I think you know that this service is impossible to provide for free, and that the quality to cost ratio of Mullvad's service is highly competitive.

You can just input your $X per month/week/whatever yourself as API credits

Does it make sense to create a Wasm build of this for the browser? Or is the speedup mainly due to the browser spawning step rather than execution/rendering itself?

I reckon the main speed up is from not having to launch a browser.

Mermaid can also be used inside the browser directly, I believe. The WASM compiled Rust implementation could still outperform it.

Exactly, that's what I wanted to know. No other way to find out than to test, though. Don't know how easy it would be to wire it up.

All AI features are purely work saving

What is that, 6 years for less than a doubling? Nothing against the Apple chips themselves, but gone are the days of Moore...

Moore was just about the transistor count doubling. Not performance.

Performance is an excellent proxy for transistor count. Somebody else replied with the actual transistor counts, which had basically equal scaling.

Not necessarily. If single core speed doubled but we also doubled or tripled the number of cores, doesn’t that count as keeping up with Moore?

M1 has 16bn transistors, M4 has 28bn. Increasing the core count is useful for some applications (particularly GPU cores), but there are still many critical workloads that are gated by single-threaded performance.

That's not what was being talked about.

Moore's law was never about single threaded performance, it was about transistor count and transistor cost, but people misunderstood it when single threaded performance was increasing exponentially.

GP mentions cores and the article is about benchmarks. The relationship between transistor count, core count, and performance, is exactly on topic.

Single core performance and transistor count are not the same thing and have been disconnected for two decades.

Did you think I said otherwise?

Moore's law was about transistors and cost, you were equating it to performance.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45434910

Your reply here is not directly related or an answer to the comment you replied to.

You have brought a lot of your own assumptions to that reading. OP asked if doubling or tripling core count counted as keeping up with Moore’s law. I pointed out that in the case of the M series (the topic of the thread), regardless of core count, transistor count did not double or triple.

The problem is they don't "let the developers do the work themselves"

If only the platform was open enough that developers had real access, Apple might get away with like you say not providing first party support for gaming.

I mean it more as a counterpoint to what Valve is doing: games are automatically opted-in to working with Proton and pass through a Valve-operated certification program. Because developers aren't part of that loop, you see occasional cases where games issue updates that break compatibility, with users blaming developers based on an outdated, Valve-provided certification.

I also find it a bit extreme how many people feel the need to add some sort of disclaimer every time they say something nice about the guy who died:

- "I strongly disagree with Charlie Kirk, but [...] Condolences to his wife and small kids"

- "I have scant philosophical agreement, but..."

- "While I'm not a fan..."

Says something about the level of polarization that people are so afraid of accidentally being mistaken for a supporter, even in these circumstances. He was not a particularly niche character, his views are probably similar to a decently sized share of the American population. The American people are struggling so hard to find any kind of unity.

It's just that a lot of people argue badly, either because of lacking skill or lacking goodwill.

That doesn't mean their arguments are necessarily wrong. It is necessary to try to reframe such badly made arguments in a way that presents the message properly in order to be able to actually compare competing ideas and find truth.

If you compare one well-crafted argument to a poorly crafted argument, the well-crafted argument would seem to come out on top even if its underlying ideas were actually wrong.

E.g. if I say "Apples are good because my grandma loved apples and you are stupid!"

And my opponent says "Apples are bad because there are other fruits that can be grown much more efficiently and feed people better"

Then my opponent would probably "win" the argument. But that doesn't mean apples are actually bad. Try to remake the argument for why apples are good in a better way, in order to fairly compare the two sides and find the truth.

I want a version of this where the camera is flush with the surface of the phone. I understand and accept that this means the camera will be worse.