A $xxxx 2.5 year old laptop, one that's probably much more powerful than an average laptop bought today and probably next year as well. I don't think it's a fair reference point.
The article is pretty good overall, but the title did irk me a little. I assumed when reading "2.5 year old" that it was fairly low-spec only to find out it was an M2 Macbook Pro with 64 GB of unified memory, so it can run models bigger than what an Nvidia 5090 can handle.
I suppose that it could be intended to be read as "my laptop is only 2.5 years old, and therefore fairly modern/powerful" but I doubt that was the intention.
