I will say, I don't love the use of LLMs to write these bug reports. It's probably fine if reviewed, but at least review for things like "worked on macOS 25", which obviously didn't exist. If that wasn't caught, how sure are you that the rest of the report is accurate? We all want the bugs fixed, but people are going to start throwing out the obviously LLM written reports rather than have to validate each claim, since the author probably didn't.
Trivially, it's the difference between medium, and message/content.
On one axis, whether message is spoken, written via pen or typewriter or word processor, sent electronically, faxed,mailed, etc - it is fundamentally a communication from one human being to another, even if medium / mechanics differ.
The other axis is actual content - genuine human interaction, intent, message and connection, vs a result of a prompt.
There is no confusion, when in receipt of something written using a word processor, that it was so written, and people are free to respond accordingly (though, of course, most of us don't care). There is no such certainty with products generated by AI, so it is appropriate responsibly to disclose it.
It's been this way for decades. Microsoft was known for preserving backwards compatibility, while Apple was known for being willing to break stuff.
The differences aren't that extreme in reality: Microsoft breaks stuff more than it used to, while Apple has become comparatively more conservative than once upon a time.
I think it's fine to have an llm write a first or second draft of something, then go through and reword most of it to be in your own voice.
With LLMs this is less clear, you don’t get the old school artifacts, instead you get hallucinations, and very subtle errors that completely alter the meaning while leaving the sentence intact enough that your reader might not know this is a machine translation error.
and it will also "clean up" the text to the point where important nuances and tangents get removed/transformed into some perfect literature where it loses its meaning and/or significance
Quite frankly, while having an LLM draft and rewriting it would be okay, I do not believe it is reasonable to expect that to ever happen. It will be either like high school paper plagarism (Just change around some of the sentences and rephrase it bro), or it will simply not even get that much. It is unreasonable with what we know about human psychology to expect that "Human-Rewrites of LLM drafts", at the level that the human contributes something, are maintainable and scalable; Most people psychologically can't put in that effort.
It might give efficiency gains for the writer, but the reader has to read the slop and try to guess at what it was intending to communicate and weed out "hallucinations". That's a big loss of efficiency for the reader.
The purpose of written language is to express your thoughts or ideas to others. If you're synthesizing text and then refining it you're not engaging in that practice.
Plus, when someone wrote the documentation, I can ask the author about details and they'll probably know since they had enough domain expertise and knowledge of the code to explain anything that might be missing. I can't trust you to know anything about the code you had an AI generate and then had an AI write documentation for.
Then there's the accuracy issue. Any documentation can always be inaccurate and it can obviously get outdated with time, but at least with human-authored documentation, I can be confident that the content at some point matched a person's best understanding of the topic. With AI, no understanding is involved; it's just probabilistically generated text, we've all hopefully seen LLMs generate plausible-sounding but completely wrong text enough to somewhat doubt their output.
The choice is not usually “have humans write amazing top notch documentation, or use an LLM”.
The choice is usually “have sparse, incomplete, out-of-date documentation… or use an LLM”.
I have done a lot of technical writing in my career, and documenting things is exactly where you run into the worst design problems before they go live.
Apply this argument to code, to art, to law, to medicine.
It fails spectacularly.
Blaming the tool for the failure of the person is how you get outrageous arguments that photography cant be art, that use of photoshop makes it not art...
Do you blame the hammer or the nail gun when the house falls down, or is it the fault of the person who built it?
If you dont know what you're doing, it isnt the tools fault.
Lawyers thoughtfully write laws that other lawyers understand. I’m not sure why that’s confusing.
Presenting synthesized words as original thought isn't using a tool, it's laziness at best.
Maybe the poster is running a local LLM.. you’d think that a SOTA model would have surmised that an overnight MacOS upgrade can only be a minor version.
The solution to this form of elitism was not to make everyone speak RP, but to encourage non-RP accents, which is more common in the modern BBC.
Your comment seems elitist by encouraging the use of artifice to fit better into an elitist world, rather than breaking down elitism.
For example, you chose to read my response and attack the vocabulary as if that was the point I was trying to make. This is a misunderstanding. I am purposefully reusing the word choice of the comment I'm replying to.
I was trying to very concisely point out that if an LLM is generating your writing it is not your words or your thoughts that you're trying to communicate.
- Reference Presets no longer allow setting arbitrary SDR nits, making it impossible to natively unlock 1600nits of brightness on MacBook Pros or 2000nits on Studio Display XDR which breaks my Lunar app [0] (this seems to be intended, no idea what hurt Apple that they had to block this under SIP)
- The orange microphone dot indicator and its very colored friends can no longer have their brightness changed for dimming them, which made my YellowDot app useless [1] (I guess this is for privacy, I still think this could have a setting guarded under TouchID like Accessibility Permissions works)
- Floating non-titled windows don't accept mouse events (thankfully this got fixed) [2]
- Gamma table changes don't work on MacBook Neo and M5 Pro/Max which breaks Sub-zero Dimming and dimming external monitors that don't support DDC (thankfully, Apple is looking into it) [3]
- The resizing area thing on very rounded windows which drives everyone nuts, I had to add custom resize handlers to some of my windows
- The `com.apple.SwiftUI.Drag-` temporary file paths that get generated for any file that gets dragged from a drag&drop handler which makes it impossible to get to the original file when dragging images from Clop [4] or file shelf apps like Yoink, Dropover etc.
- NSImage returning different pixel count for .size than what the image actually has, breaking workflows that depended on that to determine the image DPI
[1] https://github.com/FuzzyIdeas/YellowDot/issues/18
[2] https://developer.apple.com/forums//thread/814798
Hopefully Apple will do the same for macOS 27.
[1] https://www.macrumors.com/2026/03/15/ios-27-will-reportedly-...
Those are valid problems affecting real people. For some are just missing conveniences, for others they are full on accessibility issues.
But that only really helps you when you're dealing with websites in a browser, and when you want the address to resolve back to your local machine. So it wont help you with other programs like python/wget/etc or any calls you make to getaddrinfo()
ArchiveBox now uses this feature by default in the latest version to finally offer unique per-snapshot domain isolation, so we can safely replay archived JS without risking compromise of your whole archive.
Such an awesome feature, the barrier to do this used to be prohibitively high but now it "just works".
I tested on Chrome but I assume this is true for Safari as well?
It’d be nice if someone on the Safari team added this though to match Chrome and Firefox!
Best option is probably to set dev.our-root-domain.com in /etc/hosts
I set that up in like 2014? Even back then it was known already that the quick /etc/resolver way was the deprecated way to do things. So I guess they finally killed that feature off?
The proper (more awkward) way is to use scutil directly (which then stores the settings in some binary plist somewhere, I assume).
Maybe try this and see if it still works afterwards?
macOS has made some arguably poor design choices, but it makes it hard to take someone seriously when they state the whole OS is terrible.
[1]: https://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/desktop/worldwide...
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/
Also, the 16% “unknown” in the graph you linked to implies huge error bars on macos vs linux!
Finder is bad enough on its own, but the 1:N mapping from logical directories to filesystem directories (like photos, home, applications, etc) makes it essentially unusable without spotlight.
Notifications are flaky as hell (missing phone calls and messages from contacts, but displaying explicitly blocked spam sms).
Copy paste between devices has never worked right.
Which part of the OS is not terrible in your experience?
Edit: also, compatibility with video games (even ones released for macos) is abysmal. It’s much worse than Linux’s ability to run the Windows version of MacOS native releases!
Ignoring the current Tahoe mess, MacOS felt relatively polished. I'm purely talking about UX here, as the OS is evidently buggy. The most popular Gnome themes are a re-impl of MacOS, so I can't be the only one.
It straight up broke some interfaces too
Then again I never understood the trend to remember fondly windows 98 and those kind of interfaces, maybe it's generational.
I may have a generational bias (I am almost 49), but I think the fondness is due to lack of UI surprise. A button was a button, a menu was a menu with clear shortcuts, etc. There were no mystery scrollbars that required specific interactions to appear or expand. Don't get me wrong, I'm a happy-ish MacOS user and love screen size, clear fonts, etc that we get in the modern world, but I think we've all had moments of frustration when we had to go on a scavenger hunt in an app and cursed those who didn't leave well enough alone.
They also do strange choices regarding shipped software. For example they ship ancient bash 3, apparently because they hate GPLv3 or something like that. I like GPLv3 and this choice makes macos user-hostile.
It makes you wonder why they were messing around in these areas at all at this point.
If you just want to resolve 127.0.0.1 then you just resolve hostname "localhost" or use 127.0.0.1 directly.
Personally i don't bother configuring custom private dns zones, instead i use reserved MDNS *.local that autoconfigure everything using machine name (hostname) and DHCP address: somehostname.local in A <dhcp assigned ip>.
I suppose I'm lazy - I've always used /etc/hosts, but then again, I've never had use cases like those mentioned in the linked gist.
Programs like LittleSnitch never really seem like "enough" for me, because the computer has to boot before DNS filtering comes online. It also has the design error (IMHO) of pre-resolving IP addresses before clicking Accept/Deny(all).
A great blockrule for your personal firewalls would be to ban (at top level) icloud.com, apple.com, &c; system updates can then be performed manually using guides like <http://www.mrmacintosh.com>. Of course: this breaks everything (in exactly the way I prefer to compute).
I have setup a VM running DNS on my laptop before ...
There is a simple checkbox within the DNS's web interface to `Allow WAN Requests`. You'd then only run into issues of accessing your local IP addresses if those hosts aren't configured correctly within your network rulesets.
----
I am a user, not an expert; by trade, I am a blue collar electrician. I know very little about internet topology except how to use simple open-source hardware. Perhaps what you said makes sense (e.g. that you cannot use outside your network, some service(s)).
You can also do VPN tricks, too.
https://github.com/apple/container/issues?q=is%3Aissue%20sta...
If you want valid certs you can generate them with mkcert and add them to your system trust store.
Next question: what reason would Apple have to make a change that would interfere with developers using their operating system?
What might lead Apple to make a change that would reduce the audience of their devices. I don't develop on macOS but I know developers who do. Did they just make a mistake and they're gonna fix it?
(And apologies if it seemed that I was insinuating ill intent on your part.)
There's a game I play (Old School Runescape) that does network ticks every .6s. Mac does some sort of aggressive optimization on the network hardware/software, so network this infrequent doesn't keep the layers "hot", and you end up getting delayed ticks regularly, meaning you learn what should be happening in the game .2-.5s late. This optimization for (I assume) battery life makes the software not work as intended.
Playing anything that streams, like video, or triggering TCP connections (e.g. curl) at a more frequent clip while the game is running fixes the problem.
No way other than hacks that I've found to fix it, and I have no idea how you could report this to the right team at Apple to get it actually fixed.
All Feedbacks that you file are private to your own Apple Account.
New-UnboundInterface.sh - linux/rhel-like specific
# create a bridge interface for Unbound
# because Docker...
IFTYPE=bridge
IFNAME=unbound0
IPADDR=10.53.0.1
IPADDR6=fd53:fd53:fd53::1
nmcli connection add type $IFTYPE ifname $IFNAME
nmcli connection modify $IFTYPE-$IFNAME ip4 $IPADDR/32
nmcli connection modify $IFTYPE-$IFNAME ipv4.dns $IPADDR
nmcli connection modify $IFTYPE-$IFNAME ip6 $IPADDR6/64
nmcli connection modify $IFTYPE-$IFNAME ipv6.dns $IPADDR6
nmcli connection up $IFTYPE-$IFNAME
firewall-cmd --new-zone=unbound --permanent
firewall-cmd --zone=unbound --permanent --change-interface=$IFNAME
firewall-cmd --zone=unbound --permanent --add-service=dns
firewall-cmd --reload
# should be placed in /etc/unbound/conf.d
# bind to a specified IP address, allow access
server:
interface: 10.53.0.1
interface: fd53:fd53:fd53::1
access-control: 10.53.0.1/32 allow
access-control: fd53:fd53:fd53::1/128 allow
# allow queries from the Docker "bridge"
server:
access-control: 172.18.0.1/16 allowWait, it does that (from 15 to 26) without user interaction?
That’s what makes the LLM bug report make no sense in light of OP’s report here. Bug says it’s a regression from 25.x (which doesn’t exist), so maybe they mean 15.x? But OP says they “woke up” and it was upgraded and broken, but macOS doesn’t major version upgrades w/o user action. So which is it?
Here’s a GitHub comment showing someone on MacOS 26 with a `.test` domain, which you claim is broken: https://github.com/apple/container/issues/856#issuecomment-3... —- maybe you are configuring it incorrectly.
Why use Apple's browser when they don't actually care about your privacy?
I thought we all just dealt with the overpriced hardware, the prisons, the control, that they are a US company that gives away data to the government(PRISM), has weak security(Pegasus), lies about hardware issues(butterfly keyboard and holding your phone wrong), deceptive marketing...
All so we can compile iOS apps.
If you arent compiling iOS apps... Do you not know about Fedora? Ofc Windows sucks, but we have Fedora.
The whole macOS thing is amateur