There are too many comments parading "you haven't read the article", even when replying to comments referencing parts of the article, lately. It's already one thing to complain about someone's level of takeaway but another to only discuss the assumption of how they came to a different conclusion rather than just discuss the topic instead. The article title is also nothing to be proud of, it's 0% actionable information and 100% clickbait assumption - the person that wrote the Activity Monitor gets the same knowledge assignment as someone who's never even thought about it before.

I'd be curious what GP means in the difference between allocated scheduled time vs the way the article describes it (non idle process assignment time) though. It feels like that's 2 ways of saying the same thing? I agree with GP the frequency part seems off and can be surmised as a summary of the point later in the article anyways. Particularly, the opening of that section:

> Unlike traditional Intel CPUs, CPU cores in Apple silicon chips can be run at a wide range of frequencies, as set by macOS.

Is already setting off alarms - in what way is that different from traditional Intel CPUs from the last 2 decades? A long enough time ago there weren't enough (or any) cores to put in clustered groups but beyond that frequency scaling boosting by core/core group is just as common.

The author doesn't know what I know, yet the title suggests they do. That's the only assertion I see, and at least for me it isn't even a valid one.