This might be reflected in upcoming metrics reported on Friday if the IPO goes through. It seems aligned with improving subscriber growth metrics, smoothing out upfront hardware costs into predictable monthly revenue, and generally increasing adoption by lowering the barrier to entry. Curious if anyone closely following the IPO story has more context on this.
I’ve been using AirPods Max since they first launched, and over the years I’ve tried several times to switch to Bose.
However, the Bose headphones just haven’t worked as smoothly for me from a software and integration standpoint. I tend to run into more glitches and small issues compared to the AirPods Max. I’m not sure whether that’s primarily a Bose issue or something related to Apple’s ecosystem, but my guess is that other high-end headphones probably face similar integration challenges when paired with an iPhone.
I also have the AirPods Max and had the Bose QuietComfort Ultra, and it is hard to convey how effortless the Max are in comparison. The switching between devices is so seamless (if you are in the Apple ecosystem). The controls are also much easier to find and use.
Maybe someone here has tackled this before. I’m trying to connect Antigravity or Cursor with GLM/Qwen coding models, but haven’t had any luck so far. I can easily run Open-WebUI + LLaMA on my 5090 Ubuntu box without issues. However, when I try to point Antigravity or Cursor to those models, they don’t seem to recognize or access them. Has anyone successfully set this up?
I don't believe Antigravity or Cursor work well with pluggable models. It seems to be impossible with Antigravity and with Cursor while you can change the OAI compatible API endpoint to one of your choice, not all features may work as expected.
My recommendation would be to use other tools built to support pluggable model backends better. If you're looking for a Claude Code alternative, I've been liking OpenCode so far lately, and if you're looking for a Cursor alternative, I've heard great things about Roo/Cline/KiloCode although I personally still just use Continue out of habit.
https://learn.cisecurity.org/benchmarks - this seems broken at least right now. Are these benchmarks on github so that I can download and run it on a linux box?
It’s misleading to cite two government-funded supercomputers as evidence that NVIDIA lacks monopoly power in HPC and AI:
- Government-funded outliers don’t disprove monopoly behavior. The two AMD-powered systems on the TOP500 list—both U.S. government funded—are exceptions driven by procurement constraints, not market dynamics. NVIDIA’s pricing is often prohibitive, and its dominance gives it the power to walk away from bids that don’t meet its margins. That’s not competition—it’s monopoly leverage.
- Market power isn't disproven by isolated wins. Monopoly status isn’t defined by having every win, but by the lack of viable alternatives in most of the market. In commercial AI, research, and enterprise HPC workloads, NVIDIA owns an overwhelming share—often >90%. That kind of dominance is monopoly-level control.
- AMD’s affordability is a symptom, not a sign of strength. AMD's lower pricing reflects its underdog status in a market it struggles to compete in—largely because NVIDIA has cornered not just the hardware but the entire CUDA software stack, developer ecosystem, and AI model compatibility. You don't need 100% market share to be a monopoly—you need control. NVIDIA has it.
In short: pointing to a couple of symbolic exceptions doesn’t change the fact that NVIDIA’s grip on the GPU compute stack—from software to hardware to developer mindshare—is monopolistic in practice.
