Apple buries this info but the memory bandwidth on the M series is very high. Doubly and triply so for the Pro & Max variants which are insanely high.
Not much in the PC line up comes close and certainly not at the same price point. There's some correlation here between PCs still wanting to use user-upgradable memory which can't work at the higher bandwidths vs Apple integrating it into the cpu package.
They don't bury it. It's literally on the spec page these days. And LPCAMM2 falls somewhere between the base M and Pro CPUs while still being replaceable.
The new MacBook Neo is a less than half the memory bandwidth of the base model MacBook Air.
The Guardian article linked has chosen to omit material facts regarding Karen... This is par for the course when it comes to Guardian reporting and doubly so for immigration related articles. The Guardian only prints hit pieces nowadays that reinforce their group-think propaganda.
>What the media won’t tell you: this woman was BANNED from our country for 10 years for violating terms of her visa.
Here are the facts:
Karen Newton has violated the laws of our nation, and overstayed her visa waiver admission for almost FOUR years after visiting her spouse. Her husband, William Newton ALSO broke the law for nearly 20 years by overstaying an H-1B visa.
The Biden Administration granted her a tourist visa, and she traveled to the U.S. under this visa and was let into our nation.
When she and her husband attempted to cross the Canadian border, they did not have proper paperwork for their vehicle and were denied entry into Canada. During her inspection re-entering the U.S., she was unable to provide clear details about her situation, including her husband’s legal status.
Given her history of overstays, her husband’s unlawful presence, and the vehicle documentation issues, officers determined scrutiny and detention were warranted under the law and she was detained.
The sad thing is that you believe what DHS has to say about absolutely anything, especially after Alex Pretti has proven them in death to be complete liars.
Yes, because a DHS statement, published on Twitter of all places, isn't going to be propaganda. I can't think of any instances of them blatantly lying even against their own video evidence in, like, at least a week. /s
When a publication only publishes the "oppresseds" point of view without ever publishing the other view then it is by definition propaganda. The Guardian has been incredibly consistent in this over years now.
Generally large companies will have an existing vendor that they use to dispose their IT equipment through. They will shred parts like storage devices and anything that can reasonably be resold will be sold through various auction houses.
Sticks of ram will certainly be resold, custom aws motherboards - not so much.
I have seen custom (unpublished) intel cpu parts on ebay before which are almost certainly aws's custom ones.
Almost nothing will get used by consumers - enterprise server gear is designed for heat/air speed/noise/energy cost requirements which are incompatible with consumer requirements. It's recycled only in the sense that a smaller business might be interested in it because at the end of its economic life its now cheap to buy (but not cheap to run).
I broadly agree with you in regards to server-class equipment as a whole.
Simply put, your average gamer isn’t going to snag a 16-unit rackmount blade server to game with. Not only is it supidly inappropriate for home use, but it is also wildly out-of-spec with what gaming requires.
However, normal rackmount servers - especially 3U+ units that have a decent number of PCIe slots - can be extracted from rackmount cases and put into eATX cases that can better serve them on a desktop. It’s what I have done before, to great effect. With the right heatsinks and case fans, it can end up being a moderately quiet system. Loud for a consumer system, sure, but nothing like the “Boeing Dreamliner at full takeoff power” that an actual server setup would generate for sound.
I’m Elvin from the RustFS team in the U.S. Thanks for pointing out the issues with our initial CLA. We realized the original wording was overreaching and created a lot of distrust about the project's future.
We’ve officially updated the CLA to a standard License Grant model. Under these new terms, you retain full ownership of your contributions, and only grant us a non-exclusive license to use them. You can check the updated CLA here: https://github.com/rustfs/rustfs/blob/main/CLA.md.
More importantly, the RustFS team is officially pledging to keep our core repository permanently open-source. We are committed to an open-core engine for the long term, not a "bait and switch."
Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, You hereby grant to RustFS and to recipients of software distributed by RustFS a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your Contributions and such derivative works under any license, including proprietary or commercial licenses and open-source licenses, at RustFS's sole discretion.
Lol, maybe you should fund the RustFS team yourself or sponsor a top-tier legal team for them. If you can help them rewrite their CLAs and guarantee they'll never face any IP risks down the road, then sure, you're 100% right.
Fair point on the frequency of my comments, but there’s a nuance to the CLA discussion. Even with Apache 2.0, many major projects (like those under the CNCF or Apache Foundation) require a CLA to ensure the project has the legal right to distribute the code indefinitely.
My focus on the CLA is about building a solid foundation for RustFS so it doesn't face the licensing "re-branding" drama we've seen with other storage projects recently. It’s about long-term stability for the community, not just a marketing ploy.
And again - what IP risk does a CLA solve, that a DCO wouldn't? Like, IANAL so I certainly could be missing something, but I'd like to hear what it might be.
I’m also maintaining an open-source project and have spent significant time drafting our CLA, so I completely understand the concerns surrounding them.
While DCO is excellent for tracking provenance, we opted for a CLA primarily to address explicit patent grants and sublicensing rights—areas where a standard DCO often lacks the comprehensive legal coverage that a formal agreement provides.
It’s a common and sustainable practice in the industry to keep the core code open-source while developing enterprise features. Without a solid CLA in place, a project faces massive legal hurdles later on—whether that’s for future commercialization or even the eventual donation of the project to an open-source foundation like the CNCF or Apache Foundation. We're just trying to ensure long-term legal clarity for everyone involved.
Not much in the PC line up comes close and certainly not at the same price point. There's some correlation here between PCs still wanting to use user-upgradable memory which can't work at the higher bandwidths vs Apple integrating it into the cpu package.
reply