标签：#war

An astrolabe doesn’t map every star. It gives you a way to find your position relative to the ones that hold still. That’s the instrument I reach for when someone asks which AI tool they should be using. The honest answer is that the tools will be different in six months. The layers won’t. I spent a week trying to make sense of a handful of names that kept showing up in the same conversations. Tessl . Goose . Archestra . Kestra . Modelplane . RAG , MCP , half a dozen others orbiting nearby. Each one has its own pitch, its own funding round, its own reason it’s the thing you should adopt next. Taken together they read like noise. Taken apart, they sit on different floors of the same building. The agent loop again, the one I keep coming back to. Once you place each tool on a floor, the noise turns into a map. Tessl sits left of the loop , at the intent layer. Turn a spec into something an agent runs against directly. This is the one tool on the list that pushes back instead of going along with it. A well-formed spec is not the same thing as a team that agrees on what the spec means. The Agora produces the second thing as a byproduct of producing the first. Tessl produces the first and assumes the second follows. It doesn’t, automatically. That’s the whole argument. RAG and MCP are plumbing. Protocol, not position. They carry context into the loop and don’t take a side in any argument about who should be in the room when the spec gets written. They’re also the one floor with an actual standard. MCP, A2A , ACP , all under Linux Foundation governance now, joint working groups, cross-protocol commitments. Passing data between systems is a solved problem with decades of precedent behind it, so it standardized almost on contact. Nothing else on this floor plan has that. Governance, orchestration, the harness, the spec layer: every vendor is still building its own version and calling it the obvious one. The standard showed up first at the floor that mattered least to this ar

Sony shared an announcement with the console market: physical disc production for all PlayStation games will completely stop in January 2028. You can read the official announcement on the PlayStation Blog . From a pure engineering perspective, modern internet infrastructure has rendered physical distribution redundant. We no longer need plastic circles to transport megabytes. The gamer community response isn't about data transfer speeds. It is over true digital ownership, consumer rights, and software preservation. In this article, we break down the details, look at the history leading to this moment and explore why console makers would pursue this direction. 🔍 The Announcement Break Down The 2028 Deadline: The mandate strictly applies to new games launching after January 1, 2028. Legacy Back Catalog: Discs pressed before this date will still function (assuming future hardware maintains optical drive compatibility). "Code-in-a-Box" Retail: Stores will still sell physical cases on shelves, but they will contain a paper download voucher instead of a disc. I am no sustanability poster boy, seems wasteful to preserve retail shelf presence. 🛑 The Illusion of Ownership: "Buying" vs. "Renting" When you hit "Buy" on a digital storefront, you aren't purchasing a game. You are purchasing a conditional license to stream or download it—a long-term rental agreement that can be unilaterally altered or revoked. No Secondary Market: Players completely lose the ability to resell, trade, or lend games to friends. Monopoly Pricing: Eliminating discs removes competitive pricing from retailers like GameStop, JB Hi-Fi, or Amazon, leaving users locked to a single proprietary storefront. Delisting Vulnerability: If a publisher loses IP rights, the software vanishes instantly. 🎮 Case Study: My Close Call with Digital Erasure Look no further than Star Trek: Resurgence for proof of how fragile digital stores are. In April 2026, the publishers suddenly lost their IP distribution rights. Within

Introduction: The Illusion of Productivity Metrics Traditional software development metrics—velocity charts, commit counts, bundle size—are the comfort objects of the coding world. They sit on dashboards, glowing with the promise of insight, but in reality, they’re often lagging vanity numbers . They don’t capture the narrative of a week’s work; they don’t reveal the decisions , the reversals , or the patterns that define progress. Instead, they deform the truth by oversimplifying it, much like a rubber band stretched too thin—it snaps under pressure, failing to hold the complexity of real work. Consider the mechanical process of a commit. A commit is a snapshot , a frozen moment in time. But software development isn’t a series of snapshots; it’s a sequence . When you string commits together without context, you miss the heat of decision-making—the back-and-forth, the undoing, the redoing. This is where traditional metrics fail. They don’t account for the thermal expansion of ideas, the way a decision made on Monday might cool by Friday, only to be reheated and reshaped. Without a narrative, these metrics are like a machine running without lubrication: they friction against reality, wearing down under the weight of their own inadequacy. The Mechanism of Metric Failure Let’s break down the causal chain: Impact: Developers rely on metrics like commit counts to gauge productivity. Internal Process: These metrics are lagging indicators , reflecting past actions without context. They don’t capture the why behind the numbers—the decisions, the reversals, the thought process. Observable Effect: Developers miss critical patterns, such as repeated decision reversals, leading to inefficiencies and missed opportunities for improvement. It’s like trying to diagnose a car’s engine by looking only at the speedometer—you’ll never catch the misalignment in the gears. Narrative-Driven Insights: The Optimal Solution Contrast this with a narrative-driven approach . When you narrate a

Why I'm Building the Fast Series I'm building the Fast Series because creator software has gotten too complicated. Plenty of tools are powerful, but they make you fight the software before you can make anything. You want to record a tutorial, stream a game, clip a useful moment, compress a file, or turn an idea into a short video. Instead, you're digging through settings, codecs, plugins, device permissions, export presets, and cryptic error messages. That's the problem I keep running into, and the Fast Series is my attempt to solve it: practical Windows software where each tool does one job clearly and reliably. Not everything needs to be a giant all-in-one platform. Sometimes the better product is a small tool that opens quickly, gives you sensible defaults, explains what's happening, and gets out of your way. That's the direction I'm taking with Sturm Technologies. The Problem With Creator Tools There are already great tools for recording, streaming, editing, clipping, and compressing. OBS is powerful. Professional editors are powerful. FFmpeg is powerful. There are cloud tools, browser tools, AI tools, and creator suites that promise to do everything. But power is not the same thing as clarity. Most creators don't want to become experts in capture APIs, bitrate math, encoder settings, audio routing, or export pipelines. They want to make something and publish it. The pain usually shows up in small moments. You record a video and the audio is missing. You compress a file and it still doesn't meet the upload limit. You spend more time scrubbing a long video than actually clipping it. You hit an error and the app hands you a technical dump instead of telling you what to fix. That's where I think there's room for better software. Not bigger software. Better software. Start With FastCast The first product in the series is FastCast , a Windows recording and streaming app for people who want OBS-level practicality without OBS-level setup. FastCast focuses on screen cap

Over the past week, the AI hardware news I've been tracking adds up to more than $610 billion in capital deployed globally — in just seven days. Not valuations. Not market cap. Actual capital expenditure commitments. Korea $550B, Japan $6B, Qualcomm's new accelerator, Kawasaki Heavy Industries' $1B AI infrastructure bond — this round of moves has already surpassed the wildest half-year of the 2000 dot-com bubble in scale. But this time the money isn't flowing into web pages. It's flowing into chips, memory, and power. Watching all of this over the past few days, I've been thinking: for investors and for builders like us making products on top of AI, what does this gamble actually mean? The Real Story Behind AI Training Bottlenecks: From GPU Scarcity → Memory Scarcity → Power Scarcity Honestly, everyone watches AI through the lens of models, but the real bottleneck was never the models — it's been the hardware. From 2023 to 2025, the bottleneck shifted from GPU scarcity to memory scarcity, and is now pushing toward power scarcity. When GPUs were tight, everyone scrambled for H100s and NVIDIA raked it in — but the part that actually throttled the H100 wasn't the GPU core, it was the HBM high-bandwidth memory. On the B200, the HBM3E stacked on top has its capacity locked up entirely by NVIDIA at SK Hynix, while Samsung is chasing hard but its yields can't keep up. That's why South Korea just committed $518B to build 4 memory fabs plus $52B for the central regions, totaling $550B ( TechCrunch ). This isn't just about filling upstream capacity — the key is that Samsung + SK Hynix are trying to flip themselves from being NVIDIA's downstream suppliers into becoming the dominant players in AI hardware. Why did downstream hardware investment kick off so late? Because for the past two years people were still watching and waiting to see if "this AI hype cycle would cool down again." By 2026, GPT-6, Claude 4, and Gemini 3 are all live, inference costs have come down, user numbe

A gente sempre ouve falar que o sistema operacional impede que um processo veja a memória do outro ou que o programa fale diretamente com o hardware, mas normalmente não explicam o "como". Eu sempre achei isso meio mágico até que eu resolvi ir atrás da resposta, e é bem interessante. Vou me basear na arquitetura x86, mas é provável que outras arquiteturas sejam parecidas. O problema: a CPU Pra CPU não existe processo, kernel, sistema operacional. Existe só endereços de memória de onde ela lê a próxima instrução e executa. Se a CPU pode falar direto com a RAM, SSD, teclado, mouse, tela... O que me impede de escrever um programa pra ler suas senhas e tokens direto da RAM? Ou de ler arquivos e alterar arquivos sensíveis direto no SSD? Por outro lado, se o kernel fiscalizasse cada instrução que da CPU antes dela executar, isso seria extremamente lento... Outro problema: os interrupts Se a CPU só executasse sequencialmente, seu sistema poderia executar várias coisas e esquecer de checar se uma tecla foi apertada, se o mouse mexeu, etc... Então certos eventos interrompem o que quer que a CPU esteja fazendo para serem tratados assim que possível. Alguns exemplos de interrupt são: Teclas do teclado pressionadas ou soltas Botões e movimento do mouse Timers Operações de disco assíncronas Pacotes de rede recebidos/transmitidos Uma solução: rings Os processadores da arquitetura x86 tem o esquema de rings. Pense em rings como grau de limitação. Ring 0 significa limitação zero, ou seja, acesso a todas as instruções da CPU e consequentemente acesso total ao hardware e memória. O kernel roda em ring 0, ou kernel mode. O kernel assim que é carregado configura todos os interrupts handlers da CPU para executar o handler apropriado do kernel, em kernel mode, claro. Em ring 3 a CPU fica limitada e não pode fazer instruções consideradas privilegiadas. E obviamente em ring 3 a CPU não consegue se colocar em ring 0 sozinha, pois dessa forma qualquer programa conseguiria se pôr em ring 0. O

개발 역량이 없어도 외주 개발사의 진행 상황을 명확하게 파악하고 피드백을 줄 수 있다. 필요한 건 기술 지식이 아니라, 올바른 협업 구조다. 이 글은 비개발자 제품 관리자가 바로 적용할 수 있는 투명한 피드백 루프와 점검 방식을 소개한다. 외주 개발에서 비개발자가 소외되는 이유는 무엇인가? 외주 개발사와 일을 시작하면 처음 며칠은 소통이 활발하다. 요구사항 정리, 계약, 착수 미팅까지는 순탄하다. 문제는 그 이후다. 개발이 시작되면 대화의 언어가 바뀐다. "API 연결 중", "백엔드 스키마 설계 단계", "프론트 컴포넌트 분리 작업"처럼 전공자가 아니면 체감하기 어려운 표현들이 보고서를 채운다. 이 상태에서 비개발자가 할 수 있는 질문은 사실상 하나뿐이다. "잘 되고 있나요?" 그리고 돌아오는 답도 하나다. "네, 잘 되고 있습니다." 이 구조는 어느 개발사가 나쁜 의도를 가져서 생기는 문제가 아니다. 개발자는 기술 언어로 사고하고, 비개발자는 결과와 흐름으로 사고한다. 이 두 언어 사이에 다리가 없을 때 소외가 생긴다. 그리고 이 소외는 감정의 문제가 아니라 실질적인 리스크다. 방향이 틀어진 채 몇 주가 흐르면, 다시 맞추는 비용은 처음보다 훨씬 커진다. 비개발자가 개발 과정을 직접 점검할 수 있는 구조가 필요한 이유가 여기 있다. 비개발자가 진행 상황을 파악할 수 있는 협업 구조란? 투명한 협업 구조는 "보고를 더 자주 받는 것"이 아니다. 받는 정보의 언어와 형식을 바꾸는 것이다. 포텐랩은 매주 진행 상황을 공유하는 주간 피드백 루프를 팀 표준으로 운영한다. 이 루프의 핵심은 세 가지다. 무엇이 완료됐는가 : 이번 주에 실제로 만들어진 것, 확인 가능한 것. 다음 주에 무엇을 만드는가 : 다음 단계에서 기대할 수 있는 결과물. 막힌 것이 있는가 : 결정이 필요하거나 확인이 필요한 사항. 이 세 가지가 매주 비개발자도 읽을 수 있는 언어로 정리된다면, 소통 구조는 이미 절반 이상 해결된 것이다. 기술 용어 없이 "로그인 화면 완성, 다음 주엔 상품 목록 화면 작업"이라고 쓸 수 있다면, 비개발자는 지금 어디쯤 왔는지 감을 잡을 수 있다. 주간 피드백 루프를 실제로 설계하는 방법 주간 루프가 형식적인 보고에 그치지 않으려면 구조가 있어야 한다. 아래는 포텐랩이 프로젝트마다 적용하는 주간 피드백 사이클의 구성이다. 1단계 — 주간 업데이트 문서 공유 매주 정해진 요일에 개발팀이 업데이트 문서를 공유한다. 이 문서에는 완료된 기능, 다음 주 작업 항목, 그리고 결정이 필요한 사항이 포함된다. 형식은 슬랙 메시지든, 노션 페이지든 팀이 합의한 채널이면 된다. 중요한 건 형식보다 주기와 언어다. 매주 같은 날, 비개발자가 읽을 수 있는 언어로. 2단계 — 화면으로 확인 가능한 결과물 공유 텍스트 보고만으로는 실제로 무엇이 만들어졌는지 체감하기 어렵다. 그래서 주간 업데이트에는 화면 캡처, 동영상 클립, 또는 테스트용 링크가 함께 제공된다. "로그인 기능 완료"라는 문장보다 실제 작동하는 화면을 보는 것이 훨씬 구체적인 판단 근거가 된다. 3단계 — 비개발자가 직접 테스트하는 시간 개발팀이 보여주는 것만 보는 게 아니라, 비개발자가 직접 써보는 단계가 필요하다. 이 과정에서 "버튼이 너무 작다", "이 순서가 직관적이지 않다" 같은 피드백이 나온다. 기술 지식이 없어도 할 수 있는 피드백이고, 이런 피드백이 제품의 방향을 바로잡는다. 4단계 — 다음 주 작업 범위 합의 이번 주 결과를 확인한 뒤, 다음 주에 무엇을 만들지 함께 정한다. 이 단계에서 비개발자는 우선순위를 조정할 수 있다. "이 기능보다 저 기능이 먼저 필요하다"는 판단을 매주 할 수 있는 구조다. 우선순위는 비개발자가 가장 잘 아는 영역이다. 비개발자가 개발 진행 상황을 점검하는 실질적인 기준은? 개발 진행 상황을 평가할 때 기술적 판단을 할 필요는 없다. 다음 세 가지 기준으로 충분히 점검할 수 있다. 점검 항목 확인 방법 좋은 신호 주의가 필요한 신호 완료 결과물 화면 또는 테스트 링크로 직접 확인 매주 눈에 보이는 결과물이 있음 텍스트 보고만 있고

Here are five architectural lessons we've learned from designing software for modern retailers.* Designing ERP Software for Retail: Five Lessons Every Software Engineer Should Know When people hear the word ERP , they often think of accounting software, dashboards, or inventory management. As software engineers, we see something different. We see distributed systems. Complex business workflows. Real-time data synchronization. Concurrent transactions. Event-driven architecture. And perhaps the biggest challenge of all—representing how real businesses actually operate. At RetailWings , we've learned that building an ERP for retail isn't simply a software engineering challenge. It's a business engineering challenge. Here are five lessons every engineer should understand before designing an ERP platform for modern retail. 1. Retail Doesn't Run in Modules—It Runs as One Business One of the biggest architectural mistakes in business software is treating departments as isolated applications. Many systems separate: Sales Inventory Finance Procurement HR But retailers don't experience their businesses that way. One sale immediately affects inventory. Inventory influences procurement. Procurement impacts finance. Finance drives reporting. Everything is connected. A well-designed ERP should reflect these relationships rather than forcing departments into disconnected silos. 2. Inventory Is More Than a Database Table To many engineers, inventory may appear to be a simple CRUD problem. Create. Read. Update. Delete. Retail quickly proves otherwise. Inventory changes through: Sales Returns Transfers Damages Procurement Stock adjustments Warehouse movements Manual reconciliations Every movement has financial implications. Every movement must be traceable. Designing inventory requires thinking in terms of events, not just records. 3. Real-Time Data Changes Everything Retail managers don't want yesterday's reports. They want answers now. How much stock is left? Which branch is sellin

There is a fascinating, quiet tension happening in the software engineering community right now. If you listen closely to late-night developer chats, team syncs, or tech forums, you will notice that our industry has rapidly split into two distinct schools of thought regarding the rise of AI coding tools like Cursor, Claude Code, and Copilot. On one side, you have the Traditional Developers. They argue that software engineering is a disciplined art form that cannot be replaced by text prompts. To them, unchecked AI coding is a recipe for buggy, unreadable spaghetti code, creating a technical debt nightmare for the future. On the other side, you have the Vibe Coders. This is a fast-moving generation of builders, both technical and non-technical, who believe in shipping fast, prompting quickly, and adjusting on the fly. They do not see a need to obsess over syntax when the AI can translate their intent into a working application in minutes. The reality is that both sides are entirely right. If we stop arguing over who is ruling the current meta and actually look at the core truths each camp holds, we can see exactly where the future of software development is heading. 1. The Traditional Developer is Right: Guardrails Matter The traditional development camp is fundamentally right about structure. Building a beautifully designed UI that works on a surface level is vastly different from building an enterprise-ready, scalable architecture. When you prompt an AI to build a feature, its primary objective is to satisfy the literal words in your core prompt. This is the "as long as it works" mentality. Unless you are practicing strict, spec-driven development and explicitly dictating your architectural doctrines, security protocols, and API patterns, the AI will make assumptions for you. Historically, those assumptions are optimized for speed and not long-term stability. Without deep technical oversight to catch anti-patterns, edge cases, and hidden security flaws, fast-shippe

Originally published on bckinfo.com How to Install VMware ESXi: Step-by-Step Bare-Metal Setup Guide Table of Contents ESXi vs. VMware Workstation: Which One Do You Need Hardware Compatibility Check Downloading the ESXi Installer Creating a Bootable USB Installer BIOS/UEFI Preparation Installing ESXi: Step by Step Configuring the Management Network Accessing the vSphere Host Client Creating Your First Virtual Machine Post-Installation Checklist Common Issues and Quick Fixes Closing Notes If you've read our complete guide to VMware virtualization , you already know ESXi is the bare-metal hypervisor underneath vSphere. This guide is the hands-on counterpart — installing ESXi directly on physical server hardware, from hardware compatibility checks through booting your first virtual machine. ESXi vs. VMware Workstation: Which One Do You Need Before starting, it's worth confirming you actually want ESXi and not VMware Workstation. They solve different problems: VMware Workstation is a Type-2 hypervisor — it installs on top of an existing OS (Windows, Linux, macOS via Fusion). Good for running a VM or two on a laptop or desktop you also use for everything else. If that's your case, our guide on installing VMware Workstation on CentOS Stream 10 is the right starting point instead. ESXi is a Type-1, bare-metal hypervisor — it installs directly on the hardware with no host OS underneath it. This is the right choice for a dedicated server running multiple VMs, a home lab, or anything that needs to scale beyond "a VM running alongside my desktop." The rest of this guide assumes you're installing on dedicated hardware that won't run anything else. Hardware Compatibility Check This is the step most worth not skipping. ESXi has a defined Hardware Compatibility List (HCL), and installing on unlisted hardware is the single biggest source of installation failures and post-install driver issues. Check your exact server model and component list (NIC, storage controller) against VMware'

A government customer of NSO Group used the company's Pegasus spyware to hack into the phone of a European politician, who at the time was serving on an EU committee tasked with investigating the spyware industry.

“It is a direct attack on the rule of law,” says one European Parliament member of the new findings from Citizen Lab.

For decades, developers were judged by one thing: How much code they could write. The best programmers wrote faster. Debugged faster. Built faster. That era is ending. The next generation of developers won't spend most of their time writing code. They'll spend it directing AI. Welcome to the age of the AI Orchestrator. The Evolution of Software Development Software development has always evolved. First, developers wrote machine code. Then came assembly. Then high-level languages. Then frameworks. Then cloud platforms. Then DevOps. Each evolution removed repetitive work and let developers focus on bigger problems. AI is simply the next step. But this time, it isn't replacing a tool. It's becoming a teammate. Coding Is Becoming a Smaller Part of the Job Building software isn't just writing code. A typical project includes: Understanding requirements Researching documentation Designing architecture Writing code Reviewing code Debugging Testing Writing documentation Deploying applications Monitoring production Fixing incidents Only one of those is coding. Everything else is coordination and decision-making. That's where AI is changing the game. From Programmer to Orchestrator Think about how modern teams work. A tech lead rarely writes every line of code. Instead, they: Assign work. Review solutions. Provide feedback. Make architectural decisions. Remove blockers. Developers are beginning to work with AI in much the same way. Instead of writing every function, they'll: Define the goal. Provide the right context. Choose the right tools. Review AI-generated code. Run tests. Improve weak areas. Approve the final result. The value shifts from typing code to guiding its creation. What Does an AI Orchestrator Do? An AI orchestrator doesn't ask one question and accept one answer. They manage a workflow. For example: Break a large project into smaller tasks. Give each AI the context it needs. Decide when to retrieve documentation. Decide when to search the codebase. Ask AI to g

Selby's VC firm Copper Sky Capital is currently raising a $300 million second fund, according to a regulatory filing.

IQM, a full-stack quantum company out of Finland, went public on the Nasdaq today at a valuation of about $1.9 billion.

The discovery underscores the increased effort being poured into Mac infostealers.

You merge the PR. The build passes. The code does what you expected it to do. You move on. That is review for most engineers. A final read. A feeling that things looked right before the branch closed. I did it the same way for years. Three phases had already run before this one. Think had scoped the work, Plan had written the requirements, Build had shipped a diff that matched the plan exactly. I trusted that the chain held. I had never actually checked. Then I ran the Review phase, and checking turned out to mean something specific: not does this work, but does this requirement hold up, and what is my evidence. I went in expecting to approve it or send it back. The phase gave me three answers instead: covered, partial, missing. I found out what they meant one requirement at a time, starting with the one I almost got wrong. I had been giving impressions, not verdicts The notification scheduler used a queue to manage dispatch. Every call to the external provider went through it. The provider was never exposed directly. The requirement said the provider must be notified. It was notified, exactly the way I had pictured it. I almost called it covered and moved to the next line. The Review phase stopped me there. But the requirement said must be notified , not how. The queue had introduced a call order and a timing the requirement never anticipated. Nothing was broken. Something had changed shape, quietly, and nobody had written that shape down. I sat with that for longer than I expected to. Not because the code was wrong. Because I could not immediately tell you whether the change mattered. The same pass gave the shim from Plan a different verdict on the same page: covered. Mapped to the requirement it existed to satisfy, no gap between what was promised and what was in the diff. One requirement held exactly the shape it was given. The other had quietly grown a new one. Same review. Same pass. Two verdicts. Partial is not a softer word for broken. It is the verdict for

by Peter Yang, Behind the Craft Today, I want to share 18 hot takes on where I think the AI market is headed. AI is in a weird place right now. The government is restricting access to frontier models, enterprises are becoming conscious of token costs, and everyone’s trying to rebuild their product for agents first instead of humans. I’ve interviewed dozens of AI leaders and spent far too much time following these topics on X/Twitter. Here are 18 hot takes on where I think AI is headed next: The frontier-only AI stack is collapsing The AI super app era is here Traditional software risks becoming a dumb pipe for agents Cloud agents and collaboration are the next wave The Frontier-Only AI Stack Is Collapsing Tokenmaxxing at frontier API prices makes no sense. Uber burned through its entire 2026 AI budget in 4 months, Microsoft moved engineers off Claude Code due to cost, and companies are realizing that running everything on frontier models can get expensive fast. Tokenmaxxing makes sense when you’re on a subsidized $200/month plan but is unsustainable at API rates. Companies will rely on a portfolio of models. Coinbase recently cut its AI spend nearly in half by switching engineers to Chinese open-source models like GLM and Kimi. Airbnb and Pinterest have done the same with Alibaba’s Qwen models. I believe that this will be the default path forward — using frontier for high-stakes work and cheaper models for everything else. China’s open-source strategy is working. Chinese models are taking market share from frontier models at US companies. China is also building the full AI stack — from energy (e.g., solar, nuclear) to data centers to domestic chips. The Chinese government is planning a $295B investment in AI data centers with at least 80% of the chips built domestically. Frontier labs are in a catch-22 situation. If they release great open-source models, they might undercut their own frontier API revenue. If they gate the best models behind a trusted list, companies

Testing a food delivery app is hard. Testing an on-demand logistics app is harder. Food delivery has...

Apple is readying several new iPad Pro tablets, and a budget-friendly MacBook Pro, reports suggest.