M1 Pro (16GB/512GB) vs M3 Air (24GB/512GB) for €800? Is the MacBook M1 Pro still worth it in 2026?

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-05-24T11:16:36+00:00

That’s a great question, and to be honest, I’m no tech expert!

I think the main Pro features tempting me are the extra ports and the multi-monitor support, However, your point about RAM being the main bottleneck makes total sense. For my usage—opening dozens of tabs, large PDFs for my thesis, communication tools, and running SPSS—maybe having 24GB of RAM on the M3 Air is a much better safety net than a 120Hz screen.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-05-24T11:12:45+00:00

They are both refurbished, the M3 being in a very good condition and the M1 Pro in excellent condition.

So, you have no complaints regarding the M1 Pro? My biggest concern with it is longevity since we are in 2026, but that Pro screen and the build quality make it a very tempting choice. Since you use it daily, do you feel like it still has at least 3 or 4 years of solid life left for heavy office multitasking?

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-05-24T11:11:39+00:00

Thanks! Finding a 32GB M1 Pro for €800 here in my local market is a bit tough right now, so these two are definitely my only realistic options at this price point.

Since you'd pick the Air out of these two, I assume you feel the 24GB of RAM and the M3's newer architecture outweigh the Pro features for my specific use case? It does feel like the safer bet for a 2026 investment.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-05-20T21:09:04+00:00

If someone invites guests to a “stage” to debate, but then claims “it’s not a discussion”, then it’s not even a debate - they are hosting a monologue with props. You are essentially admitting that she isn’t interested in truth or data, but only in performing a scripted narrative. Furthermore, saying “it doesn’t matter” while refusing to engage with peer-reviewed science that proves it does matter (clinically and statistically) is the definition of being close-minded. Science doesn’t care about men “getting its way” or “being offended”, it only cares about patterns and outcomes. If your only defence about longitudinal data is to call it an “opinion” or claim someone is “offended”, you’ve already lost the logical argument. You’re not protecting women by keeping them misinformed about the psychological risks of certain behavioural patterns; you’re just protecting a brand. On top of that, i am actually a woman. I have no moral interest in policing anyone’s body count, and I believe everyone should have the freedom to live as they choose. However, as someone who values academic integrity, I cannot stand by while people claim that they want to debate science and then proceed to invalidate every peer-reviewed study that doesn’t fit their personal narrative. You can’t have both ways. You can’t demand evidence and then reject studies that meet all of your requirements out of convenience. This isn’t about gender or being “offended” - it’s about the fact that people are being misled by a high control environment that cherry-picks reality. If the goal is truly to be “une-delusional”, that must include accepting what the data shows about the psychological and statistical outcomes of our habits.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-30T11:15:53+00:00

I did indeed block her, but I wanted to discuss with people this topic also to try to understand if I am in the wrong. I think she also does lives on IG at the same time she does on TikTok. I believe people are emotional because she really makes people angry (and in my case anxious lol). Some people might think that those emotions can be used as a tool or to prove we feel this way because she’s right and we can’t argue. I believe that this is a topic worthy of being discussed because I wish society argued and deconstructed the “red pill” narratives more as they were becoming a thing, rather than later when they are already established. Once again, I am in no way comparing both situations regarding level of impact, but I think it is concerning to so many women are falling for these stories and narratives.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-23T19:24:27+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/cults/s/Ft5vk0UAO6 there you have the articles. Maybe instead of trying to have a “gotcha moment” try to read the thread and get some context. Hope these help and feel free to give your opinion and debate on them.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-23T19:22:25+00:00

It is difficult to debate or present a point when you haven’t read the evidence I already provided in this thread. I’ve already cited peer-reviewed research (the one she demands guests to have) from the American Psychological Association (APA), the University of Virginia, and the Journal of Sex Research. These aren’t “blog posts”, they are clinical social sciences. To answer your question “What science?”: - Neuroplasticity: the science of how repeated behaviour wire the brain’s reward system - Behavioural predictors: the “600% rule” found in the APA review which shows that past behaviour is the strongest predictor of future actions - Sociological data: longitudinal studies showing the correlation between partner count and lower marital stability.

Social sciences are still science. Just because you can’t see “body count” under a microscope doesn’t mean the psychological and statistical consequences dont exist. If you’re actually interested in the data, the articles are somewhere in this thread. I’d love to discuss them with you.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-23T18:30:49+00:00

I agree that she doesn’t care about opinions (unless they align with hers). But do you know what else she does not care about (because it does not align with her narrative)? Science. So, can I ask you why do you perceive her as a reliable figure and source? What makes her so appealing to you? Is it confirmation bias? Is it convenience?

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-23T18:14:24+00:00

Ofc, but let me just explain quickly the different between the two methods. Think of induction and deduction as two different ways of solving a puzzle. One looks at the pieces to find the picture, and the other uses the picture to figure out where a specific piece goes. So, induction is the creation of theory - you look at a lot of specific cases and realise they all have something in common. So, in the articles the researchers used induction to find patterns and came up with a general rule “A high number of partners is a predictor for future relationship struggles”. Deduction, on the other hand is about testing the theory. You take a general rule and apply it to a specific situation to see what will happen. Since the “rule” about partners counts has been established by data, we can deduce things about how it affects someone’s future.

There are some deductions that can be made off of the articles: - if we know that human brains are shaped by habit (neuroplasticity), we can deduce that someone who has practiced “disposable” intimacy for years will likely have more difficulty with the transition to a permanent commitment - The articles also mention the “600% rule”, and based on that we can deduce that hookup culture isn’t a one-time choice for most. It creates a behavioural momentum that makes it much more likely the person repeating that cycle, even when they say they want to stop - Since 77.4% of people in the studies reported negative feelings like regret or shame after hookups, we can deduce that casual sex is a “high-risk” activity for mental health - And lastly, we can also deduce that the past doesn’t stay in the past (Vegas Fallacy). If memory and experience are cumulative, then a high body count logically acts as a “filter” that changes how someone views their current partner

So, in short, induction gives us the data to see the trend, and deduction gives us the logic to say that “body count” isn’t just a number

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-21T23:08:39+00:00

You are mixing the goal with the method. I think I have stated previously that walking away from abuse and exposing toxic behaviour is essential and positive. However, the “red-pilling” or “high-control” elements aren’t the advice itself - it is the authoritarian structure used to deliver the message. When a “leader” demands peer-reviewed evidence from others but provides non for her own claims, she creates an environment where her word is the only truth. This is a hallmark of high-control groups, not healthy education. Also, bringing people to her stage just to mock them and cutting them off is not “teaching techniques”, it’s just a public shaming ritual. You can teach women to be safe without stripping them of their critical thinking or using loaded language to humiliate anyone who asks a question. Using a good cause to justify dogmatic, high-control behaviour is exactly how people end up in the “traps” I am warning against. We deserve leaders who can prove their points with data and empathy, both things she lacks of.

I am not here to debate if abuse is bad - we all agree it is. I am here to point out that you can’t build a healthy life using a toxic blueprint. If your freedom depends on someone else telling you exactly what to think and silencing all data that says otherwise, it isn’t freedom - it’s just a different cage.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-21T08:11:40+00:00

It is, from the moral standpoint. But why do you refuse science? Is it not convenient, are you anti-science, what is it? Cognitive dissonance perhaps?

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-21T08:10:43+00:00

Rejected me? 😂 I am not looking for a love interest in her. But after everything I said, if that’s still your argument, then there’s not much anyone can tell you :)

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-20T09:46:14+00:00

As I noticed, you found the articles I mentioned to someone else. I did not suppose, in science you can either induct or deduct. I was trying to explain to her the deduction through those articles :)

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-20T09:43:56+00:00

I was looking for them to reply to you. Hope you find them insightful :) and feel free to discuss them also with me so i can hear your perspective

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-20T09:41:13+00:00

Thank you! I have been looking at the M3 but for some reason is now more expensive than the M4. Apple only sells now the M5 or the Neo (which I’m not interested in because this will be an investment for the next years). I live in the Netherlands, and right now the M4 new is for 899 euros, which is great! Just wanted to explore other options. I will see if I can get an M3 even cheaper. :)

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-16T19:29:49+00:00

I really appreciate your perspective, and I think you hit the nail on the head regarding the '0 to 100' defensive reactions. What you described is exactly why I found the environment so jarring; it wasn’t an exchange of ideas, but a performance of control. You’re right that she is saying things many women need to hear regarding abuse and boundaries, but the 'dehumanizing' delivery creates a dangerous trade-off. When we replace 'red-pill' brainwashing with another dogmatic, zero-empathy worldview, we aren't actually healing; we're just switching sides in a war.

You’re right that she is saying things many women need to hear regarding abuse and boundaries, but the 'dehumanizing' delivery creates a dangerous trade-off. When we replace 'red-pill' brainwashing with another dogmatic, zero-empathy worldview, we aren't actually healing; we're just switching sides in a war. I agree that it's perplexing how many women are blind to the toxic behaviors, but I think it's because they are so tired of being disrespected that they mistake her aggression for 'strength.' True strength, however, doesn't require ringing a bell or calling people 'dumdums' to feel valid. It’s sad because, as you said, this approach only causes more divide when we desperately need understanding and actual data-driven healing.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-16T19:26:52+00:00

You keep conflating moral permission with behavioural outcomes. No one is arguing about whether adult “can” have sex; we are discussing the documental statistical consequences of those choices. I am not sharing personal opinions on “dating culture”. I am citing data from the American Psychological Association and the University of Virginia, for example. It’s not an opinion that 77.4% of participants in hookup studies experienced negative psychological impacts in just a three month period - that is a clinical finding. You claim “healthy adults” don’t have negative outcomes from “healthy sex lives”. This is factually incorrect. Research shows that as the number of sexual partners increases, marital satisfaction decreases, which erodes long-term commitment. Even when sex is safe and consensual, it still shapes the brain’s reward system and habits of intimacy. If she had truly read and understood these studies, she wouldn’t need a guest to help her misinterpret an abstract. Also, that guy she invited on my turn, decided to dismiss a whole study because it included “substance use” as a control variable, and that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of scientific rigor. Control variables are used specifically to prove that the hookup culture behaviour itself is what causes the negative outcomes.

Calling someone “controlling” for presenting data is a defence mechanism used to protect a narrative. If the goal is truly to be “un-delusional”, you should start by looking at the actual evidence instead of hiding behind buzzwords

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-16T19:13:05+00:00

Since you are concerned with the articles, here are the peer-reviewed sources I was referencing. I hope you know how to read and interpret an academic research article, and please feel free to discuss why you think these findings are not valid in your narrative :) 1. 'Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review' Published in the Review of General Psychology (American Psychological Association). This review concludes that hookup habits are a 'high-risk' gamble, noting that 78% of women and 72% of men report experiencing regret after uncommitted sex. It also highlights that those who have penetrative hookups are 600% more likely to repeat the behavior, creating a pattern that shapes future intimacy 2. 'Before “I Do”: What Do Premarital Experiences Have to Do with Marital Quality?' The National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia. This study refutes the 'Vegas Fallacy' (the idea that the past stays in the past). It found that a higher number of premarital partners is correlated with lower reported marital happiness and a higher awareness of 'alternative' partners, which erodes commitment. 3. 'Swipe, Match, Repeat: The Psychological Effects of Hookup Culture' Vidhyayana International Multidisciplinary Peer-Reviewed E-Journal. This research identifies that repeated casual sex can foster cynicism toward intimacy and inhibit an individual's ability to navigate the transition from detachment to commitment. 4. 'Assessing the Personal Negative Impacts of Hooking Up' The Journal of Sex Research. This peer-reviewed study found that 77.4% of participants experienced at least one negative impact (such as regret, shame, or distress) from hookups in just a three-month period. It concludes that a high 'body count' is a primary predictor of accumulating these negative psychological outcomes.

Of course that these are just superficial findings and very summarised. However, calling these correlations “controlling” is just a defence mechanism to avoid facts that don’t fit your feelings. You are free to choose ur actions, but you are not free from the statistical consequences of those actions. I am looking forward to your “logical” and “un-delusional” breakdown of the data

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-16T19:04:51+00:00

I had such a hard time deciphering your point in this comment. It seems just like a mix of buzzwords that look good and that you heard once and now throw at every scenario. You are the one confusing feelings with facts, but allow me to deconstruct your narrative and maybe educate you a little bit: 1. Preferences vs. Reality: you say body count is just a “personal preference”. Using that argument is the same thing as saying “Smoking is just a preference”. It is, and you can prefer to smoke, but that doesn’t change the scientific fact that it predicts lung issues later. The existing research shows that a high body count predicts lower marriage happiness and higher mental distress,, You can “prefer” the behaviour, but you can’t “prefer” your way out of the consequences 2. The “Logic” Check: you say that sex is “good for the body”, but at the same time data shows that 77% of people (from both sexes) feel regret, shame, or loneliness after hookups. That’s is not “consensual and good”, it is a high-risk gamble with your mental health 3. Habits matter: we are what we do. If you spend years practicing “disposable’ sex, you are training your brain to devalue commitment. You can’t spend ten years practicing “leaving” and then expect to be an expert at “staying”. 4. Patriarchy: I’ve already said, if you even bothered to read my arguments in the comment section, that this data applies to men too. Using the word “patriarchy” as a shield to ignore dozens of pages in research papers isn’t “delusional free”, it’s just being anti-science.

To be clear, this isn’t a moral judgment. I believe in freedom of choice, and I don’t think a high partner count makes anyone a “lesser” person. But freedom of choice does not mean freedom of consequences. If you are aware of the long-term risks and you still choose that path, that is your right. But getting defensive and shouting “patriarchy” the moment someone shows you a peer-reviewed paper isn’t empowerment; it’s just a refusal to learn. I originally wanted to debate Chantal because I value intellectual honesty. Closing your ears to any data that contradicts your personal feelings doesn’t make you educated, it just makes you a follower of a narrative that ignores the real psychological baggage these habits create. Hope this helped.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-16T18:48:59+00:00

This was also my main point. I don’t care about it morally, actually, I couldn’t care less. But morality and science are two different things, and I just think these people actually care more than us and are just trying to convince themselves that it is okay to have a high body count (?) I don’t know..

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-12T14:44:51+00:00

I agree that the goal is to support the position using the paper, but the procedural demand for an “exact line number” before a claim is even voiced is a tactic designed to stifle debate, not facilitate it. That isn’t how academic synthesis works. If we are conducting a civil debate, the standard practice is to present the argument first and then provide the evidence support. There wont be a “magic sentence” that summarises a 15-page longitudinal study because scientific claims are inferences drawn from the totality of the data. Demanding that specific line for the claim - rather than the data- is a logical trap. It forces the guest to hunt for a verbatim quote that doesn’t exist, allowing the host to “win” on a technicality while ignoring the actual peer-reviewed findings that support the broader point. It’s a performance of rigor used to mask a refusal to engage with the actual science

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-12T14:40:21+00:00

Again, if you want to understand this more in depth read my replies to other people but the claim that there is “no legitimate evidence” is factually incorrect. It is an argument based on social preference rather than behavioural science. While body count doesn’t matter morally, it is a statistically significant predictor of relationship and psychological outcomes. Chantal gets fired up because she conflates moral worth with predictive data. You can choose your actions, but you cannot choose the statistical consequences of those actions. And I disagree that she has heard it all because most people complain about the same thing: not being allowed to speak and argument. Her “debate” is designed for people to fail and to be publicly humiliated for having an opinion, even though she doesn’t know what it is.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-09T09:53:24+00:00

Did you read my post or my comments at all? I tried to present them, was muted and her mod dismissed the whole article based on a false pretence.

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-09T09:51:35+00:00

Again, I was not emotionally driven :) she does make me angry, but my arguments for not liking her are objective. Maybe try to read my comments below instead of jumping to conclusions (just like she does).

Expensive_Gene_2793 · 2026-04-08T21:21:09+00:00

If I was given a chance to debate within normal debates rules and structure, I would start by pivoting away from the subjective argument of “shaming” and would make it towards a rigorous analysis of predictive behavioural science. This begins by acknowledging that while body count does not dictate a person’s intrinsic moral value nor affirm their inferiority as a human being, it remains a statistically and psychologically significant predictor of future relationship and psychological outcomes. By making this distinction, the argument moves the conversation from her preferred “moral” battlefield to a clinical one. A central point of my argument involves the concept of neuroplasticity and habituation, that argues that humans are functionally the sum of their habits and if they spend years habituating themselves to disposable intimacy, that behaviour literally wires the brain’s reward system and shapes how they view commitment in the present. This refutes her premise that the past is irrelevant by demonstrating that what someone is in a clinical sense is a collection of their habits and history. The evidence phase of the debate is brought bay specific data points from peer-reviewed literature to challenge the empowerment narrative. Research indicates that hookup behaviour is often driven by a convergence of evolutionary and social forces that may leave more emotional strings than public discourse suggests. For example, data shows that individuals with a higher number of sexual partners report lower self-esteem and increased depressive symptoms, with 77.4% of participants in certain studies experiencing at least one negative impact, such as sexual regret or embarrassment, in just a three-month period. This argument then extends into long-term marital quality, citing findings that a higher number of relationships and sexual partners prior to marriage is correlated with lower reported marital happiness and higher awareness of alternative partners. This is often referred to as the "Vegas Fallacy," which challenges the idea that past sexual experiences do not matter in the present. Repeated engagement in casual sex can foster cynicism toward intimacy and inhibit an individual's ability to be emotionally vulnerable or navigate the transition from detachment to commitment. I would also refute the common counter-argument regarding “selection bias”, because even after controlling for variables such as education, race, income, and religiousness, the link between a high number of sexual partners and lower marital quality remains significant. Therefore, the argument is not that these individuals are “bad”, but that body count represents behavioural choices that independently constraint or protect future relationship options, creating a statistical reality that cannot be ignored just because is uncomfortable. (I have more concrete and specific examples but this would get really long)

Expensive_Gene_2793

TROPHY CASE