to wait months for the ecosystem to improve for full stable support without Rosetta, instead of workarounds that break on another update.
Musicians that use DAWs such as Ableton reported that their plugins did not work and had to stay on Intel Macs. Same with those who have hardware for their instruments that need device drivers for their instrument setups also had to wait several months.
So it only made sense for power users to wait for the M2 and higher until the software was fully supported on Apple Silicon.
I would seriously bet that <1% of Mac owners have ever run (Docker|Android Studio|Ableton), and fwiw I used Homebrew just fine off the bat
"for full stable support without Rosetta" is moving the goalposts because Rosetta made >99% of all workloads "just work" in a completely transparent way
> I would seriously bet that <1% of Mac owners have ever run (Docker|Android Studio|Ableton).
It's a great move if the M1 is your first Mac and just use their machine to surf the web, write documents and emails.
It makes even more sense for existing Mac and power users to just wait.
> and fwiw I used Homebrew just fine off the bat
That is not true. They needed compatibility hacks + Rosetta and even required re-compiling the software for Homebrew to work correctly with workarounds on GitHub issues.
> "for full stable support without Rosetta" is moving the goalposts because Rosetta made >99% of all workloads "just work" in a completely transparent way
Nope. What I said was an expansion from: "the software was not optimized and did not work correctly for the M1 and you had to wait it to be ready" to "full stable support without Rosetta, instead of workarounds that break on another update." Which is the same thing as expecting, an optimal version of the software.
Again, your evidence is made up numbers, hilariously anecdotal (anecdotes are not evidence) and on a technical site are usually just be ignored and dismissed.
One elevator feature I specifically noticed at Apple Park but haven't seen anywhere else: elevator prefetching to the ground floor.
I.e. in a bank of 2 elevators where one is resting on ground and the other is resting on a different floor, as soon as someone calls the ground elevator (which is already there and immediately opens) the other elevator (if idle) will move to the ground floor so that there's no delay the next time someone calls one from the ground floor.
Lazy evaluation would save on money. Branch prediction would save on wait times. In places electricity can shut down, lazy evaluation would be preferable to make it work longer on limited battery.
The argument is not that you get better prices, it’s that you get accurate prices.
First, this definition has always been circular: what’s the most accurate price? The one the market comes up with. More market, more accuracy!
Second, there is never any reconciliation of the costs society is saddled with in order to chase arbitrarily more accurate prices, the most obvious of which is the massive quantity of fat skimmed off by the financial services sector.
Third, as an index investor, I more or less couldn’t care less. This hyperfixation on accuracy only really matters to people who are actively trading, which is already a fool’s game.
> First, this definition has always been circular: what’s the most accurate price? The one the market comes up with. More market, more accuracy!
Market makers and HFT don't determine price: price is usually purely determined by the net inflows and outflows as decided by humans. MMs just smooth it out over time so everyone gets good pricing at the time and in the size they want it.
> Second, there is never any reconciliation of the costs society is saddled with in order to chase arbitrarily more accurate prices
By definition market makers are earning a fraction of the price improvement they provide, ergo the costs to society have to be less that the benefits for better pricing for the companies to stay in business!
> Third, as an index investor, I more or less couldn’t care less
As an index investor you should absolutely care! How do you think you are able to buy into the fund at a reasonable price? And then how do you think the fund is able to rebalance without transaction costs destroying performance long-term?
> By definition market makers are earning a fraction of the price improvement they provide
By definition, they’re making in aggregate essentially whatever the difference was between the “misprice” and the “true price”, assuming sufficient belief in both of these things. One of the parties in the hypothetically mispriced trade is bearing the loss. Their cut had to come from somewhere.
> As an index investor you should absolutely care! How do you think you are able to buy into the fund at a reasonable price?
You are relying on an interpretation of “reasonable” to intuitively mean “cheap” when in reality it means “accurate” in this context.
As an index investor, as long as it is accurate enough I don’t care. Any mispricing of assets up and down will come out in the wash.
Index funds existed well before HFTs were endemic. I have seen zero evidence that HFTs have caused index funds to net more of the gains from their underlying indexes.
It feels like you're intentionally omitting parts of what I said to make a point, and that I have no hope of correcting your world view, so just gonna clarify for any onlookers then stop arguing further.
> > price is usually purely determined by the net inflows and outflows as decided by humans.
> "as decided by humans", more than 90% of trades are led by bots, so no, price is not being determined by humans.
You skipped past the "MMs just smooth it out over time so everyone gets good pricing at the time and in the size they want it" right afterwards which exactly explains why most trading is between bots! Person A wants to buy 10 shares of Y at time T1, Person B wants to sell 20 shares of Y at time T2, Person C wants to buy 10 shares of Y at time T3. Those are all at different times, therefore bots have to take the other side of each trade, then trade with each other to smooth out prices in between each point.
> In fact, we have seen time and again how some weird companies get a huge inflow of purchases simply because of bots misinterpreting news articles.
I actually clearly see this happening more with humans than with bots. Can you think of a single example attributed to bots? A bot that can misinterpret a news article and lose money is fixed and/or disabled forever. There is no shortage of dumb humans willing to lose money due to a lack of literacy.
I run Moonlight directly on my Apple TV and it's great! Apple TV is so wildly better than any smart TV on the market that I'll always have it be the brains of any TV I own for the foreseeable future anyway.
I'll work for 4+ hours straight in my Vision Pro when I'm on a plane or train, but when I'm in a less cramped place I'd rather just use a normal screen
If anything I think the Vision Pro is more discreet on a plane! No big bright screen to annoy or distract other passengers with, plus I can keep my laptop nearly clamshelled on my lap while I work without having to use the tray table
Not the GP, but to me this case feels like extortion.
I have the same problem with paying for extensions like Dark Reader, DeArrow, and any ad blockers. None of these apps should exist in the first place. They were created because the default state of the web is barbaric. And some developers have the gall to charge for the luxury of making the experience tolerable?
But they’re saying it feels like extortion. The problems of the web aren’t the fault of those extension developers, nor can they do anything about it besides trying to mitigate it. It’s in our best interest that they can do so sustainably, meaning charging for it. It’s not gall, they’re fighting it for themselves and making the solution available for all.
That comment places a lot of blame where it doesn’t lie. It’s like calling surgeons extortionists for having the gall to charge for treating you. Yes, ideally that should be free and available to all, and perhaps if those people had the freedom to choose (e.g. having their own needs met so they didn’t have to work) they would do it. But that’s not how the system is setup, and their skills don’t translate to fixing the problem at the root. Not all of us are cut out to be politicians (and as we all know, being well-intentioned as one still doesn’t mean you have the power to enact policy).
The definition of extortion is the coercion of money in "exchange for protection", where the threat to be protected against is typically perpetrated by the coercer. I'm not using the term in the literal sense, as if an antivirus software firm is producing computer viruses. Thus, this case "feels like extortion", not "we are being extorted". (It may as well be advertising firms selling ad blocking software because the net effect to the end user is the same, but I digress.)
FWIW, I don't consider surgeons to be extortionists. That's an absurdity that you are using as illustrative of why I'm wrong to call software developers extortionists when they charge for a privilege that should be a right. There are two issues with the comparison: 1) I did not call software engineers extortionists (but sure, I can see how you drew that conclusion), and 2) people absolutely should have a right to life-saving surgery and should not be denied on the basis of payment.
There is a huge preexisting problem: health care is not a human right [1]. There are other issues with health care that isn't just money. Many life-saving transplant patents are stuck in a wait list, for instance, and many die waiting. I do what I can. I'm a registered organ donor and try not to destroy my liver. I just haven't died yet, and I still need it. But this line of reasoning is off in the weeds, and I won't pursue it further.
Perhaps what it comes down to is that you have a pro-capitalist outlook, and I have They Live sunglasses.
> FWIW, I don't consider surgeons to be extortionists.
Of course, that’s the point of the comparison. If I thought you thought surgeons were extortionists I wouldn’t have used the example because it wouldn’t have served to illustrate the point.
> But this line of reasoning is off in the weeds, and I won't pursue it further.
Indeed, that strayed completely away from the point. This has nothing to do with healthcare.
> Many life-saving transplant patents are stuck in a wait list, for instance, and many die waiting.
I know. I’ve made that point in a sibling comment hours before your post.
> It’s like calling surgeons extortionists for having the gall to charge for treating you. Yes, ideally that should be free and available to all
What do you mean by "should be"? Surgery is free and available to everyone. So why would one accuse surgeons of being extortionists? So I am not sure how the surgeon comparison works. That example supports the parent commenter's point that these extensions should be free.
Of course, there is still the practical question of who will do the work and how they will make a living. We can do what we do for surgeons. Maybe have a nonprofit consortium that people fund, so that it can support the extension developers. Yes, people would be spending money either way, but at least that money would be going toward a larger cause. Just like we pay taxes so the government can fund surgeons, who can then treat people.
I meant “would be”. Not that I think it makes that much difference here.
> Surgery is free and available to everyone.
That’s definitely not true worldwide. I think if you stop for a minute you can come up with at least one country. And even in those where it is free in public hospitals, it’s not uncommon for some to have a waitlist of years to the point you can die before it even happens. Also, did you know there are places where they don’t even have hospitals, let alone surgeons? The world is a big place, lots of disparity.
> So why would one accuse surgeons of being extortionists?
Even given all that, I think if you engage with the argument in good faith and steel man it instead of nitpicking, you’ll understand the point and can come up with your own example to satisfy you. Just pick a job you can’t do and have to pay for someone to fix something which wasn’t your fault or the fault of the other person. I believe you’re a smart person and could surely come up with something with little effort.
> there is still the practical question of who will do the work and how they will make a living.
That’s… The point. Especially for programmers, how many of us would do this shit for free, full time and beyond, for the sole purpose of benefiting others, if we had the opportunity to because we didn’t have to worry about basic needs? A large number. Way less than the number of programmers in the world right now, and that’s a good thing.
> Maybe have a nonprofit consortium that people fund
Fantastic idea. Are you doing it? Can you? Do you know where to start? And if you can’t, is that your fault? Should you be blamed for it? Are you an extortionist? Do you have gall for not doing it?
All fair points. Sorry, I spend a lot of time on regional forums, and I had a brain malfunction and forgot that when I write on HN, I am writing on a worldwide forum. Sorry for the unnecessary nitpicking.
Re non profit, I do donate to a few nonprofits I like, like those working on fediverse and my favorite langs. But I don't know of anything that does this for extensions. I'd have definitely voted with money if something was there. So, yeah, no, I am not doing anything to start a nonprofit for extensions. You have a good point.
> I do donate to a few nonprofits I like, like those working on fediverse and my favorite langs.
You already do more than most, and I commend you for it.
> So, yeah, no, I am not doing anything to start a nonprofit for extensions. You have a good point.
To clarify, the idea here was in no way to put you on the spot. Rather, what I’m saying is that none of us are doing so and that it’s not really fair to blame anyone for it. Most people don’t know how or don’t have the skills or inclination, and that’s understandable.
Hypothetically you take the leading expert of a field and say "they believe in their own field too much - far more than I do as a layman - and therefore surely must have psychosis."
Why should I trust that your assessment is correct? Is it likely to ever be correct in the case of a doctor/mechanical engineer/athlete/economist/whatever? So why do so many people insist that an incredibly intelligent AI researcher has fallen into some obvious trap?
Because we're paying attention? A lot of "smart" people are lost in the AI sauce, grandstanding that they are going to change the very fabric of society. Generally leading experts in other fields are not making the same hyperbolic, self-indulgent, embarrassing statements.
At risk of being "lost in the AI sauce", do you seriously believe that AI isn't actively changing the fabric of society? Almost feels like we're living in totally different realities if that isn't clear-cut
I still put my pants on the same way, eat the same food, talk to my friends and family the same way. I drive to the grocery store, pick out the same food and cook food at the same home. Talk to my kids, take them to activities and watch Bluey.
The only time my reality has changed is when I spend time at a computer or on my phone and even then, its a fraction of the total time. So no, it's not a "totally different reality" for me.
And yet if I open Activity Monitor right now: "Emoji & Symbols" is using 1GB of memory, "Spotlight" using 749MB, "Control Center" using 727MB, despite not having used any of the features recently (and additionally restricting Spotlight to index basically nothing or else it'll drain my battery). Each one of those is larger than any of the Electron apps I always have running (Claude, Cursor, Signal, 1Password).
reply