MLX is a training/research framework, and the work product is usually a CoreML model. A CoreML model will use any and all resources that are available to it, at least if the resource fits for the need.
The ANE is for very low power, very specific inference tasks. There is no universe where Apple abandons it, and it's super weird how much anti-ANE rhetoric there is on this site, as if there can only be one tool for an infinite selection of needs. The ANE is how your iPhone extracts every bit of text from images and subject matter information from photos with little fanfare or heat, or without destroying your battery, among many other uses. It is extremely useful for what it does.
>tensor units on the GPU
The M5 / A19 Pro are the first chips with so-called tensor units. e.g. matmul on the GPU. The ANE used to be the only tensor-like thing on the system, albeit as mentioned designed to be super efficient and for very specific purposes. That doesn't mean Apple is going to abandon the ANE, and instead they made it faster and more capable again.
> ...and it's super weird how much anti-ANE rhetoric there is on this site, as if there can only be one tool for an infinite selection of needs
That seems like a strange comment. I've remarked in this thread (and other threads on this site) about what's known re: low-level ANE capabilities, and it seems to have significant potential overall, even for some part of LLM processing. I'm not expecting it to be best-in-class at everything, though. Just like most other NPUs that are also showing up on recent laptop hardware.
An enormous number of people and products. I'm actually not sure if your comment is serious, because it seems to be of the "I don't, therefore no one does" variety.
I'm super not interested in arguing with the peanut gallery (meaning people who don't know the platform but feel that they have absolute knowledge of it), but enough people have apps with CoreML models in them, running across a billion or so devices. Some of those models were developed or migrated with MLX.
You don't have to believe this. I could not care less if you don't.
I don't believe it. MLX is a proprietary model format and usually the last to get supported on Huggingface. Given that most iOS users aren't selecting their own models, I genuinely don't think your conjecture adds up. The majority of people are likely using safetensors and GGUF, not MLX.
If you had a source to cite then it would remove all doubt pretty quickly here. But your assumptions don't seem to align with how iOS users actually use their phone.
Cite a source? That CoreML models are prolific on Apple platforms? That Apple devices are prolific? Search for it yourself.
You seem set on MLX and apparently on your narrow view of what models are. This discussion was about ANE vs "tensor" units on the GPU, and someone happened to mention MLX in that context. I clarified the role of MLX, but that from an inference perspective most deployments are CoreML, which will automatically use ANE if the model or some subset fits (which is actually fairly rare as it's a very limited -- albeit speedy and power efficient -- bit of hardware). These are basic facts.
>how iOS users actually use their phone.
What does this even mean? Do you think I mean people are running Qwen3-Embedding-4B in pytorch on their device or something? Loads of apps, including mobile games, have models in them now. This is not rare, and most users are blissfully unaware.
Indeed, their main grip seems to be with DV, and they seem to hold only EV certs as legitimate. They miss the entire value proposition and purpose of DVs.
MITM is a user->service concern. If someone is between a service and LE, there are much bigger problems.
Certainly a MITM between a website and LE is less likely than a MITM between a user on a random public Wi-Fi network and the website, but I've often wondered why more attention hasn't been given to securing the domain validation process itself.
There are a lot of random internet routers between CAs and websites which effectively have the ability to get certificates for any domain they want. It just seems like such an obvious vulnerability I'm kinda shocked it hasn't been exploited yet. Perhaps the fact that it hasn't is a sign such an attack is more difficult than my intuition suggests.
Still, I'd be a lot more comfortable if DNSSEC or an equivalent were enforced for domain validation. Or perhaps if we just cut out the middleman and built a PKI directly into the DNS protocol, similar to how DANE or Namecoin work.
A lot of attention has been given to securing the domain validation process. The primary defense is Multi-Perspective Issuance Corroboration, which Let's Encrypt already does and all CAs will be required to do in a couple years. The idea is that you run the check from five different servers on two different continents, so that compromising just one internet router isn't enough, you have to get one on every path, which is much harder to pull off.
Also, Let's Encrypt validates DNSSEC for DNS-01 challenges, so you can use that if you like, although CAs in general are not required to do this, there are various reasons why a site operator might not want to, and most don't.
There are two fundamental problems with DANE that make it unworkable, and that would presumably also apply to any similar protocol. The first is compatibility: lots of badly behaved middleboxes don't let DNSSEC queries through, so a fail-closed system that required end-user devices to do that would kick a lot of existing users off the internet (and a fail-open one would serve no security purpose). The other is game-theoretic: while the high number of CAs in root stores is in some ways a security liability, it also has the significant upside that browsers can and do evict misbehaving CAs, secure in their knowledge that those CAs' customers have other options to stay online. And since governments know that'll happen, they very rarely try to coerce CAs into misissuing certificates. By contrast, if the keepers of the DNSSEC keys decided to start abusing their power, or were coerced into doing so, there basically wouldn't be anything that anyone could do about it.
MPIC is good but not foolproof if the website itself is being MITMd. DNSSEC validation is better but not required, as you said, and even if it were HTTP-01 would just immediately become the new weak point.
I think you're wrong about DANE's flaws applying to "any similar protocol". The ossification problem could be solved by DNS over HTTPS cutting out the middle boxes, though I agree adoption of that will take time; much as adoption of HTTPS itself has. The game theory problem has been solved by CT; as you noted. You just need to subject certificates issued through the new system to the same process.
Remember that any actor capable of siezing control of DNS can already compromise the existing PKI by fulfilling DNS-01 challenges. You're not going to be able to solve that problem without completely replacing DNS with a self-sovereign system similar to Namecoin, though I can't imagine that happening anytime soon.
EV certs seem to have basically the same verification policies that CAs had for ordinary certificates back in the early 2000s (i.e., really not that much at all), so I am intrigued as to what the DV has to offer except "it's basically self-signed but with extra steps and the rest of the world will trust it".
> If someone is between a service and LE
There is always someone there: my ISP, my government that monitors my ISP, the LE's ISP, and the US government that monitors the LE's ISP.
This piece is written with a pretty cliche dismissive tone that assumes that everything everyone else does is driven by cargo-culting if not outright ignorance. That people make these choices because they're just rushing to chase the latest trend.
They're just trying to be cool, you see.
Here's the thing, though: Almost every choice that leads to scalability also leads to reliability. These two patterns are effectively interchangeable. Having your infra costs be "$100 per month" (a claim that usually comes with a massive disclaimer, as an aside) but then falling over for a day because your DB server crashed is a really, really bad place to be.
> Almost every choice that leads to scalability also leads to reliability.
Empirically, that does not seem to be the case. Large scalable systems also go offline for hours at a time. There are so many more potential points of failure due to the complexity.
And even with a single regular server, it's very easy to keep a live replica backup of the database and point to that if the main one goes down. Which is a common practice. That's not scaling, just redundancy.
Failures are astonishingly, vanishingly rare. Like it's amazing at this point how reliable almost every system is. There are a tiny number of failures at enormous scale operations (almost always due to network misconfigurations, FWIW), but in the grand scheme of things we've architected an outrageously reliable set of platforms.
>That's not scaling, just redundancy.
In practice it almost always is scaling. No one wants to pay for a whole n server just to apply shipped logs to. I mean, the whole premise of this article is that you should get the most out of your spend, so in that case much better is two hot servers. And once you have two hot...why not four, distributed across data centers. And so on.
A distributed monolith - which is what nearly all places claiming to run microservices actually have - has N^m uptime.
Even if you do truly have a microservices architecture, you’ve also now introduced a great deal of complexity, and unless you have some extremely competent infra / SRE folk on staff, that’s going to bite you. I have seen this over and over and over again.
People make these choices because they don’t understand computing fundamentals, let alone distributed systems, but the Medium blogs and ChatGPT have assured them that they do.
This is the truth. I work with an application that has nearly 100 microservices and it seems like at any given point in time at least one is busted. Is it going to impact what you’re doing? Maybe. Maybe not.
But if it was just a monolith and had proper startup checks, when they roll out a new version and it fails, just kill it right there. Leave the old working version up.
Monoliths have their issues too. But doing microservices correctly is quite the job.
> Almost every choice that leads to scalability also leads to reliability.
Yes, dealing with skew for every single change and hunting down bugs across network boundaries that could have been a function call is peak reliability.
Yes, reliability comes from the same ground the scalability does, and yes people are mostly chasing the latest trend. One does not contradict the other.
15 years ago people were making the same "chasing trends" complaints. In that case there absolutely were people cargo culting, but to still be whining about this a decade and a half later, when it's quite literally just absolutely basic best practices.
There is a lot of instruments, that don't need k8s to be scalable and reliable. Starting from stateless services and simple load balancers and ending with actor systems like in Erlang or Akka.
This is totally an aside, but I wonder how long the "Swiss army knife" metaphor will hang on in popular culture. People generally use it to indicate that something does a variety of things, but I'd say many of younger generation have never touched if even seen such a knife in their life, and even among older generations it doesn't have a positive connotation.
Like when I hear something is the Swiss army knife of something, my take is that it does a lot of things poorly and there are better specific tools for every need. Like if you need a really terrible knife or bottle opener or screwdriver or saw, a Swiss Army knife has you covered. But it should be a tool of last resort when you have no other options.
Swiss Army knives seem to be as popular as ever. What do you mean, doesn't have a positive connotation?
They're great hiking, camping, traveling, in backpacks and bags.
What's wrong with it as a knife? It's perfectly sharp. Obviously it's not a full-sized chef's knife, but it will cut your apple or twine or packing tape. It's a multitool. It does lots of things. A tool of "last resort" seems to miss the point -- it's not meant to use at home, when you have a full-size screwdriver and bottle opener and corkscrew. It's for traveling with you. And it's great at that.
SAK's are iconic. I don't think your take is a common one.
It isn't as popular as ever, at least not in the Western world. I don't know what your frame of reference is, but it is positively non-existent compared to a couple of decades ago. Approximately zero kids, give or take a few, put one on their Christmas list, where when I was a kid it was many kid's dream item. I would say the most common buyer today are middle-aged men who buy it just as a thing to own because they remember how desirable they were when they were in Scouts in their teens.
>A tool of "last resort" seems to miss the point
It is quite literally a tool of last resort, and in practice people who actually own one (such as myself) have often never, ever actually used any of the options available on it because they're terrible options and we always have something better available.
Like a legitimate folding camping knife, which we all have in our camping supplies. An infinitely better knife. A tiny multi-screwdriver kit. The Leatherman brand went big by making a legitimately good, well constructed pair of pliers that they add some "in a pinch" options.
Serious campers who portage and go deep country have a proper assortment of gear and never lean on their SAK. The rest of us usually get there in a car and have a...proper assortment of gear.
But again, if you're in a situation where you have to use one of the tools on a SAK, you probably screwed up and it's a serious compromise. It just isn't a compelling metaphor for software tooling.
>Victorinox is literally the #1 multitool brand by market share
This doesn't repudiate anything I said, and it's a particularly weird canard.
>That's why it's a popular one
Increasingly the only ones I see leveraging the metaphor are English as a second language writers (note that the idiom originates in English and is a calque in other languages) who perhaps came across it somewhere. I would hardly call it "popular", and I pointed out the reality that many readers, such as myself, find it a negative description, similar to someone calling themselves a "jack of all trades". Your defensiveness of SAK does not change this, and your attempts at invalidating my statement borders on bizarre.
> are English as a second language writers who perhaps came across it somewhere
Your prejudice is showing. Where would you even get an idea like that?
I hope you understand that people whose first language isn't English also use SAKs. It's not just an English thing. They're not trying to repeat some unknown object they've only encountered in metaphor. The tools are literally Swiss. And popular around the entire world.
You’re absolutely right. I was just in Switzerland and I’ll tell you the Victorinox shops have endless visitors from all kinds of tourists. Swiss Army knife metaphor is timeless, at least for those who go out. Maybe there’s a generation where outdoor activities is an unknown because computers. At this point the other person is just being argumentative.
Arguing that my observations are invalid because you were in a Victorinox shop in Switzerland is the chef's kiss on this ridiculous discussion.
In the future, just move along. The other argumentative guy had no reason to get defensive about SAK, and this whole worthless discussion, from a basic observation about idioms and ill-suited tools, is a waste of bits.
It doesn't remotely repudiate anything I said, more than saying that Gpvos is the #1 seller of buggy whips ergo ipso facto buggy whips are super popular. This is not a hard logical chain to follow, so good god.
But secondly, even that site claimed they have what, a 20% marketshare of multitools from once owning the market entirely to themselves? Even if we were so profoundly simple that we believed that being the biggest vendor in a market validates the market, this particular example is hilarious.
Obviously it's not the only game in town ever since Leatherman made the pliers-style tool popular as well.
But you can just look up the various brands on Amazon to see that SAK's continue to sell very well, by "x bought in the last month."
It's nowhere near 1%, I don't know where you're getting that.
Edit: according to [1] Victorinox has the #1 spot in market share in multitools. The share is a bit higher than it is for SOG and Leatherman, though they're both close.
Lots of cheap (and good) Chinese alternatives entered the market recently but I'd say Victorinox is still going strong. In Poland it's sold everywhere and the brand is very recognizable.
Almost everything with this administration is just lawless uncertainty so it's hard to tell, but has that actually happened yet? The last info I could find is that some sort of rough deal was solidifying, but that even things like the investor makeup or components was still up in the air. That was just two weeks ago.
I don't think it has moved to the new structure yet, or the "all the servers in the US with Oracle control of the algo". Maybe they're just getting ready in advance.
Alternately, a motivated subgroup can often coerce platforms. A lot of platforms will engage such moderation simply because enough people brigaded to flag/report something.
Tiktok has long been extremely heavy handed with censorship. A slightly negative comment will get deleted and warnings meted out. Content that angers anyone gets flagged and often removed. And while there were some ephemeral movements where a bunch of young people trend-lambasted Trump, generally I find the platform seems to actually magnify pro-Trump content, even long before he was elected.
It's actually a shocking experience seeing Instagram Reels in comparison. The latter seems to remove extraordinarily little. If you enjoy darker if not offensive humour, it is a much more rewarding experience, though sometimes I just marvel that Meta not only allows this, they seem to encourage it.
Meta has C Suite execs whose job is to make sure specific political content is censored. Usually stuff the US administration doesn't want. Previously this was COVID skepticism. Now it is anti-Israel content mostly
While it doesn't really change the meaning of the article, it's pretty clear that it isn't the calculator app leaking memory, per se.
Tahoe seems to have some system/API memory leaks that while they might get attributed to an app, can manifest against any app on the system. Lots of different apps have been hit by this. Personally I had an 80GB Messages app problem twice now.
Software quality is a problem. Tooling should improve this, and Swift, Rust et al should improve the situation over time, though it's a battle as software has gotten exponentially more complex.
Having said that, it's bizarre how this somehow turned into an AI screed. I doubt a single one of the noted bugs had AI play any part in its creation. Instead some weird confluence of events, usually with human beings making assumptions, happened and it occurs just randomly enough -- as with the Tahoe bug -- that it isn't caught by normal prevention techniques.
That's definitely true. I've also seen online reports of Tahoe memory leaks in other apps like PowerPoint. It's unlikely that all these apps independently gained memory leaks at the same time by coincidence.
>If you post on /r/conservative you can expect to receive a bunch of bans from unrelated (popular) subs. Doesn't matter what you posted, being associated with that subs "taints" your account enough for some moderators
That's a pretty hilariously one-sided example, given /r/conservative is one of the most comically moderated subs on Reddit. Like, you were so close with that example, but no, it turns out it's all the other subs that are to blame.
/r/conservative is just a renamed The_Donald. It has essentially nothing to do with conservatism, and anything even remotely critical of the dear leader, where critical can be just asking for clarification or correcting a wrong claim, leads to an immediate permanent ban. I actually thought it was performance art and was echoing the famous, and hilarious, North Korea sub. Turns out it's actually sincere.
As to the rest of your list...yeah, I think we'd need to see examples. When people do the "they banned me just for {x}", they often conveniently leave out a lot of not {x} that actually led to the ban. People are remarkably biased in how they tell these tales.
That's a bit rich to say while complaining about the moderation in /r/conservative specifically.
Per the subreddit description it is a place for conservatives to discuss "from a distinctly conservative point of view".
I am getting the feeling that you may in fact not be a conservative. That's fine. You don't need to participate in /r/conservative any more than I need to participate in /r/progressive. It simply does not concern you, and your focus on how a subreddit for conservatives is moderated paints a better picture of why you may have been banned from there.
The problem is default subreddits handing out permabans over political opinions.
To repeat, as you seemed to miss it, the conservative subreddit has little to nothing to do with conservatism the political philosophy. It is an echo chamber for MAGA, and people get banned for actually conservative views if they don't service the agenda/image of Dear Leader.
But ultimately I don't particularly care. I'm not a whiny little baby, and if people need to create such an echo chamber in the service of a child rapist, so be it. That is their prerogative, and all the more power to them. You hilariously replied as if I'm licking my wounds and stomping my feet demanded my voice in that sub, when all I was doing is pointing out that bringing up that extreme example of moderator overreach, but then not using it was a bit comedic.
>The problem is default subreddits handing out permabans over political opinions.
Sounds tough for you. I can see why you are getting banned. But, you know, any sub can ban people for their own policies, even just that they don't like the energy you bring to a sub. There is a bizarre subtext to your comment that is a sort of "/r/conservative is ours, stay away, but also we are entitled to our views in other subs...because, default or something". Pretty telling.
You can see that I am getting banned for no other reason than liberals like yourself disagreeing with my opinions.
I never even participated in /r/conservatives, I am merely pointing out that it is hardly relevant whether /r/conservatives has anything to do with conservatives.
You, and I imagine many other complainers, are obviously disqualified from participating there from the start. That is not a problem.
What is a problem is that many moderators, just like you, seem to think default front page subreddits or country subreddits are a place for liberals only where you should get to ban conservatives.
The entire basis of your argument was that it is for conservatives, so non-conservatives should be banned. And FWIW, I am classically a conservative. An actual conservative, not the cult of personality sort. In this new era suddenly I'm some weird liberal.
>many moderators, just like you
Like me? LOL, I'm not a moderator on Reddit, and can't fathom wasting my time like that. But, eh, people have their own hobbies.
And I've been banned on a number of "liberal" subs like worldnews, because of the aforementioned conservative foundations of my views. And...eh...I sob into my pillow a bit and move on. There are numerous other news subs, and I can make a /r/conservativeworldnews or something and compete for hearts and minds. Whatever.
That is what it says in the subreddit description and name, not my personal opinion of its content.
There are not numerous other mainstream news subs where you would not get banned for conservative opinions. In fact I believe worldnews may be the most conservative leaning one. I know that /r/news is far more left.
You don't think that's a problem with the platform?
Worldnews is only "conservative" in its zealously pro-Israel position. On a number of other topics it is very left-leaning in moderation. On immigration, for instance. As a classic conservative I actually believe in strong borders and that immigrants need to be in service of the citizens of a country and align with its values, which put me at odds with that pro-Israel but also pro-mass migration sub.
Regardless, and to rehash, the foundation of your position was that conservatives have their own place and non-conservatives should be banned on sight to give them their zone. But it isn't a conservative sub, it's a Donald Trump cult subreddit. Which everyone knows at this point -- it certainly isn't a secret -- but again I only brought it up because it was so comedic to mention that sub but not offer as an example of absolutely insane subreddit moderation.
If there is a problem with moderation on reddit, /r/conservative is the perfect example of power tripping moderation and an inability for casual visitors to understand how one-sided the perspective has been curated to be. Again, I only pointed out how hilarious it was to mention that sub, but only to criticize other subs.
>You don't think that's a problem with the platform?
It is a reality on any curated or moderated site (including HN). Every single human on this planet has biases and agendas and conflicts of interest.
Should every sub have a firehose of moderated away comments and or banned users and their reasons? Sure, probably, in the same way that HN has showdead. I mean, there's going to be a lot of heinous stuff among it, but it would make for a fascinating analysis.
EDIT: Every comment I made suddenly got a -4 applied to it, which is kind of funny in the context of this discussion. I am 100% convinced that HN has "super arrow" users, though this has never been disclosed or detailed. But, eh...
Alright, I guess I'll have to take your word for /r/conservative's poor moderation.
But is it a perfect example? I don't know. It's political in nature and one could expect that it's run by MAGA considering the current state of the Republican party and the fact that they banned the Trump subreddit.
I'm more concerned about /r/worldnews and my country subreddit. Reddit should enforce some standards for moderation and make sure those default places aren't run by political activists.
But maybe that's the least of Reddit's problems. Today I have seen multiple posts openly glorifying the Al-Qassam brigades. These posts may well be illegal under various European laws against publicly glorifying terrorism. Many upvotes too, and the posts have been up for hours.
And the funny thing is Redditors think that Twitter/X alone was a terrible platform that needs to be censored.
TheRealDonald got banned because people don't like Trump... so what happens, they take /r/conservative. The name doesn't need to match the topic, thats just what happened, I know its not your real point but you are hooked on Trump.
Now /r/conservative HAS to be strict with modding, if not the entire liberal leaning army of redditors will either have it banned, or taken over. Is that better in your mind? Or are you just upset that it was used as an example?
I didn't say it was made by an LLM, though, did I? I actually said it is written like a prompt for an LLM by someone trying to ape what they see as human behaviours. It comes across as spectacularly facile and worthless.
<<Reference shared memory. Highlight future possibilities or collaborations>>
The "neural accelerator" is per GPU core, and is matmul. e.g. "Tensor cores".