- 15 in the top 20 most productive countries per hour worked are European. The US is in 12th place. China is 99th.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_labour_pr...
Diminishing returns is a thing.
- > I know a couple of iOS developers who recently switched to a M4 MacBook pro
The M4 Macbook Pro will be released next week, what did you mean instead ?
> they swear that in some frequent workloads it feels sluggish and slower than the old Intel MacBook pros
I don't think I've seen a single other piece of user feedback online that corroborates this.
> I also add that, unlike Apple hardware, these miniPCs are built with extensibility in mind
Mac Mini gets its extensibility through Thunderbolt.
- No that's an accurate TCO calculation. It's interesting that on this topic, the inventor of the PC also seems to be caught in that supposed "Apple reality distortion field" and can't confirm the "price gouging" that you're trying to convince yourself Apple practices.
https://www.cio.com/article/236396/ibm-says-macs-save-up-to-...
- > We can decide to build wind/solar instead of nuclear reactors.
That's what Germany did, but such intermittent renewables can't power an industry-heavy country by themselves for obvious reasons (e.g. the sun tends to set at night)
No matter how much renewables capacity you want to install, you always need a controllable and reliable source for the baseload : that will be either coal, gas, hydro or nuclear. Only two of those are low carbon btw.
So let's see :
- Germany doesn't have the geography for hydro (unlike say, Norway).
- They don't want nuclear because politics.
- They became partly reliant on Russian gas, an extraordinary geopolitical own goal (and hilariously, sold by a Greenpeace-affiliated energy company as "green gas")
- The only other solution left is coal, lots of coal. That's what Germany has been doing despite political promises to phase it out.
The two main end results of this policy are :
- Germany has some of the worst CO2 emissions per kWh produced of large European countries. As I write this, it's emitting 23 times more than France (the poster child for nuclear) per kWh. Source : https://app.electricitymaps.com/map
- An estimated 22.900 premature deaths every year across the EU from coal-fired power plants. Germany's plants cause an estimated 2490 premature deaths per year in neighbouring countries alone. Source : https://caneurope.org/report-europe-s-dark-cloud-coal-burnin...
Imagine if France had a nuclear incident causing 2490 deaths in neighbouring countries, every year ?
Nuclear is like air travel : spectacular when it fails, but much safer than all other modes of transportation.
- I'm French and live in the UK, so feel qualified to compare. A few examples off the top of my head :
The UK census and most NHS health records include ethnicity and religion data. In France it's forbidden by law for any entity to collect this information.
Any idiot in the UK (including direct marketing firms) can purchase the electoral register which has a wealth of personal data. You can opt out of one version, but not from the one that political parties, election officials or private credit agencies (!) have full unfettered access to.
Credit agencies, by the way, don't exist at all in France.
I think this qualifies the UK as "not especially more privacy minded", for at least some definitions of privacy.
- The problem may have more to do with Uganda and having a surveillance state than it has to do with National ID cards.
Most European countries have them and they are as uncontroversial as passports.
Countries without national ID cards are not especially more privacy minded : for the purpose of identity verification they just use alternative documents & processes that are less straightforward and at least as intrusive (e.g. driving licenses, utility bills and credit checks in the US and UK).
IMO it's much more honest to recognize that there's a legitimate need to be able to prove one's identity in a functioning society, and to build a dedicated system for that, instead of tying your existence as a citizen to your ability / willingness to drive a large piece of metal around.
- > I believe that the need to manage motivation is usually a sign that what one is doing is at least somewhat off-course from the ideal of the individual.
You're lucky not to have ADHD like the author then.
People with ADHD absolutely can (and will) procrastinate endlessly if they don't proactively use tricks to manage their motivation, even with interesting and pleasant tasks that they are also fully aware are critical to reaching their most cherished goals.
ADHD feels like a broken transmission gear between the planning/rational part of the brain (prefrontal cortex) that desperately wants the work to happen, and the "pre-actuator" part that actually gets to schedule your actions for the next 3 seconds.
Too often that part decides that, in spite of all the pleas from the rational brain, the best thing to do in this moment is to keep the finger infinitely scrolling down on X or to click on "just one more" HN link. That keeps the dopamine hits coming, which feels good and predictable, whereas stopping brings short-term discomfort and uncertainty.
The rational brain sees the clock showing 3am and the finger that keeps scrolling and scrolling. It screams and shouts in protest and powerlessly laments the self-sabotage and broken promises. But all this negative self-talk is annoying. What better way to silence this party-pooper than a juicy unread X thread or fascinating HN story ? So the pre-actuator votes for that, hits the snooze button on the rational brain one more time, which soon comes back screaming and shouting again, and so on and so on until exhaustion ensues and you finally give in and crash into bed (or start doing whatever you were supposed to work on). ADHD is a real curse.
- What if Zuckerberg didn't change overnight but his terrible reputation was somewhat undeserved all along ?
I worked at Facebook in 2010-2011 and I must say that the gap between what was really going on inside, and the hysterical, least possibly charitable interpretation and scrutinizing of every single product decision by the press, public, and politicians was insane. By far the worst I'd ever seen.
As an engineer, I actually learnt to appreciate the job of a PR team during that time (I previously assumed they were professional hypocrites paid who put a positive spin on indefensible corporate decisions), and was impressed at how professional they managed to remain as they had to counter some truly insane shit with facts, and still nobody believed them because Facebook is the devil and obviously lying.
Of course there were obviously some large fuck-ups at Facebook over the past decade (some of which even originated from good intentions, like the Cambridge Analytica fiasco : "people accuse us of being anticompetitive as we sit on a treasure trove of data, let's be more open and create a platform !")
In my view, these were more the product of Zuck's failure to rein in bad ideas from some executives due to his inexperience, rather than any indication of strategic malevolence and cynicism on his part.
In other words, he's not perfect but I've always seen him as the rather decent guy that more people can see now, like in this interview. If there's one area where he has changed a lot, it's probably in his ability to show it.
- TV ratings used to be collected from panelists using a wearable device that literally had an always-on microphone recording you 24/7 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_People_Meter
How is Onavo worse ?
- > If I give consent to participate in collection of my internet data, it doesn't give you authorization to like, have someone live in my house and follow me around 24/7 so they can see what i do on the internet.
TV ratings used to be collected from panelists using a wearable device that literally had an always-on microphone recording you 24/7 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_People_Meter
How is the situation of Onavo/Meta panelists worse ?
- > The number of criteria required for a diagnosis of ADHD has been set arbitrarily in DSM-5. No scientific justification has been presented nor method used for deciding how many criteria should be required.
Erm.. welcome to psychiatry ?
There is nothing bizarre (or unique to ADHD) about picking from a list of precise, agreed-upon criteria to form a mental health diagnosis. It's how the entire field works, and it's actually a huge step forward from the times when each therapist made up their own definitions.
In the absence of definite imaging or genetic markers for most illnesses, building consensus on criteria and thresholds in a reference manual (the DSM) is the next best possible way to end up with objective, useful and standardized definitions.
Not having a blood test for an illness doesn't mean it isn't real.
> It's important to be aware that each percentage point is hundreds of millions of dollars.
You don't need to resort to conspiracy theories once you understand the above.
- At the end of the day both FPGAs and software emulators are Turing machines that produce a set of outputs given a set of inputs : any logic an FPGA can implement can also be implemented in software, it's computer science 101
FPGAs aren't magically more accurate. That is only up to the programmer and what effort they put in.
The main difference is efficiency and parallelism : it's much easier to reliably produce cycle-accurate parallel outputs in real time with an FPGA, compared to software running on a multi-tasking OS with many layers of abstraction and no deterministic real-time guarantees.
But, as a single-core processor can fake multitasking, by slicing time between processes (preemptive multitasking), software emulation can mimic parallelism if the host is beefy enough compared to the old school system it's emulating. The larger the performance / clock speed gap between the host and target, the more indistinguishable from a truly parallel FPGA an emulator can be.
Software emulation also has practical advantages for developers : while FPGAs force you to painstakingly implement every bit of functionality at the logic gate level, with software you can start off with a much higher level model of the target system that's much easier to implement, and mix & match that with more precise low level simulation where it matters. The time this frees up (+ the availability of various libraries) allows the developer to spend more time researching the original system and adding modern quality of life features that just wouldn't be possible otherwise.
Great article on the topic : https://archive.is/fWosI
- No, it's an impossible equation. Germany cannot win this game without nuclear, barring an unlikely huge breakthrough in battery storage real soon.
Because of renewables' intermittency, there's an upper limit on how much you can have of them in the mix. If the rest of your mix (even just 20%) is coal, your CO2/kWh average is destroyed because its emissions are so much worse than the rest.
There will always be a minimum need for a "base load" energy source in the mix, and only two of them are low carbon : hydro and nuclear. Germany doesn't have the geography for hydro, but they decided to ditch the other one... guess what happens next ?
- Unfortunately that is a wrong impression. Electricitymaps is correct regarding Germany's CO2 emissions.
It has nothing to do with the country's population and industry size, because these figures are the CO2 emitted per kWh of electricity.
The problem is simple : Germany chose to shut down nuclear power and to invest massively in renewables (€500B in wind and solar) Wind and solar are of course intermittent and, because you can't store electricity at scale, you cannot run a country's electricity grid on these alone, especially a country with heavy 24/7 industry. That is the central lie of the German Energiewende.
In reality you always need some more stable energy sources to handle the "base load", they can be : - Hydroelectricity (if you have the right geography) - Coal - Gas - Nuclear
Of these four, only hydro and nuclear are low CO2. You can see on Electricitymaps that some countries like Norway are doing great because they have Hydro for their base load. Germany doesn't have the geography for that, unfortunately.
The only low CO2 choice remaining for German base load is nuclear, but we know what happened to that...
There was a focus on (mainly Russian) gas, which is slightly better than coal, but Putin is using this as a geopolitical weapon now.
So that leaves you with coal, and there are two big problems with that :
1. Coal emits SO much more CO2 per kWh than renewables or nuclear that it completely destroys Germany's average CO2 emissions score. With coal in the mix, you would need not 50% but maybe 90% of renewable electricity to compensate for the insane emissions of the small % of coal. Unfortunately as I mentioned, 90% of renewable electricity isn't possible because of intermittence. Which means Germany won't ever solve this problem unless A. a breakthrough in energy storage is discovered (good luck) or B. it restarts its nuclear power plants and builds new ones. That is the embarrassing reason why many German politicians would rather talk about the % of renewables in the mix (which is completely meaningless for climate), rather than the CO2/kWh figure (the only thing that counts for climate) where Germany is doing so badly (on average 6-7 times worse than France)
2. Air pollution from coal power plants causes over 10.000 premature deaths in Europe every year Most of the coal plants in the European top 10 are located in Germany. Imagine the reaction if a neighbouring country operated another source of energy (say, nuclear) that caused 10.000 deaths / year in the region ? Fukushima was one (1) direct death by radiation, btw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...)
It's great news that apparently, 60% of Germans are now in favour of nuclear power. I hope that the generation of 1970s Die Grüne activists that caused these disastrous energy policies in Germany are voted out of power asap.
- What may not be widely known is that going from 256GB -> 512GB on M2-based machines also gives the SSD a huge speed bump, because 512GB is made up of 2x256GB chips with dual channels. Apple uses a single chip for 256GB configurations as a cost saving measure :(
For some use cases, you're even better off upgrading the base model M2 Air to 512GB vs upgrading the RAM from 8 to 16GB for a similar cost. This is because swapping suddenly becomes twice as fast.
https://daringfireball.net/2025/12/bad_dye_job
Thankfully he has now left. Things could hopefully pick up again usability-wise within 2-3 years.