CPython (the compiler) is the most popular implementation of Python (the language) like GCC, Clang, and MSVC (compilers) are implementations of C (the language). Other Python implementations include PyPy, Jython, and IronPython.
Nobody is "pretending" anything. These have all been around for 15+ years at this point. Your ignorance does not imply intent to deceive on others part.
saying the most popular hides the actual reason why it is popular though. it is the original python implementation. it defines the standard and functions a reference for all others. for better or for worse other implementations have to be bug-compatible with it, and that is what puts them not on equal footing.
for C compilers no reference implementation exists. the C standard was created out of multiple existing implementations.
PyPy is a JIT-compiled implementation of a language called RPython which is a restricted subset of Python. It does not and has never attempted to implement Python or replace your CPython interpreter for most intents and purposes. CPython is the official reference implementation of the Python language and what you probably use if you write Python code and don't understand the difference between a programming language and its implementations (which is fine)
This doesn't sound right. PyPy has always been described as an alternative implementation of Python that could in some cases be a drop-in replacement for CPython (AKA standard Python) that could speed up production workloads. Underneath that is the RPython toolchain, but that's not what most people are talking about when they talk about PyPy.
Exactly correct. PyPy is a replacement for CPython 3.11, which aims to be fully compatible with pure Python code (C extensions are a more complicated story).
I completely understand that as a cheap one, it has to be worse than macbook air in some aspect to make the product line work. However I'm genuinely curious why it's thicker and no lighter than the Macbook Air, while at the same time has shorter battery life, less ports, no keyboard light, and a smaller chip? Do they put dead weight inside it or something?
Apple is doing everything they can to ensure it doesn't appear as a premium product.
A decade ago, they had the 12" MacBook (not Air, just "MacBook") it it felt super premium because it was lighter and smaller than any Air/Pro ... and used by executives (because it targeted that use case).
By having this product:
- called "Neo"
- thicker
- as heavy
- limiting RAM
And marketing this towards kids and lower grades, they are avoiding any mistaking this product as premium.
Yeah that’s totally reasonable. I’m just curious about how do they make a thicker and heavier laptop with less capabilities… do they intentionally make the case thicker or something?
Same. And I don’t understand why you are being down ranked. The HN guideline specifically stated that political news are not welcome, yet, this is the post with most comments in the front page. I didn’t come to HN for this
Apple is and always has been a hardware company. I would like to use the Linux ecosystem, however there’s simply no laptop other than Mac that is light and powerful and runs 15 hours in battery.
Where the hell do people go that they are away from power for 15 hours and are on the computer the whole time? Are they video editing while in the middle of a safari?
And besides, every time I see comments like this, all I can think is that they never have even tried to find a PC laptop that is small, fast and has good battery life. Believe it or not they exist.
Long running batteries would have been useful when I first was on safari in 2002. But last year I was on safari again, and at camp there was power and wifi in the tents. It actually kind of killed some of the romance.
I feel the same way with smartphones, everyone wants more battery. Ten years ago it might be difficult to find a place were you can charge your phone but now there are sockets everywhere.
It also lasts longer than the M4 Pro MacBook Pro 14”.
Bonus points: it has replaceable, upgradable, DUAL full size SSD slots and replaceable WiFi card.
You’re also getting a better discrete graphics chip that you can use for higher performance applications, or go on still-good integrated graphics to get that great battery life.
Intel Panther Lake systems are rolling out and they have graphics performance slightly exceeding the M5 MacBook Pro along with excellent power efficiency.
Macs still win out on certain CPU benchmarks and certainly on creative benchmarks like video editing, but the truth of the matter is unless you’re making money editing videos, that doesn’t matter. It’s not like Apple chips are so far ahead that buying something else will make you sit in purgatory waiting for builds to complete.
I took the plunge recently and got off Mac. I was pleasantly surprised that, yes, other hardware is fine. Much of it is good, actually.
There are even PC laptops with haptic trackpads, but also, you really don’t need that. macOS has made itself require it by designing around it unnecessarily, presumably to sell more $150 external trackpads (e.g., a three finger swipe is really not easier to accomplish than a keyboard shortcut, it’s just overengineering).
Even if you can’t get the same battery life…that’s something a $50 external battery can solve, and I would suggest that anything above ~8 hours of battery is more of a nice to have than a necessity.
Is it 100% as good in every respect? No. But if you’d rather use Linux and the hardware is the only thing in your way, I’d start actually looking at other laptops to find one that works for you rather than assuming MacBooks as the best. (One of the challenges is that there are so many options once you leave Mac-land).
Hey there, quick question - are the alternatives perfectly quiet? Been on M1 Max train for almost 5 years now. I see people talk about performance, battery life, but the key feature for me is just how I never, ever, hear the fans.
I can find a few benchmarks that might help answer that question:
On this MacBook Pro review [1], yes, Macs are at the top of the list, but they aren’t wildly out front during high-intensity tasks.
MacBooks have been getting louder since the M1 generation, which is notable.
The M5 10 core is louder than the M4 Pro 14 core, which is louder than the M3 12 core in the same MacBook Pro chassis.
At the bottom of the benchmark you can see that a couple of Windows PCs aren’t that far off: both the ASUS TUF A14 and HP Omen Transcend 14, 5 and 3 dB higher, respectively.
The Omen Transcend 14 is a major cost savings over the MacBook Pro. If I configure it with 32GB of RAM, RTX5070, and 2TB storage, I’m at $1919.99. The same configuration for the MacBook Pro is $2599, but I’ve got no OLED screen and far worse graphics performance than the 5070.
If I want to spec it up to be match the graphics performance of the 5070 I’m probably at the M4 Max model and my grand total is at $3200-3700 depending on the choice of GPU core count.
Thank you. Sounds like things have not improved in the Apple land since I made my purchase. I just wonder what the "normal" fan level is like. Sure, if I load up an LLM locally and talk to it for a while, I can get my M1 Max to spin fans audibly, but I have to really be determined to do that. I also own a 2024 HP Spectre laptop. Fan noise starts the moment I press the power button and doesn't stop until it shuts down. So I suppose my question here is not so much how loud the Windows competition is at some heavy workload task, but is it "fanless" for most / all daily tasks just like my M1 Max is in practice. I spend a lot of time compiling Rust code - zero noise.
I appreciate that price is a concern, but for me it's a secondary concern. Not that I am loaded or anything, with the Macbook I am confident I will be using the device for 5+ years. Being very sensitive to noise, I'd rather pay up than be upset for the next few years.
It may be related to the fact that some non-native English speakers (including myself) would sometimes use AI based tools to revise or translate their writings before posting online
Although macOS do provide many little known useful tools (besides this, there’s also dtrace, pf, etc), I still run a Linux VM in my MacBook for daily work. Thing is, the effort I spend on learning these tools is almost wasteful unless I’m doing iOS or macOS development. Skills about Linux tools however, is something people considered valuable because of its wider application. I think apple is missing opportunities by not doing more about macOS Server platform.
I would always refer to Hanlon's razor on things like this: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I'm not trying to finding excuses for them, just saying that most likely there's no deep conspiracy theory involving government level surveillance here, they are just stupid. On average, Chinese software engineers are less educated and have no sense about privacy or how to implement privacy related features properly.
While logging serial number and some of the basic analytics stats might be attributed to stupidity, I tend to think that using a pretty advanced set of system commands and logging output consistently to log files is very sketchy.
One possible stupid-but-not-malicious explanation is that some anti-cheat company made a sketchy anti-cheat that includes server-side "is CheatEngine.exe running" code, and they're doing that via ps aux... and then this game player app was bullied by some game company into including this anti-cheat library to allow their game to run.
If human is at, say, 80%, it’s still a win to use AI agents to replace human workers, right? Similar to how we agree to use self driving cars as long as it has less incidents rate, instead of absolute safety
I like to point out that the error-rate is not the error-shape. There are many times we can/should prefer a higher error rate with errors we can anticipate, detect, and fix, as opposed to a lower rate with errors that are unpredictable and sneaky and unfixable.
Yes, let's not have cars. Self-driving ones will just increase availability and might even increase instead of reduce resource expenditure, except for the metric of parking lots needed.
A large enough cooperation or institution is essentially automated. Its behavior is what the median employer will do. If you have a system to stop bad behavior, then that's automated and will also safeguard against bad AI behavior (which seems to work in this example too)
> Apple could take just 7% cut and still make 20% profits.
We can say this to any company, "$X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits", but it doesn't really make any sense. Making profits is what makes a company a company instead of a non-profit organization.
It does make sense to highlight, because this kind of statistic is a very strong indicator that the market is not competitive. This is not a normal kind of profit margin and basically everyone except for Apple would benefit from them lowering the margins.
In normal markets there are competitors who force each other to keep reasonable profit margins and to improve their product as opposed to milking other people's hard work at the expense of the consumer.
Might not be competitive but it’s totally voluntary. No one needs app, it’s not food or shelter, so clearly consumers are willing and able to pay this.
The consumer is willing to pay the price based on the perceived value from the App Store
The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
> The relevant market here is the creators not the consumers. As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set. Or whatever rates Spotify pays you per stream. The fact you "could" host your own website is irrelevant when the reality is nobody will visit it.
Collective action by the creators would help.
All they have to do is dual-host (a fairly trivial matter, compared to organised collective action). What would make things even better is if they dual host on a competing platform and specify in their content that the competing platform charges lower fees. If even 10% of the creators did this:
1. Many of the consumers would switch.
2. Many of the creators not on the competing platform would also offer dual-hosting.
The problem is not "As a creator you have no choice but to accept whatever fees Apple, Google, Steam etc set". The problem is the mindset that their content is not their own.
I say it's their mindset, because they certainly don't act as if they own the content - when your content is available only via a single channel, you don't own your content, you are simply a supplier for that channel.
How? I thought it was a Patreon thing - the "competing platform" would be competing with the Patreon app.
I'm not familiar with Patreon, but I thought the way it worked was that you could tip content creators via the Patreon app. I'm pretty certain that Apple cannot tell Patreon (a third party) that they are only allowed to offer exclusive content.
Apple doesn’t allow you to mention that you have alternate payment channels on other platforms. Can’t even allude to it.
To me this is the thing that should be outlawed. Let people pay the Apple tax if they want, but don’t prevent people from making other arrangements. Most people are lazy and will pay the tax, if it isn’t excessive.
What is also totally voluntary is our decision to let Apple exist as an entitiy, to give them a government enforced monopoly over certain things, to make it illegal to break their technical protections of their monopoly etc.
When parts of a market become dominated by one or few companies operating in a limited choice environment, consumers can't just opt to not use both Apple and Play store. You need to choose one in practice.
At this point the regulators should investigate what the barriers are to new entrants and if it's too costly and nobody has managed to cut in the last few years, establishing some rules is probably a good thing. This happens as industries mature and become critical, it happened in transportation (most bus, train companies), energy, water supply, trash, etc, depending on the country and market conditions.
Not so much a failure. Rather, there is no intent for there to be a market here at all. A market relies on offerings being reproducible. Intellectual property laws are designed specifically to prevent reproduction.
Makes me think of the concept of involution in Chinese business and how they understand all of this very differently, and how difficult it is to compete because of that.
Agreed, but this is about to be a special case if it's not already. We're contending with compulsory digital IDs and cashless economies that must be used on authorized devices, and Apple is one of the two makers. While it's certainly not necessary to use Patreon, not having it or something like it is an actual barrier to individual trade. I don't think I can get behind a schema that means Apple can take whatever portion it wants from a transaction initiated on a device that it creates and that is otherwise fairly necessary for day-to-day life in the developed world.
it sounds like it does make sense because if they are making $Z profits then they are still making profits and are not non-profit.
there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Which it has been my observation that when someone is saying "X could reduce price by $Y and still make $Z profits" it often coincides with saying therefore company X should be legislated on this particular profit source.
>there could also be cases where cutting back to $Z profits might be preferable in case not doing so were to prompt legislation causing someone to be forcibly cut to $Z-1 or even $0 profits from a particular profit source.
Not in an environment where regulatory capture costs so much less than any change legislation could bring. The remedy in almost every recent monopoly case has been remarkably nothing. Politicians don’t actually want change, they want the threat of legislation so that industries bring truckloads of money to line their pockets.
Until it turns into cancer because of unrestrained growth.
Like it or not capitalism is a part of an ecosystem. We’ve been “educated” to believe that unrestrained growth in profits is what makes capitalism work, and yet day after day there are fresh examples of how our experience as consumers has gotten worse under capitalism because of the idea that profits should forever be growing.
reply