Because software needs to be aware of the memory lifecycle to avoid losing data when its process gets culled. iOS apps are explicitly built for that, but to my knowledge macOS apps aren't, they are allowed to assume they will run forever until the user closes them.
They are both built upon Darwin, Apple's BSD-based kernel, they are essentially the same OS underneath with different top level API's and even those are getting more uniform with Swift and SwiftUI.
Maybe not 2x (scaling is never linear) but you can absolutely chain them, and macOS supports RDMA over TB5 for even better performance https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46248644
Their point stands. People are just not going to daisy-chain these together for datacenter use. Apple does not take the workload seriously and macOS is not a suitable OS for mass deployment.
RDMA is the bare minimum we should expect from a system that doesn't support eGPUs and treats PCI like a foreign language. It's not a long-term solution and even Apple themselves cannot deny this: https://9to5mac.com/2026/03/02/some-apple-ai-servers-are-rep...
No their point doesn’t stand because they questioned whether you can use them together. And yes you can. Don’t change the goalposts just because you don’t like the products. Nowhere in their comment does your interpretation even come into the mix.
PTL’s highest SKU is comparable to the base M5 for only multicore perf at double the power use in every benchmark I’ve seen. It lags significantly behind in single core.
But I’d love to see a benchmark showing otherwise.
It's ridiculous to claim high and mighty that a chip that's not out yet is competitive. The only real way to test a laptop chip is in a laptop with the thermal choices made by the laptop maker. Hell, the M5 has been mostly benchmarked on the Macbook Pro, and that has a fan! The M5 is not going to be as impressive in the Air.
It's been five years since M1 and Intel has never been competitive in single-core perf per watt with Apple. It would be surprising if it changed.
Panther lake and the M5 have been out (I know fan makes a difference, but hey it's still a decent reference), and fully tested by a number of reviewers. The "almost every way" comment is with the exception of single-core scores. Outside of that metric, when you look at photoshop/premiere/davinci resolve/compilation/SSD speeds/multicore cinebench; both are about as fast as one another (with some back-and-forth wins on either side). How is it a ridiculous claim when so many publications/reviewers have arrived at the same conclusion?
The point is both achieve nearly the same experience (performance wise) averaged-out, doing real work, and any differences are small enough that it hardly matters. The tests are out there. See: Just Josh (youtube), Notebookcheck (various articles), Zip Tie Tech (youtube), Phoronix (article), Hardware Canucks (youtube), and Max Tech (youtube). Plenty of test results for actual panther lake machines.
The Max Tech review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q77AzvY3FTE) directly doing a head to head of the M5 macbook pro vs the Expertbook ultra is a good enough summary of how close they actually are. Bunch of heavier tasks being run one after the next, all on battery, side-by-side, in a nicely edited video. As a whole, the chips are more similar than they are different. They are 100% in the same performance tier.
In the real-world, stuff like animation timings for switching virtual desktops are 100% more noticable than the single-core performance gap between those two chips. Or having a 120Hz vs 60Hz like these new macbook airs.
IMO, the main tradeoff with choosing these intel chips over the M5 is the price. Only the X7/X9 panther lakes have the strong GPU, and those are priced significantly higher than base M5 macs (which already have a strong GPU). But for someone who really prefers linux (like the parent comment), then I do think it's worth it.
Qt delegates to native UI in a lot of cases. I think a lot of people who rail against native UI fail to delineate between native UI and first party frameworks. Using third party frameworks, even cross platform ones, does not mean you lose out on native UI elements.
If you strip away the branding, Apple has and continues to ship a ton of algorithms that likely use the ANE and end users can use CoreML to do the same.
Just some things that people will likely take for granted that IIRC Apple have said use the ANE or at least would likely benefit from it: object recognition, subject extraction from images and video, content analysis, ARKit, spam detection, audio transcription.
Don’t forget FaceID and many of the image manipulation.
And while everyone else went to more powerful giant LLMs, Apple moved most of Siri from the cloud to your device. Though they do use both (which you can see when Siri corrects itself during transcription—you get the local Siri version corrected later by the cloud version).
Can you explain, why not? If it’s easier for Apple to just maintain a fewer series of chips going forward, why not keep it up to date?
If your question is what do people use it for? Well thats different. iPads have a range of users from people who just browse the internet and will never stress this out, to people who do concept art and CAD who will appreciate the power.
But again, why do people always complain that a device got a spec bump?
What does "legally protected maternity leave" mean? From your stipend comment it sounds like it's not fully-paid. Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return? What happens if the company has eliminated the roll/laid people off in the meantime? Can they not get rid of your position if you are on maternity at the time?
> Does it just mean your company has to offer you your job back when you want to return?
The legal situation is that you are still employed there while on the maternity leave and your employment is protected. They don't pay you anything of course, any money you receive comes from the state/social security pocket.
So when you return you just returned to your position. If the position was eliminated, the company has to offer you another position.
> This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him.
That reasoning would be illegal of course, but also in our work law system it's pretty hard to lay off someone if they didn't commit a grave fault. As above, even if you eliminate positions, you still have to offer them another one first.
correct. in general, when letting people go you need to consider the impact on their lives. and you need to let go those who are less impacted. you can't just pick the weakest performers or the most expensive (although the higher paid ones are less likely to be impacted)
This sounds like the old-fashioned way of running companies that would result in a married woman being laid off instead of a married man, on the theory that he's the breadwinner and his family relies on him.
Wow, this sounds very complicated, subjective, and invasive. I guess in such situations it's not possible (or not favorable) to not have your employer know much about your personal situation.
yes, that is kind of unavoidable. but i don't really see why you would want to keep that private.
we already have or work on laws that makes peoples salaries public to allow employees to know if they are paid fairly, and you are not going to hide your kids in a basement, so the most important factors to consider are more or less public already
This is anathema to me, as an American. I would never want to have pressure to tell my employer anything about my home life, for fear of losing my job. As for laws about salaries, that also sounds terrible. I am glad that this is extremely uncommon where I live, except for government workers.
actually, in the US policies about keeping your pay secret are illegal. and in many states salaries need to be published on job postings too. so it's not hard to figure out what someone earns, and it is in your benefit to not keep it secret unless you are a very high earner.
you also do not have any job protection, so you don't benefit from sharing this. but the number of kids is hardly a secret worth keeping. and when your employer offers childcare benefits you would also share that information. you would not forgo the benefits just to keep that private.
and that's the same in europe if you don't tell your employer then you can't benefit from the additional job protection. your choice.
No one said anything about policies forcing people to keep their pay secret. We love our freedom of speech, so that wouldn't make much sense. It is true that a small minority of states (under a quarter) have some requirement about salary range on job postings, but that doesn't tell you what people make. That tells you what the base salary range is, and the range can be quite large. It also doesn't tell you what anyone who wasn't just hired makes, since their salary could have increased in the time since they were hired in the applicable range. And of course, the many people who worked at a company since before these recent laws went into effect have no hint of their salary published anywhere.
I guess some people don't find it creepy to have employers make termination decisions based on family structure, but I sure as hell do. I would think that European countries, where they like privacy so much that they invented cookie banners, wouldn't put employees in the awkward situation of having to disclose their family structure, spousal earnings, costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?) in order to hang onto their jobs.
And this is before getting into the efficiency arguments of retaining employees based on productivity, not family structure. I can see why startups aren't flourishing as much in Europe, with policies like these!
> employers make termination decisions based on family structure
There might be a misunderstanding. The employer usually does not know about your family structure; the only place that really has to know about that is the wage department to calculate your taxes etc. (even though in some countries you can do that yourself if you are a very private person, but in that case you are more likely to be self-employed anyway). Of course if you want to claim days out of work, paid or not, to care for the children or a parent, the employer might want to know if the children are real.
The employer usually does not know about your family structure
when i need to let go people from my company because i need to downsize for whatever reason i need to choose those who would be least affected. that means i need to know who is single, married, or has children. because if i let go the one who is a parent instead of someone who is single, they might sue me because it would cause them undue hardship, if say finding a new job would force them to move which would affect the other parents job and also the kids school. and their whole social life.
sometimes this can't be avoided. if all my employees have families and children then i am stuck. but if there is a choice, then the choice must be the person who is more likely to recover, or who has less dependents. the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
long story short, i have to know the family structure to make that choice.
i am talking about germany, but i believe this is true for many european companies.
i am legally compelled to not dismiss people if that causes social/financial hardship for them, when i could dismiss other people who would face less hardship.
basically i need to consider three factors: how long they already worked in my company, how old they are, and their family situation, whether they have dependents.
failure to consider these risks a lawsuit making the dismissal invalid.
this of course does not apply to dismissals that are related to bad behavior or lack of qualification.
on the other side: unique qualifications that i need to keep my business running are also exempt even if that person otherwise would be the one facing the least hardship from a dismissal.
It's not like that in Slovakia afaik. There is no legal obligation to not dismiss people if that causes social/financial hardship for them. I'd think it's also similar in other Eastern European countries. It's pretty hard though to force someone out if they did nothing wrong, so that fact alone is very protective for employees.
I guess it's easier to lob silly fart claims rather than engage with the fact that what you've described is very foreign to most Americans.
As for sanctioning specific states, we do this plenty. There aren't many voices raised when it's done against countries that are our enemies. Sanctioning allies would obviously be a weird move, and countries in between, are in between.
I'll end by saying that you characterize this as a debate, when it isn't one. You're free to think it's grand to terminate employees based on their home life. I think it's terrible and am glad I don't work at a company that would ever do such a thing. But I don't think it's something that should be illegal, as long as everyone who went to work for the company knew what they were getting into.
No one said anything about policies forcing people to keep their pay secret. We love our freedom of speech, so that wouldn't make much sense.
really? it has been a widespread policy in many companies across the US until the laws changed.
some people don't find it creepy to have employers make termination decisions based on family structure, but I sure as hell do.
why though? what's the big deal with someone knowing how many children you have?
European countries, where they like privacy [...] wouldn't put employees in the awkward situation of having to disclose their family structure, spousal earnings, costs (medical bills? caring for a parent?) in order to hang onto their jobs.
there are a few things you need to consider: for one earnings are much more average. there are not many high or low earners. if i know what your job is i can pretty much guess how much you make because most people in the same job get the same pay, and that is already public knowledge. unlike the US (you do have a point with the base salaries and the range there) the pay ranges in europe are much narrower. likewise costs are irrelevant because almost everyone has health insurance which covers anything worth of note. medical bills are not a thing for the average person in europe. i said it before: there is nothing to disclose that isn't already public.
I can see why startups aren't flourishing as much in Europe, with policies like these!
also not relevant because these laws don't apply to small companies. the minimum is 50 people i think.
The 10$ a day program is double to triple that price and childcare spaces have become even more rare since that program launched and it’s because capacity has reduced and not usage. One of the issues with that is the increased control and administration to the point of local governments approving line items for these businesses.
It's long term second-order thinking that people on the right side of the political spectrum tend to lack in my experience.
I pay taxes so other people can afford to have kids, they can stay home and give the kids a stable childhood. Then the kids will go to subsidised childcare (0-250€/month depending on income) and later to school where they have free school lunches and well-paid teachers.
Why? Because I'm getting old and when I retire we need people working and paying taxes so there's money to pay for MY healthcare and pension.
I was not trying to start an ideological battle — just pointing out that childcare is not cheaper, it's just paid out of taxes instead of consumer spending.
But if you want to discuss second order effects, what basic economic theory and empirical evidence both show is that the second order effect is less incentive for people to work, and higher rates of children born out of wedlock. The implications of that is higher incarceration rates and other socioeconomic problems as a consequence of the negative effects of being raised in a single parent household.
This is the kind of multi-generational impact that I've found social democracy advocates rarely weigh in their analysis.
In terms of the economic impact, the higher taxes dampens growth, which is exactly why median income is so much lower in the EU than the U.S:
EU Europe average ≈ $30,500
United States ≈ $68,000
A 2018 study shows tax increases significantly reduce innovation. A 1% increase in the top marginal income tax rate leads to a 2% reduction in patents and inventors, while a similar increase in corporate taxes causes even larger declines:
This shows up in company creation. The United States has vastly more large young companies than the European Union. Looking only at companies started from scratch, and now worth at least $10 billion on the stock market, the EU has about 14 companies worth a combined ~$430 billion, while the US has dozens whose total value is close to $30 trillion — roughly 70 times larger. In fact, the entire EU total is less than half the value of Tesla alone.
You might point to the Nordic countries as examples of welfare success stories, but the Nordics are only proof that a rich, high-trust society can stay rich while paying high taxes. Not proof that high taxes made them rich, or that the model doesn’t slow growth or scale badly elsewhere.
Keep in mind that it was during the Nordics' 100 year free-market era that they got rich. That's when they experienced the massive gains per capita income and average qualify life. On the eve of their experiment with social democratic authoritarianism in the mid 1960s, they were at the very top of global rankings in per capita income and quality life metrics. It wad the preceding 100 years of free market economics that got them there, not social democracy.
Not only has their rate of economic growth slowed since they raised their taxes, there is evidence that they’re losing the high-trust culture that made this model possible in the first place. They’re also losing the work ethic that was built over hundreds of years of hard labor in a cold climate.
More and more people are comfortable lying about being on sick leave, for example. That’s a measurable decline in work ethic. And you simply cannot sustain a high-tax welfare state without an unusually strong work ethic and high trust.
No reason why it would be cheaper in total, given the government workforce would inevitably unionize, leaving the taxpayer with very little bargaining power.
> Childcare is much cheaper in other countries, even relative to the lower earning potentials.
Cheaper, or more heavily subsidized? It's an important difference.
For the record: I'm not opposed to subsidies, and think the US need them in a lot more areas (and a lot more government involvement in the economy, in general).
It is both subsidized and cheaper but that word sort of implies parents (and especially non-parents) may be worse off in the end, which I think is an unfortunate way of thinking about these subsidies.
Given the cost of health and life insurance, unemployment insurance, paid vacation (4-6 weeks generally), healthcare (I once paid $32 for 5 weeks hospital care), paid parental leave, childcare, school and university, I am confident this more than makes up for the higher taxes. I believe people are calmer when the risk of living is low. No broken leg or depression will set us back financially, and if we have a few too many kids they can all go to college even if we don't earn much. And both parents can work (70% at least) while their kids go to daycare. This is at least an extra 5 years of salary compared to supporting a stay-at-home parent.
It might not be charming to brag about all our advantages, but as a European I really want e.g. Americans to know that there is another way. Life doesn't have to be about chasing money until you can afford to live.
Amazon are bad at consumer software, with the exception perhaps of the kindle. Emphasis on consumer, because they have fantastic enterprise/cloud engineers.
They have, frankly, some of the worst UI/UX design of any company in the same spaces that they exist in. Look at even their store listings, it’s a complete mess of information sprawled over the pages.
They do not optimize for performance or have a culture of squashing UI bugs unless it’s measurably stopping conversion for them.
Hell there’s even been times I’ve reported html issues to their teams and been asked to provide the CSS fixes to them to integrate in.
Never understood this about Amazon. Alexa is a perfect example. When the Echo devices came out around 10 years ago they blew people away with voice UI, and yet the Alexa app was and is a poorly made web wrapper with car infotainment levels of menu-driven UX.
Any chance they had of making Alexa a real consumer product died with that piss poor app and the clumsy way they implemented Skills.
As someone dealing with AWS daily, I wouldn't say their UI/UX is better on their cloud services. It's certainly the worst of the big three* (with Azure second and Google Cloud best)
* in English speaking markets, don't know about the Chinese providers.
Pretty much every hardware vendor has an NPU
reply