> Mac hardware, on the other hand, has never been better than it is right now!
I thought the same until trying a framework laptop with Ubuntu. Mac is the “IBM” choice, no one gets fired for choosing it, but quite frankly there’s better options these days.
A framework laptop is very nice, and definitely has a lot of upsides, but it can't match screen, keyboard, trackpad, camera, or speaker quality with a MacBook Pro, not to mention the battery life.
Those may be nice for people who need them, and are ok with the software side.
for me, the screen on the framework is ok. I think there's little to gain with LCDs at this point. The trackpad on the framework is smaller, so it's better. A nicer camera requires a nicer piece of tape to cover it, I guess. Notification beeps do not require Atmos or whatever. I can pack a powerbank for trans-oceanic flights, but I'm usually at a desk if I work long stretches.
Having nicer stuff would be nice, but the value proposition does not work for me in light of the software situation.
1 - compromised hardware over better software is a trade-off you're willing to make and
2 - you believe that the Framework software experience is better than macOS
i can concede 2 (if true, I've not used a Framework laptop) but I don't understand point 1. packing a powerbank for example just feels ancient if you've used the arm chip macs. then again, I'm now pushing my trade-off
It's going to be a different experience for everyone. For example I never get why people care about the laptop weight. You put it in your backpack anyway, (unless it's a small handbag sized laptop situation then fair enough) it's not like anything below 5kg will be noticeable in reality. Yet for others is a big deal. Personal preferences...
"Packing a powerbank" was more of a hypothetical, as I've never actually had to.
My point was that it's a tradeoff between software preference, tech politics, price, and hardware features. I think it's pretty easy to understand. It's not like Apple has an insurmountable lead; there are some benefits for some use cases.
I concur. I have a Framework 13 I use as my personal laptop and a work-issued M3 MacBook Pro. While I love the freedom that my Framework 13 provides in terms of user serviceability and operating system choice, the MacBook Pro feels more premium, and it has absolutely amazing battery life.
What do people like about MacBook trackpads? I can't stand them because you can only do a "click" action at the bottom of the thing, but there's nothing tactile that would help you to find it.
That's trailing PE. A standard response to that observation would be that the market is forward looking. So I try to stick to forward PE when discussing price. 200 is still insane in any case, it's an order of magnitude higher than, for example, GOOG.
I agree with the sibling comment that "How to decide what you need on your devboard" is the tutorial that would be nice to see. This article is trying to do too many things at once (design a dev board, baby's first schematic, baby's first PCB, baby's first JLCPCB order,...) and that's really the only one that's novel. The rest of it is standard EE stuff that's covered in a lot of places (with varying degrees of success).
As for decoupling, I've written about how to do it in various places scattered across the internet. I should really collect it all in one place one of these days.
4M requests/day is ~46 requests/second , for content, that could be cached a lot. Even if you have spikes that are 100x bigger than the average, that would be 4600r/s which does not seem like much in 2025.
or the fact that John D. Rockefeller was furious that Standard Oil got split up despite the stock going up and making him much richer.
It's not so clear what motivates the very rich. If I doubled my income I might go on a really fancy vacation and get that Olympus 4/3 body I've been looking at and the fast 70-300mm lens for my Sony, etc. If Elon Musk changes his income it won't affect his lifestyle. As the leader of a corporation you're supposed to behave as if your utility function of money was linear because that represents your shareholders but a person like Musk might be very happy to spend $40B to advance his power and/or feeling of power.
To clarify you can have power without money, for example initial revolutionaries. Money buys power, and power could convert into money depending the circumstances.
Wealth is something that is counted and accumulates (or decrements).
Power is ranking. If you double your wealth, but maintain (or reduce) your power ranking, net-net you've lost power.
There are other elements at play. Discretionary wealth and power also matter. If you're in a position where all your wealth and/or income are spoken for (e.g., a business with high cash-flow but also high current expenses such as labour, materials, services, rents, etc.; or a governmental unit with high mandated spending / entitlements), then a numerically high budget still entails little actual discretionary power. Similarly, an entity with immense resources and preeminent ranking but where most or all options are already spoken for, where there are no good discretionary options, has nominal power but little actual power.
A classic example of the latter is a regime which embarks on a military misadventure only to find that it can pour in vast amounts of blood and capital for little actual return, ending up bogged down in a quagmire: Vietnam, Afghanistan (multiple instances), the Western Front (WWI), Gallipoli (WWI), winter invasions of Russia (Napoleon, Hitler/Barbarossa), the Charge of the Light Brigade, Waterloo, Agincourt, the Spanish Armada, etc.
the people with all the firepower won't let you buy your own private military (or develop your own weapons systems without being under their control). The end-of-line power (violence) is a closely guarded monopoly.
But, on the flip side, coercive power cannot stand on its own without money too. The CCP's Politburo know beyond a doubt that they have coercive power over billionaires like Jack Ma, but they try to accommodate these entrepreneurs who help catalyze economic growth & bring the state more foreign revenue/wealth to fund its coercive machine.
America's elected leaders also have power to punish & bring oligarchs to book legally, but they mostly interact symbiotically, exchanging campaign contributions and board seats for preferential treatment, favorable policy, etc.
Putin can order any out-of-line oligarch to be disposed of, but the economic & coercive arms of the Russian State still see themselves as two sides of the same coin.
So, yes: coercive power can still make billionaires face the wall (Russian revolution, etc.) but they mostly prefer to work together. Money and power are a continuum like spacetime.
I’m tired of this sentiment. Imagine if people said, why develop your own cloud offering? Can you really do better than VMWare..?
Innovation in technology has only happened because people dared to do better, rather than giving up before they started…
reply