I think this is a false dichotomy because which approach is acceptable depends heavily on context, and good engineers recognize this and are capable of adapting.
Sometimes you need something to be extremely robust and fool-proof, and iterating for hours/days/weeks and even months might make sense. Things that are related to security or money are good examples.
Other times, it's much more preferable to put something in front of users that works so that they start getting value from it quickly and provide feedback that can inform the iterative improvements.
And sometimes you don't need to iterate at all. Good enough is good enough. Ship it and forget about it.
I don't buy that AI users favor any particular approach. You can use AI to ship fast, or you can use it to test, critique, refactor and optimize your code to hell and back until it meets the required quality and standards.
Yes, it is a false dichotomy but describes a useful spectrum. People fall on different parts of the spectrum and it varies between situations and over time as well. It can remind one that it is normal to feel different from other people and different from what one felt yesterday.
Too risky, and doesn't make sense from a cost-benefit perspective. Iran uses cheap and disposable weapons that are also effective. If you think about how much a single US ship costs, and the political price of US service members dying, I think the picture becomes clear.
The decision of the US Navy to not provide escort services makes perfect sense and it is no surprise.
The only thing that is newsworthy about it is that this has exposed yet another lie of Trump, who at some point has promised that the traffic will not be affected, because USA will provide such escort services.
Yeah, listen... I'm glad these types of studies are being conducted. I'll say this though: the difference between pre- and post-Opus 4.5 has been night and day for me.
From August 2025 through November 2025 I led a complex project at work where I used Sonnet 4.5 heavily. It was very helpful, but my total productivity gains were around 10-15%, which is pretty much what the study found. Once Opus came out in November though, it was like someone flipped a switch. It was much more capable at autonomous work and required way less hand-holding, intervention or course-correction. 4.6 has been even better.
So I'm much more interested in reading studies like this over the next two years where the start period coincides with Opus 4.5's release.
Very much agree. Gave a presentation on AI to a group earlier this week and I spent a third of the time talking about the Opus 4.5 inflection point in AI history. First time using that model the day it was released it was so clear that it knew what it was doing at a different level. People still jump around to different models or tools or time frames when talking about AI and usefulness, but those have no meaning if they’re not using the Opus 4.5 and 4.6 models and anthropic harnesses of Claude code or cowork.
I’m interested in the studies along with the history of AI and if they’re going to realize that was the point when things changed, because for us devs, that was the moment.
I gave a similar presentation in January which covers the AI features that emerged in 2025 that culminated in the step-function in capability in Nov'25 and where I went from there.... (certainly my GitHub activity is bright green since)
The presentation was created with Claude Code to prove itself; never going back to Keynote/PowerPoint. Press 'X' key to disable "safe mode". Prompts are in the repo.
> It was very helpful, but my total productivity gains were around 10-15%, which is pretty much what the study found. Once Opus came out in November though, it was like someone flipped a switch. It was much more capable at autonomous work and required way less hand-holding, intervention or course-correction. 4.6 has been even better.
>> The number of overlapping iPad models and variants, for example, is getting kind of crazy these days.
One of the first things Steve Jobs immediately did after returning to Apple in 1997 was to kill most of Apple's product line-up, which had exploded in his absence.
Too bad he's not around to save them from the same over-segmentation anymore.
I think It makes sense for iPad line up to be this way. Very clear feature segmentation that make sense. Most is directly result of underlying hardware. For consumer it's also very easy:
- decide on size
- go from your budget
- if still too many SKUs go by features
What features? Thunderbolt, Screen, Apple Pencil, Face ID
Alternatively if you know what features you want, start with that.
If you're struggling to choose which iPad you need then you might want an iPad for the sake of having an iPad (in which case get Air).
Yeah, I don't think this lineup is particular crazy:
- 8.3", one tier (mini)
- 11", three tiers (iPad, Air, Pro)
- 13", two tiers (Air, Pro)
Could you spend the same amount of money on a regular 11" iPad with a lot of storage, or an iPad Air with less storage? Sure.
Some people want lots of storage. Other people don't care but want a wide gamut screen, faster processor, and better pen capabilities.
It's nothing like trying to pick a laptop from Dell where you have to spend hours digging around to even figure out what your options are. If someone asked me which iPad to buy we could figure it out in under 5 minutes.
IMO it's telling that the lineup here is bucketized by screen size and not model. Screen size, processor performance, storage, sensors, etc are ambiguous concepts that don't mean much in their own merit. People don't really think "my priority is 8.3 inches"; people think in terms of use cases and cost.
For laptops the buckets are portability and performance. These two will always be at odds, and people will gladly prioritize one over the other; these are the ingredients you need for creating a model lineup. Each model prioritizes something different:
- Affordability, MacBook Neo
- Portability, MacBook Air
- Performance, MacBook Pro
There's people who will be carry this machine everywhere and will gladly sacrifice performance for portability. There's people who will gladly use a laptop as essentially a desktop they can occasionally move if it means maximum power. You even see this in the wider market; there's a clear category of laptops praised by their portability (ultrabooks), and another group praised by their power (gaming laptops).
I don't think there's an equivalent for tablets, since people don't really seem to need them for that much (lol). Apple has been focusing a lot on portability, but the market of people who carry their tablet everywhere isn't really that big, most people use them at home [1]. Digital nomads, students, PMs hopping around meetings: they're on laptops. Same with performance; people who need performance are on laptops.
The killer use-cases for tablets seem to be drawing and media consumption, but not only is drawing not a huge market, these two aren't at odds. Both are better with a better, bigger screen. A single dimension for improvement doesn't give you the ingredients for creating a model lineup, it gives you the ingredients for a price ladder where more money just gets you a bigger, better screen.
I think the iPad's lineup could be simplified to just one model, but I understand Apple want's to have several for marketing and price-ladder delineation, like it does with the iPhone. In that case, I think like the iPhone, the iPad could do with less overlap:
- 8.3", $ (iPad mini, affordable)
- 11", $$ (iPad, standard)
- 13", $$$ (iPad Pro, better in pretty much every way)
And keep the iPad Air in the same space as the iPhone Air, a novelty luxurious product that isn't the fastest nor the most affordable, but showcases premium hardware and what the future could look like.
I think Apple doesn't do this because it hopes to discover what people want through the grid of different screen size, thinness, performance, etc permutations that currently exist, but oh well.
> People don't really think "my priority is 8.3 inches"
I have 12.9" iPad Pro, my priority was thunderbolt and screen size, but mainly screen size (battery life is given on Apple devices).
I also have iPad Mini where my priority was...bigger than the biggest iPhone, smaller than regular iPad.
> The killer use-cases for tablets seem to be drawing and media consumption, but not only is drawing not a huge market, these two aren't at odds. Both are better with a better, bigger screen.
It's like all-season tires, does not exceed in any particular field. I use my iPad for casual CAD with 3d printing in mind, it works great. I also use it as a bedroom screen on stand by the bed. Can two separate devices do a better job? Yes, but I don't need
> For laptops the buckets are portability and performance.
iPads not bucketed like this because you're not buying iPad for performance.
> I think the iPad's lineup could be simplified to just one model, but I understand Apple want's to have several for marketing and price-ladder delineation, like it does with the iPhone
Sure they can. This would lead to less overall sales. Right now 11" buyer have whole 3 feature set selections to choose from. I'd get rid of Pro, but not everyone needs 11" and Air features.
> People don't really think "my priority is 8.3 inches"
Disagree, at least coming from a current iPad owner. I’m on an 8 year old 12.9” iPad Pro and if I bought a new iPad today it would be 11” because that’s the size I’d rather have at this point.
So hypothetically it’s between the Regular, Air, and Pro, and I would get the Air because I want the better screen and stylus compatibility but wouldn’t spend $1000 for it.
They're suggesting a hypothetical lineup would be cleaner if that weren't the case.
I don't disagree, but Apple seems to treat the Mini as an afterthought side project that gets updated every 3 years or so, compared to the mainline iPad being updated yearly from 2017 to 2022. Then it had a gap until 2025, apparently taking a while to get the slim bezel redesign down to the affordable model.
If the mini were the default affordable entry point they'd need to keep it up to date but they've decided not enough people want a mini for it to be worth that effort.
The goal is different. Jobs wanted to make the product spread simple to understand.
Apple's current method is a pricing ladder, make it simple to spend $200+ more than you planned.
MacBook Neo, $599. Great but maybe I want Touch ID & more storage, ok $699. Well at this point now it's "only" $300 to get the air which is much better. Well, now that you're already spending $1000, might as well just do the extra $500 and get the pro..."
Every product lineup is designed that way. It gets you thinking "eh, what's an extra $200" and slowly moves you up until you land at the highest tier.
Now that everything is using the same silicon, it costs Apple very little to maintain all these variants (that are mostly binning), so there's little reason not to.
I think you are completely misremembering what the Apple product lineup looked like even with the Steve Jobs cleanup. At its absolute simplest, it contained the iMac, iBook, PowerMac and PowerBook lines. Within each line was a "Good", "Better" and "Best" pre-configured model each being a few hundred different from the other and each of those models was further configurable to add additional storage / memory etc.
That level of simplicity lasted from approximately 1999 to 2002 when the 14 inch iBooks, the 17 inch iMacs and the eMacs were introduced, followed by the 12 and 17 inch powerbooks in 2003. By 2005 they had also introduced the Mac Mini. And again most of these had a "good", "better", "best" variant, though in some cases (like the first 17 inch iMacs, the "best" tier was also the next model variant).
Apple's lineup is undeniably more complicated now than it has been in the past, but the simplification was never really about cutting model types down, so much as it was about making distinct model categories that people could easily understand why they would pick one or the other.
I think they still do a relatively good job at retaining that distinction, and I agree that the iPad lineup is probably the most muddled. Though special mention goes to the "Macbook Pro with M4 Pro" branding, which anyone should have caught and thought that maybe they needed a better moniker than "Pro" for the processor variant (and of course also, is the "Pro", the "Max" or the "Ultra" the best?)
> Now that everything is using the same silicon, it costs Apple very little to maintain all these variants (that are mostly binning), so there's little reason not to.
Don't underestimate how much of a bitch it is to maintain all the separate SKUs. This isn't the old CTO days where you had: 1 chassis, N mainboards for different CPU/GPU combinations, a bunch of SODIMM's of varying capacities, and a couple of different fixed storage drives to toss in.
When any given MBP has 2 CPU/GPU options, multiple memory options, and multiple storage options, with everything being soldered to the board? Honestly, the Neo is the one product in their portable lineup that doesn't cause a massive headache for logistics.
But...even then, Tim Cook is CEO still, and he is a supply chain guy, so you better believe this is top of his list when it comes to their product lineup. You don't increase operational complexity for no reason, because that is where the cost for every product lies for them, it's not just dealing with silicon binning.
> But...even then, Tim Cook is CEO still, and he is a supply chain guy, so you better believe this is top of his list when it comes to their product lineup. You don't increase operational complexity for no reason, because that is where the cost for every product lies for them, it's not just dealing with silicon binning.
Sure... but when looking at sales numbers, HP and Apple are tied by monthly sales volume on Amazon [1], with everyone else being widely behind them. But HP has almost 300 models, Apple much, much less - and Apple can react much, much faster because they almost directly run the production sites and mostly sell themselves, so they can produce an initial run of products and whenever a store or a region runs out of one specific variant, they just tell Foxconn to, say, instead of making a run with black casings they now make a day worth of gray casings, ship that onto a plane and that's it. HP, Dell et al? Their inventory gets distributed by an intricate web of middlemen who all need buffer.
Those kind of pricing ladders are "fine" because at no point do you have to really make a decision. The problem is when it splits and you have a tree where what branch you go down precludes you from options on the other branch you might want.
> MacBook Neo, $599. Great but maybe I want Touch ID & more storage, ok $699. Well at this point now it's "only" $300 to get the air which is much better.
Yes
>Well, now that you're already spending $1000, might as well just do the extra $500 and get the pro..."
Disagree. The Air offers additional utility and longevity for the price, the Pro offers nothing that 90% of people will ever perceive.
I know a ton of people for whom the $500 would be nothing, but still get an Air rather than a Pro. Obviously, that’s not great data, but I feel like the jump from Air to Pro just doesn’t happen or won’t happen compared to jumps from Neo to Air.
This article tries to paint the fact that the US struck a military base as proof that they also struck as school with no evidence to join the two events. The title is literally just clickbait.
Man, the overwhelming majority of your comments over the past several months are you whining about AI or being extremely salty about anything remotely AI related. You bash AI content, people who use AI to make cool stuff, AI companies, people who say anything positive about said companies... I really wonder what exactly you think your negative attitude contributes to these discussions.
It contributes far more than yet another low effort AI-generated Show HN on top of the dozens already submitted every day.
If you think you made "cool stuff" with AI, great, enjoy it, but also please keep it to yourself because anyone else can generate the exact same thing if they want it, you are not special, and are actively downing out real human effort and passion.
I would say this doesn't actually work well for UX, because people are more likely to know their street address and city than their zip code. Personally, every time I've moved over the years, it took a few weeks for me to internalize my new zip code.
Sometimes you need something to be extremely robust and fool-proof, and iterating for hours/days/weeks and even months might make sense. Things that are related to security or money are good examples.
Other times, it's much more preferable to put something in front of users that works so that they start getting value from it quickly and provide feedback that can inform the iterative improvements.
And sometimes you don't need to iterate at all. Good enough is good enough. Ship it and forget about it.
I don't buy that AI users favor any particular approach. You can use AI to ship fast, or you can use it to test, critique, refactor and optimize your code to hell and back until it meets the required quality and standards.
reply