For the vast majority of customers' utility functions, Apple has the best hardware (both in absolute and per dollar terms) on the market right now. It's not "objectively best", but it certainly meets the most stringent definition of "best" that's still useful in conversation.
Not really, price is still extremely important and doesn't really factor into the definition of the best product. Taken to the extreme, Imagine a laptop a thousand times faster then the best there is now, with an extremely bright HDR screen with perfect blacks and a 1000hz refresh rate. It has a battery life of years, It's made of an unscratchable metal alloy and is fanless. It runs windows, linux and macos flawlessly. It's CPU can natively executable all major instruction sets. It's extremely light. Yet it costs 50 million USD. Sure there will be some super rich who may buy it. But never will the majority of the world use it.
>price is still extremely important and doesn't really factor into the definition of the best
Heh. Who says it doesn't?
>Taken to the extreme, Imagine [...]
Okay. Likewise, imagine a computer exactly like you've described, except it costs five cents and measures a cubic kilometer. Sure, there may be a couple people for whom operating such a gigantic machine is no problem, but the vast majority of the world will never use it. So the size of the computer also doesn't factor into whether it's "the best", right? And so on for any single property you care to name.
Yeah, no. The price is as much a part of a product as its physical shape. If Macs cost about the same as non-Macs, maybe they'd the most popular computers in the world, but they're not. And even in that case, they would not be the best. If, say, the program I need to run doesn't run on a Mac, the best computer for me would not be a Mac, it would be whatever computer is able to run it.
Well, it’s not a formal definition, of course. But most review sites that compare products typically distinguish between best overall and best value categories. For example, if I asked gamers what the best GPU is, most would say the NVIDIA RTX 5090. Its price-to-performance ratio is terrible, but it still holds the crown.
> Okay. Likewise, imagine a computer exactly like you've described, except it costs five cents and measures a cubic kilometer. Sure, there may be a couple people for whom operating such a gigantic machine is no problem, but the vast majority of the world will never use it. So the size of the computer also doesn't factor into whether it's "the best", right? And so on for any single property you care to name.
I’m not describing a computer in general. I’m describing a laptop. What you’ve described wouldn’t even qualify for that category. And even if it did, size and weight are core quality factors for laptops. Portability is part of what defines the category.
> Yeah, no. The price is as much a part of a product as its physical shape. If Macs cost about the same as non-Macs, maybe they'd the most popular computers in the world, but they're not. And even in that case, they would not be the best. If, say, the program I need to run doesn't run on a Mac, the best computer for me would not be a Mac, it would be whatever computer is able to run it.
Price isn’t an property of a product itself, it's part of the product offering. If you have a laptop sitting on a table and you start using it, there’s nothing in the experience that tells you what it costs. If you can’t determine something by using the product, it isn’t an inherent attribute of it. Your cubic kilometer example also falls completely flat here, you can notice it when using the product.
So I'd agree with your point if we would be talking about the product offering. That includes things like pricing, warranty structure, on-site support, marketing message, availability etc.
The best laptop doesn’t have to match everyone’s personal needs. Your criteria may differ, but there are still objective qualities that most people agree are important in a laptop, build quality, display, battery life, input feel, and so on. In those respects, MacBooks tend to push these qualities to an extreme degree, more than any other laptop.
>For example, if I asked gamers what the best GPU is, most would say the NVIDIA RTX 5090. Its price-to-performance ratio is terrible, but it still holds the crown.
Not for me. My 3090 can already max out my UPS. Being gifted a 5090 would be a terrible inconvenience for me. What you mean is that it's the fastest gaming GPU. Is that what "best" means? Something is the best in its product category if it tops the chart on the primary property of that category that applies to some abstract consumer? An abstract gamer with no other constraints would just want the fastest GPU, so the fastest one is the best? Fine. But then I'm forced to ask, where do categories begin and end? The 5090 is the best gaming GPU, but it's not the best GPU. Macs may be the best laptops (I don't know, but I'll grant it), but they're not the best PCs, or the best gaming laptops. Or, if I'm feeling cheeky, not the best laptops for under $(price of a Mac - 100).
>If you have a laptop sitting on a table and you start using it, there’s nothing in the experience that tells you what it costs.
I didn't realize arguing like this was possible. So if the laptop instead of being borrowed was yours, but if you ever type and send an email with "テスト" on the subject and body it would explode, but you never send that email (because you don't speak Japanese), that's a perfectly fine laptop, right? I mean, it's the same thing; in one instance the price is irrelevant to you (because you didn't pay it), and in the other the little lithium bomb is irrelevant to you (because you can't ever set it off). So they're both equally good products, at least subjectively.
>build quality, display, battery life, input feel, and so on
Those are the way they are not in small part because of how much they cost. Do you think Dell wouldn't rather make make much higher quality laptops for the same cost and the same price? Yes, you can get a feel for the price of something by using it. Haven't you ever heard someone say "ugh, this feels so cheap"? It's a vague feeling that's difficult to attribute, but it is informed by real experience. Inexpensive products often "feel cheap" and bad to use, while more expensive products don't, or to a lesser degree.
I see the points you’re making, but I think there are a few misunderstandings in how you’re framing the discussion.
1. "Best" versus "fastest" or "most expensive"
When I said the RTX 5090 is "the best GPU" for gaming, I meant it objectively tops the category on the core property most gamers care about: raw performance. That’s exactly why review sites separate "best overall" from "best value", they are acknowledging that there are multiple ways to judge a product. If you’re defining "best" by convenience or personal constraints, that’s fine, but that’s a subjective criterion, not the same as evaluating intrinsic qualities of the product. Conflating the two muddies this discussion.
2. Thought experiments
The "laptop that explodes if you type a certain email" analogy is clever, but it’s not equivalent to price. Price is an extrinsic property. It doesn’t affect the physical functionality or design of the laptop itself. A latent, never-triggered bug or trap is intrinsic, because it could affect you at any time if the condition arises. By contrast, whether you paid $50 million or $500 for the laptop doesn’t change its display quality, weight, or battery life.
3. "Feels cheap" argument
It’s true that price influences how companies allocate resources, and a higher-priced laptop can often feel better due to higher-quality materials. But that’s a correlation, not an inherent property. You can measure build quality, screen brightness, or input feel directly without knowing the price. Saying "Dell could make a higher-quality laptop for the same price" is exactly my point: price itself is not part of the intrinsic definition of quality, it’s part of the product offering.
I get that you’re making thought experiments and analogies to illustrate points, but many of them subtly shift the definitions or mix subjective preferences with objective qualities. That makes it hard to have a clear discussion about the intrinsic qualities of products versus their price or accessibility. If you keep ignoring this point and try to again shift the discussion I will stop engaging because I don't consider you acting in good faith.
>Saying "Dell could make a higher-quality laptop for the same price" is exactly my point
You understood the exact opposite from what I said. Dell couldn't make a much better laptop for the same price, the same way Apple couldn't make the same laptops for much cheaper.
>Price is an extrinsic property.
No, it's not extrinsic. That was my point. Do you think materials and R&D are free for manufacturers and OS developers? The price is not merely correlated, it's a direct consequence of the build quality. You can't sell a product for less money than it cost to make it. Higher quality -> higher cost -> higher price.
>By contrast, whether you paid $50 million or $500 for the laptop doesn’t change its display quality, weight, or battery life.
In what world could you pay either $500 or $50M for two products which are otherwise equivalent? How do you think the latter one could be viable? Are you serious? Do you actually think cost and price are literally independent variables?
4chan is not "operating in the UK". They accept and respond to packets from the UK. If the UK government doesn't like this, they can block 4chan themselves.
If I were to fly to the USA, purchase something that was illegal in my home country (and explicitly state I was going to take it back home), then took it back home - would the vendor be prosecuted?
I'm sorry that you are not familiar with how laws work but it's kind of a big concept and I don't really have time now to teach it to you. I would recommend Wikipedia or perhaps ChatGPT to get started.
Bartenders from other countries don't get locked up the moment they enter the US because they served alcohol to someone (a US citizen?) between 18 and 21. The US does not have jurisdiction over alcohol sales in other countries.
In this scenario, what's more likely to be illegal is bringing the item into the country.
It's difficult to make physical analogies to these types of internet laws. What makes them 'tricky' is how they are not physical.
If they pack the alcohol up in a crate, and then ship it to the person after they make the order in person? Less clear yes?
If the consumer goes to a place it is legal, and consumes it there without bringing any back, most people would say ‘meh’. Depending on the product. Hard drugs and sex work, being two common exceptions that some countries get more worked up about even traveling to ‘enjoy’ it.
But ship it back (especially hard drugs or sex workers!), and almost all people get more concerned.
The issue here is exactly why customs typically is a mandatory ‘gate’ for packages AND passengers entering a country.
Similar, one could say, to a giant country level firewall?
And why it is so lucrative for smugglers, which are defacto performing a type of arbitrage eh?
If you are purchasing any form of financial service that involves moving money around and said financial services provider also happens to interact with a US based financial entity, then yes, Uncle Sam will make life very difficult.
And no before you ask crypto won't solve this because Uncle Sam demands USD stablecoins to have sanctions mechanisms built in and clearing entities that don't implement KYC etc. will find themselves subjected to prosecution in other ways.
Mmmmmhhhhhhh…What if I buy some goods (say electronics) in the EU from a foreign firm (v.gr. China) using mail and these goods do not comply with the EU’s regulations? I really do not know the proper reply to this.
The regulation - and the actions Ofcom are taking - are saying "look, you can deal with this, or you can get blocked and pay our fines the moment we have a way of being able to enforce them. What's it going to be?". 4chan are saying neither. Which means they're going to get blocked.
I see no issue with the satellite backhaul itself being unencrypted; anyone using the satellite provider should assume they're hostile and encrypt+authenticate everything they send anyway. I don't trust my ISP's fiber to be snoop-resistant just because they nominally have some shitty ONT encryption.
Obviously the specific examples of end-users failing to encrypt are bad, but that's not really a problem with the satellites.
If someone is browsing the internet on in-flight wifi, and their DNS requests get leaked this way, I don't really think its the casual airline user's fault for not encrypting their DNS traffic. Modern cell phone data traffic (4G/5G) is all encrypted, so the same unencrypted DNS requests can't just be passively sniffed. Something similar should happen here.
I'd blame the airline or their ISP provider for sending unencrypted traffic through the air like this. Not the satellite, but its top level customer. There's a big difference, IMHO, between your ISP being able to sniff your fiber traffic, and your traffic being observable from ~30% of the globe.
I don't know if you've ever tried to actually use in flight wifi, but any traffic not subject to inspection is heavily throttled to the point of being unusable.
ESNI is also a technology in search of a problem. It does not provide any meaningful security benefits.
This. Bytes on every medium can be snooped. Internetworking means that your bytes go on mediums you don't know about and don't control. There's no such thing as a link where encryption is not needed, except localhost.
You don't actually need to have a "responsible person"; you can just have an AI do stuff. It might make a mistake; the only difference between that and an employee is that you can't punish an AI. If you're any good at management and not a psychopath, the ability to have someone to punish for mistakes isn't actually important
The importance of having a human be responsible is about alignment. We have a fundamental belief that human beings are comprehensible and have goals that are not completely opaque. That is not true of any piece of software. In the case of deterministic software, you can’t argue with a bug. It doesn’t matter how many times you tell it that no, that’s not what either the company or the user intended, the result will be the same.
With an AI, the problem is more subtle. The AI may absolutely be able to understand what you’re saying, and may not care at all, because its goals are not your goals, and you can’t tell what its goals are. Having a human be responsible bypasses that. The point is not to punish the AI, the point is to have a hope to stop it from doing things that are harmful.
1. Different languages have totally different allocation requirements, and only the compiler knows what type of allocator works best (e.g. generational bump allocator for functional languages, classic malloc style allocator for C-style languages).
2. This perhaps makes wasm less suitable for usage on embedded targets.
The best argument I can make for this is that they're trying to emulate the way that libc is usually available and provides a default malloc() impl, but honestly that feels quite weak.
I don't see this as a problem in the JVM, where independently of what programming language you are using, you will use the GC configured on the JVM at launch.
Leetcode with no prep is a pretty decent coding skill test
The problem is that it is too amenable to prep
You can move your score like 2stddev with practice, which makes the test almost useless in many cases
On good tests, your score doesn't change much with practice, so the system is less vulnerable to Goodharting and people don't waste/spend a bunch of time gaming it
I think LC is used mostly as a metric of how much tolerance you have for BS and unpaid work: If you are willing to put unpaid time to prepare for something with realistically zero relevance with the day-to-day duties of the position, then you are ripe enough to be squeezed out.
Cynical, but correct. I've long maintained that these trials, much like those we encounter in the school system, are only partially meant to test aptitude. Perhaps more importantly, they measure submissive compliance.
> On good tests, your score doesn't change much with practice, so the system is less vulnerable to Goodharting and people don't waste/spend a bunch of time gaming it
This framing of the problem is deeply troubling to me. A good test is one that evaluates candidates on the tasks that they will do at the workplace and preferably connects those tasks to positive business outcomes.
If a candidate's performance improves with practice, then so what? The only thing we should care about is that the interview performance reflects well on how the candidate will do within the company.
Skill is not a univariate quantity that doesn't change with time. Also it's susceptible to other confounding variables which negatively impact performance. It doesn't matter if you hire the smartest devs. If the social environment and quality of management is poor, then the work performance will be poor as well.
> A good test is one that evaluates candidates on the tasks that they will do at the workplace
Systematizing this is not feasible. The next best thing (in terms of predictive power for future job success) is direct IQ tests, which are illegal in the US. Next best thing after that are IQ proxies like coding puzzle ability.
> If a candidate's performance improves with practice, then so what?
It means the test isn't measuring anything useful. The extremely broad spectrum skills that benefit a software/eng role aren't something you can "practice".
> The only thing we should care about is that the interview performance reflects well on how the candidate will do within the company.
Agreed, which any Goodhartable test will never do.
Direct IQ tests are not illegal in the US. Several very large companies deliver them to candidates; the most prominent company that administers general cognitive exams for employment purposes has a logo crawl on its front page with names your parents would recognize. If this persistent meme about them being forbidden was real, employment lawyers would be making bank off them. The real reason most companies don't do general IQ testing for candidates is that it's not an effective screen for aptitude.
reply