I am a longtime Windows user and it brings me absolutely no joy to report that the M4 I am forced to use for work runs the Rust compiler a good bit faster than the big fancy gaming PC I just got with a 9800X3D.
Rust literally compiles ~4x faster on WSL than on the Windows command line, on the same hardware, so try that and see. Also set up the mold or wild linker as well as sccache, although sccache is OS agnostic so you can use it on macOS too. Make sure your code is on the WSL side not on /mnt/c which is the Windows side though, that will kill compilation speed.
That has not been my experience at all; I get pretty much the same times on the same machine on Linux and Windows. Something weird has happening to that person. Someone mentioned Defender, and that could certainly be it, as I have it totally disabled (forcibly, by deleting the executable).
WSL is fantastic - apart from the fact that you need to clear it intermittently via disk compression. I use it for work and it's great until you get something incredibly frustrating, like needing a pass-through for your hardware.
The one thing I can say with my macbook as someone who's switched from a decade of windows, is that stuff tends to just work, minus window swithcing.
I'd wager that's more likely due to Windows than the hardware. Like sure the hardware does play a part in that but its not the whole story or even most of it.
My C++ projects have a python heavy build system attached where the main script that runs to prepare everything and kick off the build, takes significantly longer to run on Windows than Linux on the same hardware.
Afaik a lot of it is ntfs. It’s just so slow with lots of small files. Compare unzipping moderately large source repos on windows vs. POSIX, it’s day and night.
A big part of it is that NT has to check with the security manager service every time it does a file operation.
The original WSL for instance was a very NT answer to the problem of Linux compatibility: NT already had a personality that looked like Windows 95, just make one that looks like Linux. It worked great with the exception of the slow file operations which I think was seen as a crisis over Redmond because many software developers couldn’t or wouldn’t use WSL because of the slow file operations affecting many build systems. So we got the rather ugly WSL2 which uses a real Linux filesystem so the files perform like files on Linux.
I don't know about ugly. Virtualization seems like a more elegant solution to the problem, as I see it. Though it also makes WSL pointless; I don't get why people use it instead of just using Hyper-V.
Honestly, just cause it's easier if you've never done any kind of container or virtual os stuff before. It comes out of the box with windows, it's like a 3 click install and it usually "just works". Most people just want to run Linux things and don't care too much about the rest of the process
Try adding your working directory to the exclusions for windows defender, or creating a Dev Drive instead in settings (will create a separate partition, or VHD using ReFS and exclude it from Windows defender). Should give it a bit of a boost.
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.
This shouldn't be surprising. macOS has a faster filesystem+VFS than Windows, and the single thread perf of the M4 beats most PC cpus. I'm not sure what linker rust uses, but the apple native ld64/ldPrime is also pretty fast as far as linkers go.
Windows is also slow enough at forking, that clang has "in-process CC1" mode because of it.
Everyone compares Go to Rust. This AI-generated slop mentions Rust at the top, then launches into an explanation of how Go is not like Zig, where Rust is also not like Zig, but instead is extremely like Go. This answers no questions at all about the argument people actually participate in.
I've found in at least two instances Grokipedia had something Wikipedia didn't.
One was looking up who "Ray Peat" was after encountering it on Twitter. Grok was obviously a bit more fawning over this right-aligned figure but Wikipedia had long since entirely deleted its page, so I didn't have much of a choice. Seems bizarre to just not have a page on a subject discussed every day on Twitter.
The other is far more impactful IMO. Every politician's or political figure's page on Wikipedia just goes "Bob is a politician. In 2025 <list of every controversial thing imaginable>". You have no idea what he's about and what he represents; you don't even have any idea if anyone cared, since all this was added at that moment in 2025 and not updated since. Grokipedia does not do this at all. If you want to know about someone's actual political career, Grokipedia weights recent controversies equal to past controversies and isolates it all to a section specifically for controversies. (The same also happens in reverse for hagiographies; Grok will often be much more critical of e.g. minor activists.)
>Seems bizarre to just not have a page on a subject discussed every day on Twitter.
The idea that if a guy writes “avocados cause cancer and honey cures it” he should be put in the encyclopedia if it gets enough retweets is the organizing principle behind grokipedia. It would be much more bizarre to expect a serious encyclopedia to work the same way for no good reason.
Other, much dumber nutrition cranks like Anthony William and Gary Null have Wikipedia pages. Fundamentally, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to be the place that you go to when you hear a concept and want to look up what it is.
You are welcome to join the conversation and try and convince everyone maintaining Wikipedia that random peoples' tweets should be considered a reliable source. Both those other people you mention have been mentioned multiple times in various reliable articles (see the bibliography), while the only thing I can find online about Ray Peat is something that looks a whole lot like blogspam on usnews.com.
The existence of some nutrition pseudoscientists that meet Wikipedia’s threshold of notability does not mean that being a nutrition pseudoscientist by itself qualifies a person as being sufficiently notable. Wikipedia doesn’t need an exhaustive list of every kook with weird opinions about food, there are other websites for that, like grokipedia.
If you hear a name in an internet argument, and want to know who that person is, and one site is more likely than the other to contain it, that site is definitionally the better encyclopedia in the moment. If you arbitrarily define notability so as not to include the guy who came up with the seed oil craze presently informing the federal health policy of the United States, you're just giving away part of the game for no reason. Like Stallman deliberately throwing away GPL compiler share dominance by refusing to make GCC a library, and now we've got a million proprietary LLVM compilers. Wikipedia isn't the gatekeeper of notability, such that refusing to have an article on some niche topic will prevent it getting oxygen. All it does is ensure that your first search result will be sympathetic to his fringe views, instead of critical.
This seems like you should take up your concern about Ray Peat with Wikipedia directly.
For me, it seems obvious that Ray Peat is not particularly notable — even if his self-published manuscripts made him a sort of personal hero to a handful of niche micro influencers on one of the big four social media websites. A quick google shows that he did not “come up with the seed oil craze”
If I had to guess what’s happened here, it looks like maybe some right-wing micro influencers tweeted that Ray Peat was more notable than he really was and those tweets weren’t convincing to Wikipedia editors.
It is good to have notability standards, even if somewhat arbitrary. It protects the site and its editors from being obligated to document and take seriously every silly thing that nano-celebrities and trolls try to will into existence through their tweets.
Especially since there is already a website for exactly that, grokipedia.
> Every politician's or political figure's page on Wikipedia just goes "Bob is a politician. In 2025 <list of every controversial thing imaginable>".
Are we searching for the same political figures? I just punched in three random politicians on Wikipedia (Lavrov, Rubio, Sanders) and all of their introductory paragraphs are a list of their past and present political offices. Legacy and controversy is reserved for it's own heading, or pushed into the back of the summary.
For most public officials, that seems like a fair shake. The only outliers I can think of are obviously-reviled figures like Joe Kony, Cecil Rhodes or Adolph H., who should probably get condemned above the fold for the courtesy of the reader.
Ray Peat seems completely unremarkable besides the Bronze Age Pervert group name dropping him a lot. He is mentioned in the BAP wikipedia article. It can of cause be debated, but I feel his notable is low enough for a general reader, to not warrant an article on his person.
Ive noticed similar. I dont like the site, bit hopefully wiki are away of this and learn something from it. Some pages read like they were written by zealots rather than people documenting facts.
If you aren't aware, your phone's screen can go much dimmer than the minimum brightness offered by the slider, if it supports HDR. There are apps that use an HDR screen overlay to lower brightness all the way down to the dimmest you can perceive. In my own experience, 'half' the brightness of 'minimum' brightness is plenty dark enough to not disturb sleeping at all if using my phone in bed.
HTML requires you to understand symbolic representations, where <> means something special. It is more verbose, but no more structurally complex, than Markdown. It does not require you to understand imperative dynamic logic. Getting the hang of symbolic representations is easy, and getting the hang of imperative programming is very hard and most people can't do it. That's why the dividing line is where it is. Making a static bulleted list isn't a 'capability' in HTML if you weren't thinking it was one in Markdown, and inventing your own precisely crafted definition with no purpose other than to include HTML then calling all others unreasonable doesn't convince anyone.
If by illegal you mean a spelled-out loophole that the EPA only decided they didn't like in retrospect. Businesses are run by people that think this is a level of forward-thinking-ness that they aspire to, not something to be avoided. (Source: my own CEO.)
For those who do not know, Adams was still putting up daily Dilbert strips, just for paid subs on Twitter instead of in a newspaper. I think it's impressive he didn't stop until the end, even though AIUI he was in serious pain for a while. (He did stop doing the art himself in Nov.)
Because when you don't do this, people get scammed out of money.
If there is a series of buttons you can press to circumvent the anti-scam measures, then the scammers simply walk you through pressing those buttons. If you cover them in giant warning labels the scammers simply add explanations into their patter. The buttons must physically not exist, for gullible people to not get scammed out of money.
The next response will be 'well maybe we shouldn't accommodate them'. They vote, and there's more of them than you.
> Because when you don't do this, people get scammed out of money.
No, only when you don't do this and nothing else to improve security. You're presenting a false dichotomy.
> If there is a series of buttons you can press to circumvent the anti-scam measures, then the scammers simply walk you through pressing those buttons.
If the scammers can walk somebody through doing all that, why would they stop at just asking them to send money over to them "to safekeep it because of a compromised account" or whatever the social engineering scheme of the week is?
One of the benefits or downsides of a government depending on who you ask is that it can help stop people from making bad decisions that hurt people around them. Bad decisions rarely hurt only one person.
They represent more of the customer base, and a larger voting bloc, than tech nerds. You can offer your opinion of what society exists for, and the rest of society doesn't have to listen to it. The only actual leverage tech nerds who aren't billionaires have is when the particular ones who work for Google are asked to implement these features.
> Because when you don't do this, people get scammed out of money.
Bullshit. Big tech's war on general purpose computing hasn't stopped scam. It's a pretext for rent seeking and control and you know it. It's the reason we don't have a popular ecosystem of FOSS alternatives on mobile. It's the reason we can't run virtual machines on tablets when the hardware very much can.
If combating scam is a priority of big tech, I know where to start. Get rid of ads! That would actually be enormously effective as it gets rid of the primary entry point of scams.
> If there is a series of buttons you can press to circumvent the anti-scam measures
So the best you can come up with is an imaginary button on phones that can magically circumvent checks that should be implemented server-side? Have you any idea how software works?
Or rig screens such that the buttons do not appear to be what they are. I've seen many a install-this-app ads where cancel isn't cancel.
The average user simply does not have the skill to determine real from fake and any heuristics to do so will be defeated by the scammers. You have to be able to understand what could be done with access, not what's "intended" with the access.
> If there is a series of buttons you can press to circumvent the anti-scam measures, then the scammers simply walk you through pressing those buttons. If you cover them in giant warning labels the scammers simply add explanations into their patter. The buttons must physically not exist, for gullible people to not get scammed out of money.
We shouldn't be protecting someone that gullible at the expense of everyone else who is smart enough to actually read whats on the screen and not fall for such simple scams.
Not that long ago most of this forum was very much against giving up freedoms in favor of catering to the lowest common denominator. What happened?
People need to take responsibility for their own actions and educate themselves, not rely on a lack of freedom to protect them.
Two very similar things are presented as though they are different (go.mod and lockfiles, not go.sum) for the purpose of sneering at one of them, when both are essentially the same. 'Ignored by downstream dependents' is not any less true of go.mod than of lockfiles. In both cases a later version can be demanded, overriding the earlier version, potentially breaking your code.
reply