The soviets may have rigged a few studies; but the democratized world now faces almost all studies being rigged.

I imagine there are still some rough edges (and it seems like distro choices are probably a bit lacking at the moment if you prefer something outside of a few specific mainstream options) but given how niche ARM support was before the first M1 machines, the progress that's happened so far is honestly pretty astounding. Given that the iterations from M[n] to M[n + 1] seem less large than the initial leap from Intel to M1, it doesn't seem that crazy to imagine they'll end up closing the gap even further to the point where you could probably assume a similar level of hardware support from Asahi for a year-old Macbook as you would for a year-old non-Apple laptop.

As for Apple "supporting" Linux, my perception is that if they wanted to make it harder than it was for the people working on Asahi to even get this far, they almost certainly could have. It seems like they're probably doing the same thing that most laptop vendors do, which is not explicitly support it but also not go out of their way to block it either. For a company with the reputation and history Apple has, I think that's a pretty huge win for the community, and even as someone who overall has a somewhat negative inclination to purchase from them, I have to admit that they seem way less hostile to Linux on their ARM machines than I would have predicted.

I imagine once a lot of the cleanup and maintenance is done on what they have, they'll be in a better spot to accelerate support for other SoCs, and it probably won't be half a decade before the M6 or whatever is supported.

All said, Apple could just spend a tiny tiny amount of their warchest and just ship some goddamn drivers for Linux a la Boot Camp and save the Asahi team the time divining it from the tea leaves.

Them's the breaks.

> it doesn't seem that crazy to imagine they'll end up closing the gap even further to the point where you could probably assume a similar level of hardware support from Asahi for a year-old Macbook as you would for a year-old non-Apple laptop

https://media.ccc.de/v/39c3-asahi-linux-porting-linux-to-app...

The jist is that Apple don't want to prevent you from running your own bootable code on a Mac (which isn't true for iPhone and iPad, sadly), as long as you don't compromise the security of Apple's bootloader, code, etc.

This year is a lot more competitive than any of the past ~4 years for premium laptops.

The asus expertbook ultra even has a much better screen, a much better keyboard, and a very similar haptic trackpad. Weighs less than a 13 inch macbook air too. There's cheaper options too that are close to as good (minus the screen).

PTL’s highest SKU is comparable to the base M5 for only multicore perf at double the power use in every benchmark I’ve seen. It lags significantly behind in single core.

But I’d love to see a benchmark showing otherwise.

Just the latest I’ve seen https://youtu.be/7OxE7FwJPJM?si=b5T0PbmhUD1TXhX4

But I can find none that have PTL actually anywhere near M5 without strapping a much larger battery to the device

It's been five years since M1 and Intel has never been competitive in single-core perf per watt with Apple. It would be surprising if it changed.

Panther lake and the M5 have been out (I know fan makes a difference, but hey it's still a decent reference), and fully tested by a number of reviewers. The "almost every way" comment is with the exception of single-core scores. Outside of that metric, when you look at photoshop/premiere/davinci resolve/compilation/SSD speeds/multicore cinebench; both are about as fast as one another (with some back-and-forth wins on either side). How is it a ridiculous claim when so many publications/reviewers have arrived at the same conclusion?

The point is both achieve nearly the same experience (performance wise) averaged-out, doing real work, and any differences are small enough that it hardly matters. The tests are out there. See: Just Josh (youtube), Notebookcheck (various articles), Zip Tie Tech (youtube), Phoronix (article), Hardware Canucks (youtube), and Max Tech (youtube). Plenty of test results for actual panther lake machines.

The Max Tech review (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q77AzvY3FTE) directly doing a head to head of the M5 macbook pro vs the Expertbook ultra is a good enough summary of how close they actually are. Bunch of heavier tasks being run one after the next, all on battery, side-by-side, in a nicely edited video. As a whole, the chips are more similar than they are different. They are 100% in the same performance tier.

In the real-world, stuff like animation timings for switching virtual desktops are 100% more noticable than the single-core performance gap between those two chips. Or having a 120Hz vs 60Hz like these new macbook airs.

IMO, the main tradeoff with choosing these intel chips over the M5 is the price. Only the X7/X9 panther lakes have the strong GPU, and those are priced significantly higher than base M5 macs (which already have a strong GPU). But for someone who really prefers linux (like the parent comment), then I do think it's worth it.

I do hope that it’s fixed though. I haven’t followed Windows laptops that closely, but my work laptop from a few years ago does lose battery surprisingly quickly when “sleeping”.

Linux on the other hand has always been able to sleep as expected. I'm definitely advocating for panther lake + linux. Not panther lake + windows, which I hoped was clear given the context of the parent comment.

I haven’t used a Linux laptop in over a decade personally, so can’t really speak to that much though.

What I do know is that Windows sucks and macOS has absurdly good battery life, both in active use and in sleep.

Ever since lunar lake (intel's prev-gen ultrabook chip), this isn't even true anymore.

And now with panther lake, competing windows and macOS laptops do have comparable active use battery life, especially when comparing against macbook airs which do sometimes lose because of their smaller batteries.

This guy: https://www.youtube.com/@JustJoshTech does really good battery tests (brightness at 300 nits, looped office tasks, wifi on, BT on), and a number of windows laptops match even the 14in macbooks pros. That macbook pro already gets noticably more battery life than both the 13 and 15in macbook air.

For a specific example ,the current XPS14 without the OLED (meaning the base 1200p screen) will have hours more battery life than any macbook. If you're looking for "absurdly good battery life", both macOS and windows laptops can give you this today. Your last comment hasn't been true (at least for active use) for at least since lunar lake came out (end of 2024).

Only Apple has been laser-focused to give us this experience.

Battery life in sleep (and in general) could be better, but on the whole I've been quite happy with it.

I was about to write a post mourning how much I wish Panther Lake really could compete, but lacked the memory bandwidth to offer a real challenge. But supposedly it can go up to 9600MT/s which would bring Panther Lake to ~150GB/s.

I am curious what the NPU on M5 has. The 50 TOp/s on Panther Lake is... fine. Apple is really seeing huge success with MLX, with an adoptable software stack that the PC world is super struggling to deliver.

I was on an M2 Macbook Pro with Asahi and it was great. It's really hard to fault Apple's hardware for most use cases.

I'm currently on a Strix Halo laptop (HP Zbook), which is about as expensive, and the hardware is great, but power efficiency and build quality lag leagues behind by Apple. A 4000 euro laptop still feels like a cheap toy.

Currently in a brief macos phase before I can be issued my Linux laptop at work. It's so clunky. A major annoyance for me right now is the lack of MST multi-screen over USB which means my nice daisy-chained home setup is fine on my near-decade-old Dell but doesn't work at all on the fancy Macbook. They have the hardware to support it, they just don't.

Generally the hardware with Apple is amazing but I'll take the hit on that and things like battery life just to get an OS that feels like it's on my side.

I'd maybe consider Asahi for home use but I'd be wary of it for work. Perhaps in a few years.

The only time Apple supported first class Linux on their consumer hardware was with MkLinux, and that was when everything was going down in flames and they needed to survive somehow.

Apple is notoriously a control freak. They want to control the hardware, they way to control the software, they want to control the services, they want to control the entire experience.

What you're saying goes against everything they stand for.

Every time they open up, they do it because they're forced to.

They moved away from PowerPC (more control) to Intel (less control) because PowerPC couldn't keep up (despite them lying for half a decade about its performance, at some point it became too hard to distort reality).

They provided Windows dual-boot because they had to, their PC market share was too low and they couldn't get many applications so they had to accept it. After the iPhone took off and Mac started having a bigger marketshare and things were ported to it, they didn't need it as much so they stopped trying, they ditched dual boot for ARM. They never provided any real support for Linux, just some random hints and kind words, basically. They have more than enough money to sponsor an official port.

If anything, it's amazing that someone presumably technical can be "15 years into the ecosystem" and not understand these larger patterns so that I have to explain them like this :-)

Every time they open up, it's because they're weak. Once they're in a position of power:

* only XCode as an official IDE

* no JIT on iOS

* no first-class support for Ruby, Python, JS, etc to build iOS applications

* AppStore, no sideloading

* must use Mac to build for iOS

* ...

They're basically PC Nintendo. Always have been. The mega genius Jobs didn't want fans in a PC from the 1980s because they weren't cool, leading to said PC melting.

I find it funny that people keep excusing a multi-trillion dollar company for not finding pocket change to fund official porting efforts (such as Linux on Apple hardware, or Swift on Linux and Android) across decades. They're not doing it because they don't want to. They never will.

The purpose of a system is what it does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

I don't talk to people this condescending.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/run...

Buy the mac, try Linux in an hour, take it back if you don't like it.

Focusing on Dario, his exact quote IIRC was "50% of all white collar jobs in 5 years" which is still a ways off, but to check his track record, his prediction on coding was only off by a month or so. If you revisit what he actually said, he didn't really say AI will replace 90% of all coders, as people widely report, he said it will be able to write 90% of all code.

And dhese days it's pretty accurate. 90% of all code, the "dark matter" of coding, is stuff like boilerplate and internal LoB CRUD apps and typical data-wrangling algorithms that Claude and Codex can one-shot all day long.

Actually replacing all those jobs however will take time. Not just to figure out adoption (e.g. AI coding workflows are very different from normal coding workflows and we're just figuring those out now), but to get the requisite compute. All AI capacity is already heavily constrained, and replacing that many jobs will require compute that won't exist for years and he, as someone scrounging for compute capacity, knows that very well.

But that just puts an upper limit on how long we have to figure out what to do with all those white collar professionals. We need to be thinking about it now.

It's not well established at all. In fact, there is increasing evidence to the contrary if you look outside the HN echo chamber.

The nuanced take is that AI in coding is an amplifier of your engineering culture: teams with strong software discipline (code reviews, tests, docs, CI/CD, etc.) enjoy more velocity and fewer outages, teams with weak discipline suffer more outages. There are at least two large-scale industry reports showing this trend -- DORA 2025 and the latest DX report -- not to mention the infinite anecdotes on this very forum.

> He's trying to scare the market into his pocket.

People say this, but I don't get it. Is portraying yourself as a destroyer of the economy considered good marketing? Maybe there was a case to be made for convincing the government to impose regulations on the industry, but as we're seeing and they're experiencing first hand, the problem is the government.

Hence why all these LLM companies love government contracts, they can't sell to consumers so they'll just steal from tax payers instead.

Cursor: 1 Billion ARR in 24 months -- https://andrew.ooo/posts/cursor-fastest-growing-saas-1b-arr/

Claude Code: 2.5 Billion ARR in 10 months -- https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-raises-30-billion-s...

And if you suggest that these and other AI companies are lying about revenues or fudging the numbers, it is corroborated from THREE other angles: the investors in these startups, the payment processor for these startups, and the people allocating budgets for the products from these startups! This thread (and its parents with links) is relevant: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46773252

Ugh, people here seem to think that all software is react webapps. There are so many technologies and languages this stuff is not very good at. Web apps are basically low hanging fruit. Dario hasn't predicted anything, and he does not have anyone's interests other than his own in mind when he makes his doomer statements.

And it's getting better at the other 10% too. Two years ago ChatGPT struggled to help me with race conditions in a C++ LD_PRELOAD library. It was a side project so I dropped it. Last week Codex churned away for 10 minutes and gave me a working version with tests.

  - It's garbage collected, so variable lifetimes don't need to be traced
  - It's structurally typed, so LLMs can get away with duplicating types as long as the shape fits. 
  - The type system has an escape hatch (any or unknown)
  - It produces nice stack traces
  - The industry has more or less settled styling issues (ie, most typescript looks pretty uniform stylistically).
  - There is an insane amount of open source code to train on
  - Even "compiled" code is somewhat easy(er) to deobfuscate and read (because you're compiling JS to JS)

  - Memory management is important, and tricky
  - Segfaults give you hardly anything to work with
  - There are like a thousand different coding styles
  - Nobody can agree on the proper subset of the language to use (ie, exceptions allowed or not allowed, macros, etc.)
  - Security issues are very much magnified (and they're   already a huge problem in vibecoded typescript)
  - The use cases are a lot more diverse. IE, if you're using typescript you're probably either writing a web page or a server (maybe a command line app). (I'm lumping electron in here, because it's still a web page and a server). C is used for operating systems, games, large hero apps, anything CPU or memory constrained, etc.

I agree C++ is harder, and I still occassionally find a missing free(), but Codex did crack my problem... including fixing a segfault! I had a bunch of strategically placed printfs gated behind an environment variable, it found those, added its own, set the environment variable, and examined the outputs to debug the issue.

I cannot emphasize how mindblowing this is, because years back I had spent an hour+ doing the same thing unsuccessfully before being pulled away.

most of us are getting paid for the other 10%

If you mean "us" as in all software engineers, not at all. The challenge we're facing is exactly that, reskilling the 90% of engineers who have been working on CRUD apps to the 10% that is outside the distribution.

I am a 30-year "veteran" in the industry and in my opinion this cannot be further from the truth but it is often quotes (even before AI). CRUD apps have been a solved problem for quite some time now and while there are still companies who may allow someone to "coast" doing CRUD stuff they are hard to find these days. There is almost always more to it than building dumb stuff. I have also seen (more and more each year) these types of jobs being off-shored to teams for pennies on a dollar.

What I have experienced a lot is teams where there are what I call "innovators" and "closers." "Innovators" do the hard work, figure shit out, architect, design... and then once that is done you give it to "closers" to crank things out. With LLMs now the part of "closers" could be "replaced" but in my experience there is always some part, whether it is 5% or 10% that is difficult to "automate" so-to-speak

But I am concerned precisely because AI is usurping that closing work, which accounts for the bulk of the team. Realistically the innovators will be the only people required. But the innovators are able to do the hard stuff by learning through a lot of hands-on experience and painful lessons, which they typically get by spending a lot of time in the trenches as closers.

And we're only talking about coding here, but this pattern repeats ALL over knowledge work: product, legal, consultancy, finance, accounting, adminstration...

So now the problem is two-fold: how do we get the closers to upskill to innovators a) without the hands-on experience b) faster than AI can replace them?

I can see where Dario is coming from.

It's to drive FOMO for investors. He needs tens of billions of capital and is trying to scare them into not looking at his balance sheet before investing. It's reckless, and is soaking up capital that could have gone towards more legitimate investments.

Sounds like one of the white collar jobs that LLMs were supposed to solve

Council on Foreign Relations, 11 months ago: "In 12 months, we may be in a world where AI is essentially writing all of the code."

Axios interview, 8 months ago: "[...] AI could soon eliminate 50% of entry-level office jobs."

The Adolescence of Technology (essay), 1 month ago: "If the exponential continues—which is not certain, but now has a decade-long track record supporting it—then it cannot possibly be more than a few years before AI is better than humans at essentially everything."

Don't worry, I know exactly why. $

I totally feel for people with speech pathologies or anxiety that makes it harder for them to communicate verbally, but how is this guy the public face of the company and doing all these interviews by himself? With as much as is at stake, I find it baffling.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the e/acc freaks have some secret society or cabal lol

that's a pretty big (and likely untrue) claim

EDIT: somehow people seem to think I'm defending MS here. I'm not, I'm concurring that MS willingly turned Windows to shit (by moving it to the B team) because they thought they could earn more money elsewhere (and they were right). I don't like it, but I bet the people who got filthy rich over it do.

Is this a new phenomena? Stocks aren't new. Why is the modern market treated like this? Did Henry Ford make his vehicles shitter to increase his stock value?

You should really really read about Dodge vs. Ford case. It all started with that case.

You’re just being controversial.

That’s not a strong enough reason to downvote someone.

After all, you might be part of a silent majority!