"We might hope that macOS would process AI tasks using the CPU and GPU rather than the neural engine, when running in a VM."

That specific Geekbench test is to measure the ANE performance, which they did by setting the CoreML run to cpuAndNeuralEngine. They could have set it to all and it would use any hardware available, but that would be counterproductive to a test that hopes to measure the ANE, no?

And note that there is no "just ANE" option. In this case it is probably the virtualized CPU side of the equation that's yielding the massive slowdowns for int8 and quantized runs.

The ANE isn't the problem here.

https://dennisforbes.ca/blog/microblog/2026/02/apple-neural-...

Which is interesting in that they very publicly shut down the 3G network last year.

Probably some IoT/M2M contracts. Telus/Bell has really cut down on the spectrum allotted to their 3G that’s still up, and I doubt much is still assigned on Rogers’ 2G side.

>Usually a sovereign wealth fund is funded by excess profits, like Norway for example.

If Canada ran resources like Norway does, it would have an enormous "excess profit". Norway's royalty rates and "profits" are dramatically higher than Canada where decades of American psyops fooled a bunch of very foolish people that the primary purpose of Canada is to ensure maximum profits for US orgs.

But really, international economics is just mostly made up, and if enough people go along with it then it's as real as real can be.

>But really, international economics is just mostly made up, and if enough people go along with it then it's as real as real can be.

What is not made up is that if you need to import things from other countries, then you need to export things from your country in proportional value, or else the country as a whole loses purchasing power (i.e. gets poorer). In this case, if Canada is increasing its money supply, then the purchasing power of the currency will go down unless it correspondingly increases demand for its currency (usually by increased demand for its goods and services, including land or businesses in Canada).

>What is not made up is that if you need to import things from other countries, then you need to export things from your country in proportional value, or else the country as a whole loses purchasing power (i.e. gets poorer).

So the US is the world's poorest nation, by far, right? Country has a two trillion dollar+ deficit, a one trillion dollar trade deficit, absolutely no end in sight of spiralling to bankruptcy (it's only getting worse), and lets the money printer go brrrr.

Most of international economics are made up, and often are nonsensical. There is no master book of records that dictates cause and effect (there simply isn't, so at best we get "but if you do this...that maybe will happen...or maybe it won't", but mostly it's people looking around and trying to figure out what other people will go along with.

>So the US is the world's poorest nation, by far, right?

Considering the USD still has decent purchasing power, no? The demand for US goods and services relative to other nations' might have dropped from its peak, but still considerably higher than other nations.

>There is no master book of records that dictates cause and effect

There is for simple stuff, like supply and demand. There is no way of getting around that executing a successful peaceful trade requires both parties to have something that the other wants.

On a nation state level, debt denominated in a nation's currency is more like a claim on the future productivity of a nation (since any nation can always print money or edit a digital database to satisfy its debts).

When you buy a US Treasury, you are betting that at some point in the future, the US is going to be be selling things worth having. You are not worried that your loan to the US will default, because it is trivial for the US government to repay you in USD. Your risk is that when it gets paid back, what will you be able to buy with it?

>Considering the USD still has decent purchasing power, no?

You understand I was applying your logic, right? The US has the worst trade deficit on the planet, by a long shot. It buys far, far more than it sells. Its primary role on the planet is money printer.

>When you buy a US Treasury, you are betting that at some point in the future, the US is going to be be selling things worth having.

Again, this almost sounds sophomoric. When you buy US treasuries, you are betting that the US will still be printing money when it matures, or when you unload it earlier. It is not based on sound rational logic -- if so the country with the $40 trillion dollar debt and $2 trillion dollar deficit with the massive trade deficit -- would be already bankrupt.

I feel like I'm arguing with someone who is arguing rational economics when someone points out how farcical a stock like TSLA is. All of the hot air in the world doesn't change the fact that it relies upon a shared delusion, and everyone is playing a bit of a game of chicken.

>You understand I was applying your logic, right?

I am not sure what logic you are referring to. My first reply was to point out that no matter what economics are "made up", when push comes to shove, there has to be delivery of real goods and services for the charade to continue. "Enough" people won't go along with someone that doesn't result in them getting what they want, and no one wants a currency if they don't think it will get them what they want.

My second post is responding to the claim that America is the poorest country, to which it obviously isn't, since it can still buy almost whatever it wants.

Regardless of the technical details, someone who can buy something is richer than someone who cannot buy something. Maybe that is due to a shared delusion, and maybe everyone is playing a bit of chicken. Obviously, that will only be revealed in the future, but in general, that's what all sovereign nations' debt is, a "delusion" (or assumption) that the fruit of the nation's productivity will be worth having in the future.

>Some people will die if red wins.

Why? The logical conclusion of this game is that everyone presses red. There is no reason to press blue and leave it to chance. The article talks about it, but without further rules it would be absolutely nonsensical to press blue.

Like if there was some additional rule like "oh and if more than 90% press red, everyone dies" or something, it gets more interesting. But as is everyone answering blue is virtue signalling.

>I think pressing red is selfish and violent

Most of humanity is pressing the red button every single day, again and again. From every culture, creed, religion, loads of red button presses.

That some people play survival all the time because "that's what life is" does not mean that humanity doesn't have pockets of more quiet, non-competitive environments where blue pressers thrive. Humans have had a lot of periods where they were not being "just animals".

But I guess everyone thinks the world is like he wants it to be in this respect.

If you think that you can somehow get EVERYONE to press red... then surely you could get EVERYONE to vote blue. The outcome would be the same. And guess what... it's a lot easier to get 51% of people to vote blue than it is to get 100% of people to vote red.

I have Max 5x and use only Claude Opus on xhigh mode. I don't use agents, or even MCPs, and stick to Claude Code.

I find it incredibly difficult to saturate my usage. I'm ending the average week at 30-ish percentage, despite this thing doing an enormous amount of work for (with?) me.

Now I will say that with pro I was constantly hitting the limit -- like comically so, and single requests would push me over 100% for the session and into paying for extra usage -- and max 5x feels like far more than 5x the usage, but who knows. Anthropic is extremely squirrely about things like surge rates, and so on.

I'm super skeptical of the influx of "DAE think Opus sucks now. Let's all move to Codex!" nonsense that has flooded HN. A part of it is the ex-girlfriend thing where people are angry about something and try to force-multiply their disagreement, but some of it legitimately smells like astroturfing. Like OpenAI got done pay $100M for some unknown podcaster and start hiring people to write this stuff online.

I was in the same boat until last few days, where just a handful queries were enough to saturate my 5h session in about 30 mins.

Recently I've gotten Qwen 3.6 27b working locally and it's pretty great, but still doesn't match Opus; I've gotten check out that new Deepseek model sometime.

A bunch of green accounts would be a bit of a tell. They need to use established accounts, ideally pre-llm, for astroturfing. This is going to be increasingly true.

This kind of "if only" sarcastic comment belongs on reddit from 5 years ago

>An important missed angle is the effect of artificial sweeteners on gut microbiome.

Everything affects the gut microbiome. Every single type of food you eat alters it. Taking a walk alters it. Taking a flight alters it.

The whole "but it changes the microbiome" thing needs to be qualified by whether that change is meaningfully relevant in some direction, and evidence thus far, for most sweeteners, is unconvincing. 10.1016/j.cell.2022.07.016 is the only mildly legitimate research on this (a seemingly well executed RCT), but even it shows a rapidly fading effect, and no effect for aspartame given it's the subject of this submission.

But researchers who want a bit of attention (and a remarkable amount of research is plied not for useful results, but knowing that certain topics are easy mass media coverage) know it's gold to write a paper saying a sweetener changed the microbiome, because it plays into a fear people have (people are always susceptible to the "too good to be true" aha moment). Or worse still the garbage observational studies that conflate that people with metabolic issues are more likely to use sweeteners, so flip cause and effect and claim that sweeteners cause metabolic issues.

>What's the harm in sticking to a balanced whole diet of ingredients that were available to our ancestors 200years or more ago.

If people ate calorie-restricted, balanced diets, and limited simple carbs and sugars, most food problems fade away (presuming they aren't eating overtly poisonous things, which many of our ancestors did). But that isn't reality. In reality sugar is one of the greatest health crises of our times, and finding some mechanism of reducing that problem is beneficial. Better still people should tame the sweet tooth, but we live in reality.

And FWIW, you can do the reductionist thing that wellness grifters do with most any food. Loads of "balanced whole diets" are full of crazy, scary constituents, many of which are known carcinogens. Spices and herbs are full of deleterious ingredients. And so on.

>but columns aren't the end-all-be-all normalization format. I think pandas uses "frames".

Pandas is column oriented, as are basically all high performance data libraries. Each column is a separate array of data. To get a "row" you take the n item from each of the arrays.

And FWIW, column-oriented isn't considered normalization. It's a physical optimization that can yield enormous performance advantages for some classes of problems, but can cause a performance nightmare for other problems.

Data analytics loves column-oriented. CRUD type stuff does not. And in the programming realm there are several options to have Structures of Arrays (SoA) instead of the classic Arrays of Structures (AoS).

makes sense, I guess I just meant that it isn't proper normalization without typing. you can have types in something like a sql db (or frames as you pointed out). But a simple CSV, not so much, you'll have to come up with a custom type scheme using headers or something. So long as arrays are strongly typed, I suppose a simple cell in a column is enough.

Is Meta trying to keep the US from making as much profit with Llama? Is Google with Gemma? Microsoft with Phi?

It's much simpler than some flag-waving nationalism.

Aren't Chinese open-source models actually the only ones that can compete with best proprietary/closed ones?

Just because other companies have released open weights models doesn’t mean they are doing so with the same motivation.

And I never implied that the Chinese companies decision making was as simple as this. I said I think this is _one of_ the reasons.

Most of the compute OpenAI "preordered" is vapour. And it has nothing to do with why people thought the company -- which is still in extremely rocky rapids -- was headed to bankruptcy.

Anthropic has been very disciplined and focused (overwhelmingly on coding, fwiw), while OpenAI has been bleeding money trying to be the everything AI company with no real specialty as everyone else beat them in random domains. If I had to qualify OpenAI's primary focus, it has been glazing users and making a generation of malignant narcissists.

But yes, Anthropic has been growing by leaps and bounds and has capacity issues. That's a very healthy position to be in, despite the fact that it yields the inevitable foot-stomping "I'm moving to competitor!" posts constantly.

How is droves of your customers leaving, whether they're foot stomping or not, healthy?

Droves? I mean, if we take the "I'm leaving!" posts seriously, the company has people so emotionally invested they feel the need to announce their departure is a pretty good place to be. Some tiny sampling of unhappy customers is indicative of nothing.

Honestly at this point I am pretty firmly of the belief that OAI is paying astroturfers to post the "Boy does anyone else think Claude is dumb now and Codex is better?" (always some unreproducible "feel" kind of thing that are to be adopted at face value despite overwhelming evidence that we shouldn't). OAI is kind of in the desperation stage -- see the bizarre acquisitions they've been making, including paying $100M for some fringe podcast almost no one had heard of -- and it would not be remotely unexpected.

We have no idea the ratio of foot stompers to quite quitters but I'm sure most people don't announce it. I cancelled my subscription and hadn't told anybody. And I quit based on personal experience over the last few weeks, not on social media pr.

Toxic?

Trump recently posted a diatribe about ranked choice voting in Alaska (calling it "disastrous, and very fraudulent").

Do you know why the modern GOP hates ranked choice voting? Because they rely upon getting clown votes wasted on the Tulsi Gabbard, Jill Stein's and Kanye West's of the world as a way to get elected. They just need to entice just enough fool-vote drawers, knowing the cult will not sway an iota.