Two separate models from Huawei have swipe volume controls (freearc and freeclip). I’m not a earbud guru but my $25 anker buds have tap to hold volume controls (not swipe, I’m sure Apple is being specific for a reason), but no matter how you move the goalposts it’s a ridiculous claim.
can confirm my Huawei Freebud 4 have swipe volume controls, anc and do not have silicone tip. Which is one of the reasons I got them after my Gen 1 Airpods started to annoy me on Android.
No they don't. The two Huawei models mentioned are completely different form factors, that are much more open-ear and further from squishy silicone than any Airpods.
This is exactly the assumption that the carefully worded juice hopes you'll make. That Apple's claim to innovation precludes even a cursory glance at the competition
They don’t have the squishy silicone, but you sound so confident! Tim Apple or his replacement aren’t giving you any prizes for your shilling, it’s ok to like Apple products and see how stupid their marketing is.
As a fervent Claude Code user who made the switch to GPT 5.6 Sol over Opus 5 over hard-to-read prose this makes me happy. I love your product but the current models are very hard to work with if you need to do a lot of context switching. Brevity is key.
Brevity means less output tokens, which doesn’t really align with the AI vendors incentives (unless there is a causal relationship with people switching, of course).
Though Claude 5 is not too verbose, it’s more like, full of incomprehensible jargon (even when you’re expert in the domain discussed!)
> Brevity means less output tokens, which doesn’t really align with the AI vendors incentives
Actually, I think Jeavon's Paradox [1] means the opposite. If doing X is $100, you may only use it to do X, but not Y, Z, or W. If doing X is $33, maybe you'll use it for X, Y, Z, and W -- spending 1/3 more than you otherwise would.
Or perhaps not you personally, but maybe you'd be willing to spend $100, but three of your friends find it too expensive. If it's only $33 to accomplish some task, then maybe all four are now spending $33.
It’s messier for LLMs because you cannot easily compare the cost between runs, outside of benchmarks. Evaluating the value of the output is already extremely hard. But then you add the fact that you don’t know the cost of the output before it is generated. And Anthropic doesn’t share their tokenizers. It’s not as simple as your examples to get a signal that tells you to spend more or less
Which is something the providers that are trying to watermark their texts can't afford. Superfluous replies give much more opportunity to further encode this junk information.
You're assuming they're training the model to maximize the watermark signal, on top of already adding the watermark. I suspect that would hurt model performance quite a lot, and simply be unnecessary... the watermark tech works well enough as it is.
As far as I know, anthropic aren't intrinsically motivated by watermarking (if anything it hurts sales, and seems indifferent to safety(?)) they're simply doing it to fulfill the EU obligations.
> As far as I know, anthropic aren't intrinsically motivated by watermarking (if anything it hurts sales, and seems indifferent to safety(?)) they're simply doing it to fulfill the EU obligations.
They are. They want to reduce the amount of LLM generated text they feed into their next model training.
Also, how would you watermark a sentence with just 3 words for an example? This exactly why it became so verbose.
That would be a terrible tradeoff. The ship has already sailed and a lot of public AI content will not be their own. Deliberately making their product worse to reduce identifiability of AI inputs by 25% just doesn't sound worth it to me. Is that what you would pick if you were in charge of anthropic and wanted to maximise the company's product?
And what wisdom do you think they would be missing if unable to distinguish three word written pieces? Keep in mind that most sources are not inherently trustworthy just because they rate as human written, too. You need some other way to rate text in all cases.
Perhaps, but there are certainly now catchphrases and words that can indicate it was written with AI i.e. load-bearing, idempotent, etc. Style and structure are in and of themselves, a fingerprint.
Also a codex user but for me brevity is not it's strong suit. I basically have to give it bigger tasks than I am used to to warrant the time it takes to complete. I feel whatever context the tooling adds can also be problematic
It's not really brevity - it's the constant writing tropes. It's like they ready a book on advertising copy and that's the only way they can write. Very tedious. Is Sol much better? I might have to switch to that too!
Lets see what they do with Opus first. I didn't find Fable 5.0 prose that bad to read, but improvement is always welcome. It's Opus 5.0 that's atrocious.
I really don't like Wayland, I recently (last Friday) had to revert back to X because somehow they messed up enough that in Zoom screensharing during a meeting with XWayland can crash my audio drivers.
At this point I don't know who it is for, but it's not for users.
Yes, Zoom somehow turned into something like Skype, post acquisition.
But, at the same time. A design that requires everyone to implement their own protocols and everyone to refix the same bugs in their own compositor is inherintly bad.
I have been using Wayland as my daily driver. Some compositors lacked SHM support in their screen sharing, others have other issues. We only recently got proper text input support, and it took forever to fix in chrome and electron(it's been fixed for a few releases, but you'll still come across older electron software). How did they manage to make it so the cursor movement is dependent on the scaling mode in a way that client rendering library's need to be aware of it otherwise the cursor ends up in the wrong location by the way?.
In X, if the WM crashes, X is still running, and you can just restart the WM. In Wayland, if you hit a bug it takes everything down with it.
The first release was 14 years ago, we're still fixing screen sharing.
I just learned that despite all the boasting of fractional scaling support in Wayland, one of the base protocols, wl_output actually returns the same scaling mode for two screens even if they have a different scaling setting.
One thing I also never got is why the displays have to have absolute coordinates when you place them on a global coordinate system that is dependent on the scaling mode of the screen.
Also, KDE is the only WM that has managed to properly implement scaled Xwayland windows.
> But, at the same time. A design that requires everyone to implement their own protocols and everyone to refix the same bugs in their own compositor is inherintly bad.
Consider that if every DE wrote their own Xorg implementation the story would be the same.
A key question is why everyone is writing their own compositor, this is not about the protocol design, it's about the state of collaboration.
I spent some time in the last week fixing lowdpi font rendering in cosmic, enabling me to switch to it. I then discovered that cosmic-comp's VRR had a terrible feedback path causing conformant applications to stutter badly, so I have large patch stack rewiring full screen feedback, tranche compatibility, fence timing and so on (it's fucking buttery now though, which is nice). That then showed up some input processing bugs becoming visible via playing videos in firefox, leading further to me discovering that cross-plane locking was causing frame drops too. Now I've got a giant stack of shit I need to cleanup and upstream - but the end result (along with the freetype render patches I got into Firefox a while back) is a better DE than I've had on Linux in decades. Maybe if upstreaming goes well I'll do MPO for an encore.
> In X, if the WM crashes, X is still running, and you can just restart the WM. In Wayland, if you hit a bug it takes everything down with it.
See above, the WM did not need to embed the compositor. That's not a protocol requirement, it's and implementer choice. I actually really wish it didn't. Of all the aforementioned patches only two are in Smithay. As I was actually fixing compositing for the workflow I just had to suffer through I would have had to restart pretty much the whole session anyway - though in fact the later stages of my workflow I was only directly killing cosmic-comp and cosmic-session was automatically restarting it all. No really good way to recover the surfaces though, so apps still need to restart.
This is not unlike the _another_ bug stream I tracked down this evening, where cosmic-applets would fail to display tray icons on both displays correctly - that turned out to be a bug where one icon provider was unresponsive to part of the protocol, coupled with a synchronous dispatch from the event handle into that blocking return call. Perhaps more interestingly though that manifest during diagnosis something I've seen a lot in other DE chains where tray icons for auto-started electron apps were highly sketchy - well a common electron wrapper gives up entirely on the first whiff of an error with the dbus interface and doesn't retry.
Years ago I gave up on Linux DE's because reconfiguring xft, gnome, etc was too much of a time sink. How far I've come, now I'm back :'(
> A key question is why everyone is writing their own compositor, this is not about the protocol design, it's about the state of collaboration.
Dude, because that is how wayland is designed. X is a display server. Wayland is a protocol with implementation. If you want tiling, you have to roll your own, with ALL the protocols that are needed. It's up to clients to render. It was one of the fundamental critiques people had of the whole thing. 15 years in, and it's still the same. Need Vulkan rendering? See you in two years. And then every single WM has to implement it. Not even the basic premise of fractional scaling is solved properly, except in the one use case which is single monitor usage.
It's not about collaboration. wlroots was an attempt at having a standardized layer, and many protocols made it back into upstream actually. But even there, no two wlroots compositors are the same. We used to call these WMs, because the compositor layer could be separate on X. Anyway, bugs persist for years, some parts are never fixed, lots of basic features that existed in X for decades needed people to implement in their own compositor report back and then create a standardized protocol. So KDE has their own, gnome has their own, Hyprland recently rolled their own, etc.
And then there is of course gnome, which seems to want to break random basic functionality for no good reason(hello tray icons). Gnome of course didn't use to be like that.
But a plug, the absolute best wlroots based compositor I have used is mangowm[1][2]. You report a bug in the morning and in the afternoon dreammaomao has a solution for it. Of course I'm exaggerating a bit, but I think I've used pretty much every major Wayland compositor extensively so far.
Yes, but if any application can break the entire system audio, that's a bug in more than just the application. (Granted, I'm curious why Wayland would trigger that, given that I would expect the audio stack to be the same regardless.)
Not a fan of Zoom by any stretch - but I have to use it all the time for work, regularly use it on three different machines and over some questionable network connections, and it's never crashed on me once that I can recall.
All on X, though. I appreciate the principles behind Wayland, but sadly not the implementation.
Sure, but people don't really care about that. They care about it working, and if it works better under one environment than another, they'll blame the environment where it doesn't work as well. That's just natural.
Me too. I really wanted to like Cosmic but the hassles wayland causes with ordinary things like zoom is just not worth it. Plus all the progress with gaming that has been made on Linux, wayland ruins. I’m back to X and get off my lawn etc.
What is the issue with zoom on wayland? Granted I only use on a web browser but I have entered numerous zoom calls these last 6 months without any issue.
Yup pretty much. Desktop sharing on Chromium based browsers is fine (probably others but I can't vouch for them), it's fine on OBS Studio, portals work, etc...
But there's a contingent of Linux users that thinks anything new = bad so they'll find the most dogshit app that doesn't work and trot it out as proof that the new thing is bad.
For me zoom works out of the box on kde + wayland. But an app as popular as zoom working correctly for everyone is table stakes.
The fact some people are encountering issues just means that something in the transition wasn't perfect. Given the huge lift involved, it could have been a lot worse. I just wish there was clearer communication and strategies for transition from the wayland folks, and less fearmongering and entrenching from both sides.
On AMD hardware, VRR works fine on xorg and has for quite a long while now... so long as you have either a single active monitor (or maybe the restriction is just "don't have any active non-VRR monitors"). [0] I don't have Intel or Nvidia hardware so I can't test, but the Arch wiki says that they both work fine with VRR. [1]
The only Wayland feature that I've heard be commonly touted that xorg lacks is HDR support.
[0] I don't know which is it because I haven't bothered to go out and buy a second VRR-capable monitor.
Are you doing that with xorg or Wayland? If with xorg, have you verified that VRR is working? [0] If you've verified it, how'd you make it work? It'd be quite nice to have both multi-monitor and VRR... unless I have to make some terrible tradeoff to make it happen.
[0] My go-to is using the "scrolling bars" mode of this LÖVE program [1] to make judder at update rates that aren't an -er- even fraction of the screen's refresh rate pretty easy to spot... but if you have something that works for you, that's good.
I would never, ever, ever, use X in 2026 for general use. There would have to be some kind of niche and important business reason.
X, for all the teeth gnashing, is effectively a virtually dead, and virtually unsupported technology at this point. There are some small pockets here and there of people that really want or need it, and a few of those people are also working on tweaks and patches, but it's a tiny handful compared to the people and money and companies working on or with Wayland at this point. I know some people here are very upset about that.
Years and years ago Wayland sucked ass. Now? Performance and stability have been great on modern distros with modern kernels and GPUs. If performance was substantially worse or more clumsy to use with Wayland vs X, then I'd certainly be using X, but that's just not the case for me in 2026.
Yeah, I still use KDE with X11 because they somehow messed up their window management with Wayland. My problems aren't even about rendering or any those features, but for some reason kwin_wayland's window management is very buggy. I'm still on 6.6 on the distribution that I use, so I don't know if it's fixed in 6.7, but I doubt it since it is here for a long time. Reported it here: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=524083
My main WM is Window Maker but i use KDE Plasma for secondary accounts when i want to try stuff without 'polluting' my main user account.
I can only use X11 with KDE Plasma because, for some unfathomable reason, if i launch `startplasma-wayland` pressing ANY key on my keyboard causes it to crash.
I tried using the Zoom webapp on Firefox, on X11, for quite a while, but eventually I gave up and started using the native app. The web app is slow and burns CPU (and my laptop fans start going nuts), and for some reason the quality of the video that's coming out of my camera looks much worse on the webapp. (This isn't the case for Google Meet on Firefox, so it's something about Zoom's webapp.)
If I were to switch to Wayland and have to go back to the webapp for Zoom, that would be annoying.
(I'm not sure if all of those are necessary, but that's what I'm currently using.)
Then in Linux, make sure that you have the full versions of all the codecs installed; in Fedora, you need to install "mesa-va-drivers-freeworld" and "ffmpeg" from rpmfusion (and uninstall "mesa-va-drivers" and "ffmpeg-free" from the regular repos); for other distros, the steps should be similar.
But after all that, my Firefox uses only 20% of a single CPU to run Zoom, so my laptop is cool and the fan stays off.
(I agree that it's really annoying that all of these steps are needed just to make video work well, but they're orthogonal to Wayland, and would be needed with X11 in the browser too.)
> This isn't the case for Google Meet on Firefox, so it's something about Zoom's webapp.
Google Meet probably uses VP9 or AV1 (since both are developed by Google), and those are both patent-free so should have no issues on Linux. Whereas Microsoft Teams and Zoom only use h264, which for patent reasons is limited to software-only by default [0]. I'm guessing that Zoom Linux application likely embeds the relevant codecs, which would be why it works there without any extra steps.
Sure, I understand why most Linux distros omit proprietary codecs (and mostly agree with it). But to the average user, it's not easy to explain why h264 videos play out-of-the-box on Windows and macOS, while you need to first run some arcane terminal commands on Linux. And hardware decoding is even more confusing, because you would assume that the hardware manufacturer would have already paid any necessary royalties, but of course things can't be so simple [0].
But AV1 is starting to become fairly popular, and most of the h264 patents have expired, so this should all hopefully be a non-issue in a few years.
1. Most Linux distros install Firefox by default while very few install Chromium, so I suspect that most Linux users use Firefox (even though Chrome is far more popular in general).
2. On Fedora, openSUSE, and similar distros, the Mesa in the main repos is built without h264 hardware decoding support, so no applications will be able to use hardware decoding unless you run some terminal commands. That being said, the more user-friendly distros tend to have this enabled by default.
3. Chromium doesn't officially support hardware decoding on Linux at all [0], whereas Firefox does. (Hardware decoding still works, it's just not officially supported.)
4. Up until a few months ago [1], you had to start Chromium with some special flags [2] to enable hardware decoding.
5. Hardware decoding should be enabled in Firefox by default, so those "about:config" flags for Firefox that I mentioned above shouldn't be necessary in most cases, but since it wasn't working for the OP, I suggested those flags to force-enable it. (A few years ago, hardware decoding would crash occasionally, and Firefox automatically disables it if it has ever crashed in the past before. It's super stable now, but old installations will often have it disabled due to bugs that were fixed years ago.)
Sorry, my earlier posts were all talking about hardware decoding, so I had assumed that it was implied that I was talking about hardware decoding in this reply too. But I see that I never actually mentioned that anywhere, so my bad.
- Pipewire or Pulseaudio has nothing to do with XWayland, let alone Wayland (Pulseaudio is somewhat legacy and may not be maintained as well as it used to be)
- Zoom (the last time I checked, a while ago) wasn't really well implemented on Linux (came before xdg-desktop-portal, which has standardised screen sharing across DEs and only really prioritised the GNOME specific extensions.
- The engineering effort to properly support screen sharing on Linux is a _bit_ more complicated than other platforms as we have many DEs
- Browser based screen sharing is generally the best option on Linux imho
> - The engineering effort to properly support screen sharing on Linux is a _bit_ more complicated than other platforms as we have many DEs
It didn't have to be this way, but somehow the Wayland clique did not realize - or just dug their head in the sand - that things like screenshots or screen sharing are basic table stakes. Instead, they created an academic replacement for X11 and left it upon the community to plug the most obvious gaps.
Understandably, actual users tend to get kind of pissed when you break their computer without offering any replacement except "just quit your job and don't use Zoom" or "wait 10 years for Gnome to add protocol foobar to support it, but they will force you to use this half baked crap beforehand anyway".
Thankfully Windows and macOS have been doing their darndest to regress. Otherwise desktop Linux wouldn't stand a chance with such harebrained management. Only after a decade of biting teeth Wayland is finally ready for most.
Wayland simplified it significantly. Screen sharing is now done through xdg, and it's standardized. Meaning, you don't need to rewrite frail screensharing code for multiple desktops. You just use xdg and then boom - it works across every distro, every window manager, every compositor, every GPU.
Screensharing on X was hacky, and each application did their own thing to capture the screen. So sometimes it would work, sometimes it wouldn't, sometimes it would have horrible performance, sometimes your specific GPU would break it, etc. Some apps handled it better than others as well. Wayland solves this.
Yes that does mean you need to use xdg standards instead of the old code that barely worked. Yes that does mean some apps will take forever to adopt it because they don't care. But it is actually a better system.
And there's other really cool xdg protocols, too, that enable a type of cross platform design that was never possible on X.
This. I even install a "Zoom Redirector" Firefox plugin so it automatically opens Zoom links in the web url. Screen sharing works great in Firefox. Zoom's native app just expects Xorg, and probably hasn't been tested at all on anything else. Crappy performance on Wayland is not really a Wayland problem.
Working on a tool that uses their model and the Opus models are all guilty of this.
"Please run N tasks doing X for Y duration, I want to test something"
"Hmm but that would waste tokens, we shouldn't do this test"
What the hell type of product is that? I wasn't asking, I was ordering it to do something, if Anthropic can't get their model to do as I say then I'll just go use someone else's.
Sure but the GPUs in the article are from 2021 and cost ~500-600$ a pop. The OP bought 4 so that's 2k, let's say another 500$ for the rest of the chassis and you stand at $2.5k for a monster server that will burn electricity and warm your house.
Compare that to a $5k DGX than consumes much less and has the same amount of VRAM and there is a real question as whether this is worth doing at all (well aside from the cool factor).
More than half imo, my Forerunner 265S is pretty much a full-blown coach that fits on my wrist. It adapts training to my sleep (such a great feature when you've just had a baby) keeps track of load, low aerobic, high aerobic, etc...
It's been a fragile piece of hardware, I am on my 3rd one in as many years (always replaced under warranty though), but I still probably wouldn't switch to anything else. When it breaks out of warranty I'll just buy another one.
> Would they not be in favor of _less_ regulation so they can provide services to their users with fewer legal considerations?
Regulatory capture. If the handling of user messages requires constant scanning and there are enough rules that you need a team of lawyers, then only Google, Meta and Apple will be able to afford it.
Also without chat control they would have to follow much stricter eprivacy directive laws that makes many of their monetisation strategies ilegal.
It's briliant really... instead of trying to dismantle privacy regulations you push for new regulation that overrides them and make data mining users even mandatory.
Where did you get that impression? The main driver for Chat Control 2.0 is lobby org Internet Watch Foundation where Apple one of the main donors (along with Meta, Google, Microsoft, OpenAI)
In a same way - just because a charity claims they want to solve child porn doesn't mean that their real aim is to help their donors.
In any case the OP claimed "Apple is wholly against Chat Control." i don't think it's so wholly if Apple financially supports biggest pro Chat Control proponents. Even if Apple is aware of it or not.
That is regulatory capture but it really feels like it should be called something else.
If the laws are designed to directly benefit it makes sense like with the FAA allowing Boeing to self regulate to the point of killing a few hundred people. This feels more like bureaucratic capture or some other name, where the entity must be so large to interact.
It has the same effect and you are not wrong, I just wish it was clearer.
I cannot imagine Musk simply submitting to this sort of EU demand, and he has enough hue-and-cry capability on X to maneuver other tech firms into very uncomfortable positions in the same regard.
Dream on. X corp is one of the sponsors of Internet Watch Foundation who are the lobby group behind Chat Control. Musk might play how terrible this is for his audience but in reality they sell all the user data and train their models on it just like every other big tech corp.
Blud thinks musk has any principles, he is literally grifting for maga to stop immigration and then goes and facilitates h1b when there are plenty of talented workers that could be hired.
That guy is outright cheerleading fascists in European countries and wants to put them in power. Why would he want to take away such a powerful tool from them?
Once a law is passed that permits abuse of power, that new toy is available to whoever is in control of the government, which could be the parties he likes. Seen this kind of thing over and over again when one group gains control of a level of government, passes a bunch of authoritarian crap under the belief they have a mandate to rule forever, and then lose power, giving their opponents control over that new authoritarian toy. In the end, the political class gains more power and the public loses. What rarely happens is a change in leadership giving up the power the previous leadership gave itself.
The collapse was due to local coal mining no longer being viable, but it still demonstrates how it looks like when a city goes from 107000 people in 1960 to 5600 in 2025.
Large empty areas where homes and factories used to be, old billboards for stuff that no longer exists, whole school buildings and gymnasiums out of use and overgrown. Most shops closed or hardly open & few remaining occupied buildings in the middle of it.
Was a really special experience & the local coal mining museum was super interesting - just wondering for how long it can continue going...
The question really is - how does an abandoned town hurt us? Sure, there may be some sympathy and loss for "what once was" (same as the pictures of the abandoned classrooms in Prypiat).
The US has had similar things happen but the spread out population has given it some resiliency (many towns that "collapsed" when the mill/factory/whatever shut down continue in a strange afterlife as a suburb of a nearby city).
One general side effect is harder access to affected regions - with less people to serve public transport gets reduced or even abandoned entirely (affect rail lines the most, due to the necessary maintenance needed for safe operation). IIRC there are numerous rural lines scheduled to be closed in the near future in Hokkaido for example (and of course a bunch of them got abolished in the Yubari area).
Is this a problem ? I guess not really & it might actually help the nature regenerate in those areas.
Where it can be a bigger problem is various small islands - where the islands being inhabited makes a big difference in territorial claims & is a very important thing in regards to what China has been doing (building artificial islands, etc.). For that reason I suspect the Japanese government subsidizes island communities quite heavily to keep them going & keeping suverenity over those islands and the surrounding sea.
Cancun has one of the highest murder rates in the world. But I guess we shouldn't care about it because thousands of Americans fly there for vacation every day.
Or are you joking? I hope so, because it takes a certain kind of stupid to not understand the very very bad things that a shrinking population would cause.
No Man's Sky suffers from planets being "deserts", they have different attributes but it's still a fairly lifeless empty world.
Ironically this is realistic but also not terribly fun as a player.
reply