I remember thinking movies just had absurd sensationalized plot lines and that our societies were past that shit. Then I saw former soviets killed by alpha particle emitting pills, whistleblowers dying, and now I’m thinking the truth is stranger than fiction.

Hang in there Edward Snowden, it’s amazing that fucker threaded the needle and still lives.

That new Chevy RST looking pretty badass, it isn’t just marginally better than a Cybertruck, it’s objectively superior in nearly every aspect that it can be superior.

So, if the AI generated tits look real, but they’re not HER tits, is it just less terrible?

“Your powers are quaint, you must be popular with the children”

A weeklong battery life, efficient cores, rapid response time, and great software environment make it a great choice…at 16GB for my needs. I will not recommend 8GB to any user at all going forward. It’s marketing malarkey with no future proofing, degrading the viable longevity of the machine.

There’s no conversation to continue. Glass is glass, and 8GB is 8GB, as well as being a joke.

15 tabs of Safari, which is demonstrably a better browser by some opinions due to its efficiency and available privacy configuration options. What if you prefer Chrome or Firefox?

I will argue in Apple’s defense that their stack includes very effective libraries that intrinsically made applications on Mac OS better in many regards, but 8GB is still 8GB, and an SoC isn’t upgradeable. Competition has far cheaper 16GB options, and Apple is back to looking like complete assholes again.

I’m actually deeply familiar with the architecture, and how caches, memory, and UM’s work. I understand all of that. None of that changes the storage available. Having high memory bandwidth to load/unload memory addresses doesn’t fix the issue of the environment easily exceeding 8GB. I also understand the caching principles and how you actually want RAM utilization to be higher for faster responsiveness. 8GB is still 8GB, and a joke.

You do have a point, but I think the intent of the article is to convey the common understanding that Apple is leaning on sales tactics to convince people of a thing that anyone with technical acumen sees through immediately. Regardless of how efficient Mach/Darwin is, it’s still apples to apples (pun intended) to understand how quickly 8GB fills up in 2024. For those who need a fully quantitative performance measurement between 8 and 16GB, with enough applications loaded to display the thrashing that starts happening, they’re not really the audience. THAT audience is busy reading about gardening tips, lifestyle, and celebrity gossip.

Looks like you didn’t read the article either.

Overall, I’m using 12.5GB of memory and the only application I have open is Chrome. Oh, and did I mention I’m typing this on a 16GB MacBook Air? I used to have an 8GB Apple silicon Air and to be frank it was a nightmare, constantly running out of memory just browsing the web.

Earlier it’s mentioned that they have 15 tabs open. I don’t like a lot of things they do in “gaming journalism” but on this article they’re spot on. Apple is full of shit in saying 8GB is enough by today’s standards. 8GB is a fuckin joke, and you can’t add any RAM later.

It’s not that it’s more efficient, it’s simply used less than in conventional PC architecture.

It’s not that you’re wrong from a philosophical perspective with that, it’s that you’re factually incorrect. Memory addresses don’t suddenly shrink or expand depending on where they exist on the bus or the CPU. Being on the SoC doesn’t magically make RAM used less by the OS and applications, as the mach kernel, Darwin, and various MacOS layers still address the same amount of memory as they would on traditional PC architecture.

Memory is memory, just like glass is glass, and glass will still scratch at a level 7 just like 8GB of RAM holds the same amount of information as…8GB of RAM.

The article actually quantitatively tests this too by pointing out their memory usage with Chrome and different numbers of tabs open.

Looks like you didn’t read the article.

It’s also cheaper to just pay someone to work IN the store than hiring people outside of the country watching video feeds.