The LedgerSync pipeline was inserting 1.5 million rows into PostgreSQL using pandas.to_sql() . It took four minutes per run. I switched to psycopg2's COPY command and it dropped to 18 seconds. Same data, same schema, same machine. That is not an optimization tip. It is the difference between a pipeline that fits in an Airflow schedule and one that does not. This article is about patterns like that: the ones that matter when you are building pipelines that run on a schedule, not when you are writing ad-hoc queries. Loading Data: to_sql vs execute_values vs COPY There are three ways to write rows from Python into PostgreSQL, and the performance gap between them is significant. pandas to_sql issues one INSERT statement per row by default, or a multi-row INSERT with method="multi" . It is the easiest to write and the slowest for any serious volume. psycopg2 execute_values batches many rows into a single multi-row INSERT VALUES statement. About 5x faster than to_sql for medium-sized loads. psycopg2 COPY streams rows directly to PostgreSQL using its native bulk-load protocol. No statement parsing, no row-by-row overhead. For LedgerSync at 1.5M rows, this was the one that mattered. import psycopg2 import io import pandas as pd conn = psycopg2 . connect ( " host=localhost dbname=proj_db user=proj_user password=proj_pass " ) def bulk_copy ( df : pd . DataFrame , table : str , columns : list [ str ]): buf = io . StringIO () df [ columns ]. to_csv ( buf , index = False , header = False ) buf . seek ( 0 ) with conn . cursor () as cur : cur . copy_from ( buf , table , sep = " , " , columns = columns ) conn . commit () print ( f " Loaded { len ( df ) } rows into { table } " ) Use COPY for initial loads and large backfills. For incremental daily writes of a few thousand rows, execute_values is fine and gives you more control over conflict handling: from psycopg2.extras import execute_values def bulk_insert ( rows : list [ dict ], table : str ): if not rows : return columns = list

The first gameplay trailer shows off bloody melee combat.

I would like some advice from well experienced devs that you would give to junior devs submitted by /u/Dizzy_External2549 [link] [留言]

At its big State of Play show on Tuesday, Sony shared new look Marvel's Wolverine, the next big title from Insomniac Games that's launching exclusively on PS5 on September 15th. Dressed in the iconic yellow Wolverine outfit, Logan slunk around and stabbed his way through a bunch of enemies, using his blades to take them […]

There's a specific feeling you get after your third production caching incident. It's not panic....

Running multi-turn or multi-agent AI sessions? There is a consistent degradation pattern across tools: context fills with repeated history, tool schemas, and subagent handoffs. A 2026 paper by Bai et al. studying SWE-bench across eight frontier models found agentic coding tasks consume roughly 1000x more tokens than ordinary chat, with 30x variance on identical tasks. Accuracy does not rise with spend. In one tracked research synthesis run I observed context hit 450,000 tokens. The agent dropped early constraints, re-queried sources already in history, and required manual reset. After adding three controls, the same class of task peaked near 85,000 tokens: PLAN.md and INVARIANTS.md outside the conversation window, read fresh each major turn A 2,000-line read budget gate per turn (agent states intent before any retrieval) Out-of-band notes for subagent coordination so side traffic never enters the main transcript Dynamic tool discovery produces similar ratios. One harness reduced input tokens 96% and total spend 90% by loading schemas only for tools the agent actually selects, rather than injecting a full catalog on every call. Full write-up with the paper analysis, tree-sitter extraction patterns, and an implementation checklist What token or cost patterns have you run into in your own agent sessions? submitted by /u/magicroot75 [link] [留言]

AI agent built into your CRM who works leads for you Discussion | Link

Microsoft missed the boat on apps, so get ready for agents.

While the majority of Summer Game Fest takes place over the weekend, Sony is getting a jump on things with its next State of Play showcase, which airs on June 2nd at 5PM ET. It’s coming at a pivotal time for the PlayStation brand: The PS5 keeps getting more expensive and Sony’s big bet on […]

submitted by /u/sizelrd [link] [留言]

Hollow Knight joins the Amazon Luna game catalog this month.

The AI Alliance (the IBM/Meta-founded nonprofit consortium) just published a report from the first planning workshop for Project Tapestry, an effort to explore whether frontier-scale AI can be built through a global coalition instead of a single centralized lab. About 30 researchers and institutional partners met in Paris in May, including representatives from initiatives such as Switzerland's Apertus, India's BharatGen, MBZUAI, and AI Singapore. The core idea is that sovereignty and frontier capability are increasingly linked. A locally controlled model that falls far behind the frontier may struggle to gain adoption, while relying entirely on external frontier labs limits transparency, adaptation, and governance. Tapestry is exploring a model where participants contribute data, compute, and expertise to build a shared foundation model while keeping control of their own data and deploying sovereign derivatives tailored to local laws, languages, and institutions. That said, this is still very early. The workshop produced an architecture proposal, workstreams, and a roadmap. Governance, funding, legal structure, and a distributed training demonstration remain future milestones. Many AI collaborations have struggled to move beyond this phase. Posted by an AI Alliance community member. Happy to answer questions. Source: https://thealliance.ai/blog/project-tapestry-the-path-to-frontier-sovereign-ai Question for the community: Can a multi-party consortium realistically compete at the frontier when leading labs are concentrating massive amounts of capital, talent, and compute? Or is collaborative frontier AI inevitably a step behind centralized efforts? submitted by /u/AI_Alliance [link] [留言]