If the difference between M6 and M5 Pro or M5 Max is confusing to you, I strongly recommend you don't look at the names of literally any other CPU, GPU, or chipset that is being manufactured.
All the people under you not understanding that you meant AMD repackaging 2-4 year old CPU cores as """new""" by giving them a current series name and bolting some extra features on.
The second one was the first iPhone with 3G networking (which had broadly been considered a required feature for smartphones when the original iPhone was introduced without it.)
And the iPhone XR! All part of the twelfth-gen models. Of course the subsequent thirteenth-gen models were just called "iPhone 11" in a return to sanity.
Not better - but Apple in early days was easy: Choose Air if you don't nedd much. Choose MacBook if you need a little but more and choose Pro if you need max power. That's one of the reasons why I bought an Apple years ago.
Compare that with the regilar lineup of other manufacturers: Cryptic model names which are uncomparable and models that are so similar that they could be equivalent.
So, no, 1 is not better but I don't care (as customer) about variety.
Well that was sort of the case. You had different years of each model to consider as well, which isn’t all that different from the M/Max/Pro thing we’re discussing here. They didn’t refresh all products the same year.
I think the Apple experience was better when they focused on delivering a single SKU of each product line, yes. Less decisions as to what to buy, greater focus on making that one SKU stand out.
Most of those models were not sold concurrently. The Apple II, II+, and IIe each replaced the previous model; the same was true of the IIc and IIc Plus. "//e" was an alternate textual rendering of IIe, not a separate model.
The most Apple II models that were sold concurrently were the IIe Platinum, IIc Plus, and IIgs. (And this was around 1990, at which point there were far more models of Macintosh computers on the market.)
Tell me you're not old enough to remember the Performa and Centris lines without telling me you're not old enough to remember the Performa and Centris lines.
By accepting, you agree to our updated Terms of Service, including the arbitration provision and class action waiver. You understand that we process your information as described in the Privacy Policy, which may include sharing information about your use of Bloomberg.com with third parties. Accepting does not affect your right to opt-out at any time via the Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information link in the website footer.
*sigh* I don't want to be in this timeline any more.
No, you can't just use whatever passkey manager that you want.
I use Safari, Chrome, MacOS, a Google Pixel phone, and 1Password. I have passkeys in 1Password, but it's a crap shoot if I'm able to login on a device.
Chrome wants me to use Google Password Manager. There's no option in chrome://settings to set 1Password as my passkey manager. If I try to use a passkey to login to GitHub Chrome pops up a modal that lets me choose between iCloud Keychain, Use a phone or tablet, or USB security key. There's no option to use a different credential manager.
Safari wants to use my iCloud Keychain. There's no option in MacOS Settings to set 1Password as my passkey manager. If I try to login to GitHub I get an option to Scan QR Code or Use Security key. There's no option to use a different credential manager.
My Pixel wants to use Google Password Manager. There *is* an option in Pixel Settings to set 1Password as my passkey manager, but it doesn't work in Chrome. All I can do it select "use another device" and it shows a QR code. There's no option to use a different credential manager.
Essentially every OS and browser thinks I want to use a phone for my passkey, and this is exactly the situation that I and everyone else is bothered by. I do not want to tie my login credentials to a phone that can be lost/stolen/bricked and will be replaced in several years.
So no, you can not use your own credential manager.
Great examples, exactly what I'm saying. And every one of these (browsers, OSes, phones, etc) has strong incentives to only offer its own password manager.
You wont' typically see a setting in your browser, because credential managers are designed to operate at the system level, so that your credentials aren't "stuck" in your browser. This is why you don't see an option in Chrome settings. You can, however, disable Google Password Manager in Chrome settings, as it is a Chrome feature.
Give.org says Watsi did not want to be evaluated by the BBB's standards for charity accountability[0]. I never donate to anyone without good numbers on Give.org and I recommend everyone check out Give.org when considering donating to any charity.
> This charitable organization either has not responded to written BBB requests for information or has declined to be evaluated in relation to BBB Standards for Charity Accountability.
Hard to read anything into this, tbh. BBB isn't exactly the most meaningful signal in the first place and it's hard to blame organizations for not playing along.
Hi, I am Sonam, and I work at Watsi. We'll start with the BBB review soon. We hadn't previously because of the fee, but that is only for the seal, so we'd love to have Watsi listed with them in the future. In the meantime, you can check us out on Charity Navigator, Candid, or see all of our financials in our Transparency Doc that we publish.
Yet there is no accountability or 'reporting' under the tab 'Total Revenue and Expenses' about how much went into 'administration costs'/fundraising and how much that is in relation to donations.
Given wikimedia's ranking on this website, I am not so certain it's worth engaging. Obviously the "did not share info therefore guilty" mantra is somewhat true for charities. But "did share info therefore not guilty" is even more silly.
For an organization begging so aggressively for donations, Wikimedia got $150M in donations during July 1, 2020—June 30, 2021. They spend 2M on hosting, 67M on salaries, with 9M of it going to management, and pocketed 50M. Moreover, it's not clear how the 50M they spent on Programs is
split between:
1) building the technological and operating platform that enables the Foundation to function sustainably as a top global internet organization
(2) strengthening, growing, and increasing diversity of the Wikimedia communities
(3) accelerating impact by investing in key geographic areas, mobile application development, and bottom-up innovation, all of which support Wikipedia and other wiki-based projects
I do not think they need my money, and I am suspicious most of it will not go towards keeping wikipedia alive.
I expect the people asking for money to do good, to show that they are doing the good they said they'd do. I am essentially giving them money with almost no liability, I want them to show me that they are not wasting/splurging it. Perhaps I'm too harsh, but given the prevalence of grifters/scammers these days, I find non-transparent charities trustworthy.
> I want them to show me that they are not wasting/splurging it.
Why don't you apply this same attitude to for-profit organizations, which are by definition wasting your money?
This is just idle curiousity—non-profits play a very odd role in our society, and I don't generally give to any of them in lieu of direct donations. Obviously that doesn't scale....
Because I can judge the return of for-profit companies. At least the ones selling a product, especially a physical one. The ones that don't sell a gauge-able product should, to my judgement, ascribe to the level of transparency that charities should provide.
How does that work? How can they buy into a non-profit?
It's an intriguing idea though, it would be cool to see more non-profits being supported. Non-profit doesn't have to mean being terrible and inefficient.
Yes, there are several ways. You can use Google password manager on your MacBook. I believe 1Password and Bitwarden support this too. You can also use the Android phone itself as a passkey device with the QR code flow.
The UX is obviously a lot smoother if you have an iPhone and use iCloud keychain for everything, but that’s not an uncommon setup.
I should not trust their "vibe-coded productivity/token cost saving hacks" but I should trust yours?
Save 30% token costs when using Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode for free - with open source, local semantic search. Works for small and large codebases and monorepos! Enterprise-ready and fully compliant via Ollama and SQLite-vec.
Releases v0.0.42 Latest last month
Why should I trust that what you're peddling isn't snakeoil?
I literally say you should take benchmarks with a grain of salt :)
> Of course, it's always dependent on statistical noise + host system load, and running sufficiently large benchmarks is simply too expensive, so take em with a grain of salt.
And the savings listed are coming from a benchmark harness that implements different OSS bugs one time with and one without lumen - in those cases the % saved are reproducible (caveat: it was on older models, Opus 4.6 I believe).
Also I explain WHY it saves tokens - because the model doesn’t have to brute force different terms until it finds the match it needs, but uses semantic „distance“ so the embedding does it for the model.
I just went through a lot of benchmarking and the only thing that seemed better than rg was chunkhound, which sounds similar to this project. Actually a small Jina embedding model actually did better than voyage AI, but took a long time to index. Also chunkhound doesn’t work well with worktrees. In the end, I decided to stick with rg.
Xet's tech is very interesting and I greatly enjoyed their blog posts and other technical writeups[0]
But in the era of frontier models and hardware designed for fast model loading (eg: LLM on a chip) I can't imagine that this is worth so much. There's *a lot* of competition to improve Git LFS.
So while I agree with you that this plays a role I also have to believe that it's to understand model usage by competition and thus stifle it.
git lfs just dumps your bin on s3, and is abandonoware since ms bought github, since github historically hosts on aws s3 and improving it would immediately benefit amazon. gh, the maintainers of it, is the only forge that does not allow clean-up unreachable artifact from the server.
I have a large CNC router. I can throw a whole sheet of plywood on it and program it to cut it with a level of precision and repeatability that I am physically unable to do with my hands/eyes. In addition to the knowledge necessary to operate the machine, there's a lot of engineering knowledge necessary to design something to be manufactured by a CNC.
A lot of woodworkers scoff at the use of CNC routers; there's a lot that scoff at the use of any power tools at all!
I don't really understand though why folks have this *need* to assert that there is only One True Way to do something and to poo-poo on someone else's interests. It all seems like straw man arguments to me. Even the title of TFA BORN AGAINST, OR WHY HOBBY PROGRAMMING COMMUNITIES ARE AGGRESSIVELY AGAINST LLM USAGE seems like ragebait.
I think the issue isn't that it's this huge ordeal for a person to do, but that if billions of people have to do this then that's a fundamental design flaw that could have been avoided.
reply