Despite headwinds from the current administration, automakers continue to release well-equipped EVs with bigger battery packs and increasingly faster charging speeds. For those who want to travel further between plugging in, the future is still bright, just slightly tinted. But there haven't been many sedans starting around or below $50,000, as crossover SUVs have largely […]

submitted by /u/NihiloZero [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Wise_Stick9613 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

For a long time, I thought the key to getting more value from AI was finding the smartest model. So I spent months comparing outputs, testing prompts, and constantly switching tools whenever a new release dropped. Ironically, that became its own form of procrastination. The biggest productivity boost came when I stopped optimizing for model quality and started optimizing for workflow. Now my stack is boring: One tool for thinking and writing One tool for execution and organization A few specialized tools only when needed Less tool-hopping. Less context switching. More shipping. The funny thing is that AI didn't remove work. It changed the work. Instead of creating everything from scratch, I'm reviewing, directing, and refining. The people getting the most value from AI don't seem to have the best prompts or the fanciest tools. They have the simplest workflows. Anyone else notice this, or am I just getting old and tired of managing software? submitted by /u/Leading-Tailor-6000 [link] [留言]

Find out whether a single Wi-Fi router or a mesh system makes the most sense for your home network.

https://archive.ph/Tl5ci

AI agents are getting better at taking actions, not just giving answers. That sounds exciting until the action touches something real: customer data, payments, internal systems, emails, approvals, or legal/business decisions. A bad answer can be corrected. A bad action can create a chain of problems. I think the next AI bottleneck is not only intelligence. It is accountability. If an AI agent makes a bad decision in a real workflow, who should be responsible? submitted by /u/Alpertayfur [link] [留言]

Forget the pricey, postpaid cell plans and two-year contracts. Save with one of these WIRED-tested options from US Mobile, Boost, and Google Fi.

As temperatures rise, some creatures pick fights while others struggle to learn.

Built with OpenEUDI — open source (MIT), live on npm. GitHub: https://github.com/openeudi · npm: @openeudi/core and @openeudi/openid4vp Originally published on eidas-pro.com . The Developer's Dilemma You need to verify user identity in your application. Traditionally, that meant integrating a KYC provider — uploading documents, waiting for manual review, handling edge cases. With EUDI Wallets launching in December 2026, there's a new option. This comparison is written for developers who need to choose between — or migrate from — traditional KYC to EUDI Wallet verification. Architecture Comparison Traditional KYC Flow User uploads document → Your server → KYC API → Queue → AI/Manual review ↓ Result (minutes to days) ↓ Webhook to your server EUDI Wallet Flow Your server generates QR → User scans with wallet → Wallet authenticates ↓ Cryptographic VP sent back ↓ Result (2-5 seconds) Side-by-Side Comparison Aspect Traditional KYC EUDI Wallet (OpenEUDI) Verification time Minutes to 48 hours 2-5 seconds User effort Photo upload, selfie, manual entry Scan QR, tap approve Data you receive Full document images, extracted PII Only requested attributes (e.g., age_over_18) Data you store Required to store for compliance No PII storage needed API complexity REST + webhooks + polling REST + SSE (real-time) SDK cost Paid (per verification) Free (OpenEUDI is MIT) Production cost Per-verification pricing Managed service from EUR 49/mo Cryptographic verification You trust the KYC provider You verify the issuer's signature yourself Cross-border Provider-dependent All 27 EU member states Regulatory basis Provider-specific compliance EU Regulation 2024/1183 GDPR burden High (you store PII) Low (no PII retention) Offline capability No Yes (proximity/NFC flow) Integration Effort Traditional KYC (Typical) // 1. Create verification session const session = await kycProvider . createSession ({ type : ' identity ' , country : ' DE ' , documentTypes : [ ' passport ' , ' id_card ' ], redirectUrl

Quick answer: The Google Ads Transparency Center is a public registry of every ad Google runs — but it ships no API and no bulk export . To get the data programmatically you scrape it. A Google Ads Transparency scraper sends the same RPC call the website uses and returns every ad creative for an advertiser as structured JSON. The Apify Actor below does it for $0.0012 per ad (~$1.20 per 1,000), with the TLS fingerprinting, proxy rotation, and pagination handled for you. Google's Ads Transparency Center is one of the most underused datasets in marketing. Launched in 2023 under the EU Digital Services Act and parallel US pressure, it indexes every ad campaign currently running on Search, YouTube, Display, Shopping, Maps, and Play — keyed by advertiser. Google's own counter lists 300,000+ active creatives for a brand like Nike . For your nearest competitor, it's usually 50–500. The catch: there's no download button. Just an interactive UI that paginates 40 creatives at a time. If you want this as a CSV — for a competitor sweep, a trademark audit, or a RAG corpus — you have to extract it yourself. Here's what that actually takes, and how I shortened it to one API call. What is the Google Ads Transparency Center? 🔎 The Google Ads Transparency Center is a public, Google-operated registry that shows the ad creatives any verified advertiser is running, the date range each ad was shown, and roughly where. Google built it to comply with ad-disclosure regulation, so the data is public by design — you're reading the same registry a regulator would. What it gives you per advertiser: Every ad creative currently or recently live (text, image, video) The landing domain each ad clicks through to First-shown / last-shown timestamps and a rough impression count A deep link to each creative inside the Transparency Center What it does not give you: a search-by-keyword mode, region-filtered results from the server, or — crucially — an API. Does the Google Ads Transparency Center have an A

Stacking, Bidirectionality, the Encoder-Decoder, and LSTMs Last post ended with a simple RNN and three promises: LSTMs, bidirectional RNNs, and attention. This post delivers the first two, plus the refinements that turn a working-on-paper RNN into something you'd actually deploy. By the end, you'll know how to stack RNNs for depth, why reading a sentence backward as well as forward (bidirectionality) makes representations sharper, how the encoder-decoder turns one sequence into a different one for machine translation, and exactly what breaks in a simple RNN that LSTMs and GRUs were invented to fix. Attention, the fix for the last problem we'll hit, gets its own home in the transformer post, so we'll stop right at the edge of it. The simple RNN was the idea. This post is the engineering. A vanilla RNN carries a thread of hidden state through time, but in practice, that thread frays on long sequences, only sees the past, and bottlenecks everything through one final vector. Each section here is a fix for one of those problems. Put them together, and the path from "RNN" to "transformer" looks less like a leap and more like a series of obvious next steps. Stacking RNNs for Depth The first refinement is the easy one. Nothing says an RNN's output has to go straight to a prediction. You can feed the entire output sequence of one RNN as the input sequence to another. Then another. These are stacked RNNs (also called deep RNNs), and they usually outperform a single layer. Why does depth help? The same reason it helps in vision. Each layer learns representations at a different level of abstraction. The lower layers pick up fundamental, local properties; in language, that's roughly the level of parts of speech and named entities. The higher layers compose those into bigger groupings: descriptive phrases, "this is the answer to a question," and so on. We can't point at layer 3 and say "this one does coreference." But the theory holds up well enough that researchers have probed m

The Question Nobody Wants to Ask: Does Your Skill Actually Help? You spent an afternoon crafting a carefully structured Skill for your agent. Clear steps, thorough edge-case notes, well-formatted output requirements. You tested it manually a few times, the outputs looked great. You shipped it. Three weeks later, you notice that some task success rates have gone down compared to before the Skill existed. This is not a hypothetical. In May 2026, Microsoft Research published two concurrent papers — SkillLens ("From Raw Experience to Skill Consumption") and SkillOpt ("Executive Strategy for Self-Evolving Agent Skills") — that measured this failure mode at scale. Their finding: negative transfer happens in 25% of cases , and you cannot reliably identify the bad skills just by reading the text. One paper answers "why skills sometimes backfire." The other answers "how to make skills systematically better." Together they sketch a new paradigm for agent capability improvement. Part One: SkillLens — Mapping the Full Skill Lifecycle A Skill Is Not a Point — It's a Pipeline Most practitioners think of a Skill as "a block of text instructions for an agent." SkillLens decomposes this into a three-stage lifecycle : Stage 1: Experience Generation Target model M runs training tasks, producing an experience pool of trajectories (both successes and failures) ↓ Stage 2: Skill Extraction Extractor model E distills the experience pool into a structured skill document — procedural knowledge under a fixed budget ↓ Stage 3: Skill Consumption The same target model M, equipped with the extracted skill, is evaluated on held-out test tasks Notice there are two distinct roles in this chain: the Extractor (distills knowledge from trajectories) and the Target (consumes knowledge to improve task performance). SkillLens's central insight is that these two roles are independent — a strong task executor is not necessarily a strong extractor, and vice versa . Two New Metrics: EE and TE To separate thes

Top API Gateways for AI Applications and Agentic Workflows (2026 Developer Guide) Hadil Ben Abdallah Hadil Ben Abdallah Hadil Ben Abdallah Follow May 28 Top API Gateways for AI Applications and Agentic Workflows (2026 Developer Guide) # ai # api # apigateway # backend 49 reactions Comments 6 comments 10 min read

This is a submission for the [GitHub Finish-Up-A-Thon Challenge] What I Built LeadBotX is an AI-powered lead generation platform prototype designed to simulate how modern businesses can automatically discover, filter, and manage high-quality leads using intelligent automation workflows. This project is not just a simple frontend demo — it represents a revived college-level concept that I initially started earlier but left incomplete due to time constraints and complexity. For this challenge, I revisited the idea and transformed it into a fully structured SaaS-style frontend system with improved UI, better workflow representation, and a more realistic product-like experience. The main goal of LeadBotX is to visually demonstrate how an AI-based lead generation system works end-to-end in a real-world SaaS environment. Tech Stack This project was built using modern frontend technologies: React.js → Component-based UI structure CSS3 → Custom responsive styling system AOS (Animate On Scroll) → Smooth scroll animations Lucide Icons & React Icons → UI iconography GitHub Copilot → Assisted in code generation, debugging, and UI improvements Demo Source Code: https://github.com/Khushisingh-dev/LeadBotX Production Landing Page: https://lead-bot-x.vercel.app/ Before (Initial Version)- After (Final Version)- The Comeback Story This project originally started as a college-level concept during my development learning phase. At that time, I built only a basic structure and initial UI, but I was unable to complete it due to time limitations and complexity of the idea. It remained an unfinished project for a long time. When I came across this challenge, I decided to revisit LeadBotX and transform it into something more meaningful and complete. Instead of just polishing the UI, I focused on: Rebuilding the structure into a proper SaaS layout Improving workflow clarity and user journey Enhancing UI/UX consistency across all sections Making the product feel like a real-world AI tool prot

How RAGScope Knows Which Chunks Your LLM Actually Used Your retriever fetched 10 chunks. Your LLM only used 3. RAGScope shows a precision score of 30 out of 100. The question every new user asks: how does it know? There is no OpenTelemetry attribute that says "this chunk was in the context window." RAGScope infers it — and the way it does this is the most consequential piece of engineering in the whole tool. There Is No "In Context" Attribute in OTel The OpenTelemetry semantic conventions for generative AI ( gen_ai.* ) define attributes for model, input/output tokens, and retrieved documents. They do not define anything like gen_ai.chunk.reached_llm or gen_ai.retrieval.used_document_ids . When your RETRIEVER span fires, you get a list of documents. When your LLM span fires, you get a prompt and a completion. The two spans are connected by a parent-child trace relationship — but there is no attribute that maps which retrieved documents appear in which prompt. This gap matters. A reranker might drop 7 of your 10 chunks. Your application code might apply a token budget and truncate 4 more. From the trace alone, you cannot tell. RAGScope needs this information to compute the precision sub-score — the highest-weighted metric at 40% of the overall score. Getting it wrong would make precision meaningless. The Substring Match — How assembleContext Works RAGScope's answer is in src/enrichment/pipeline.ts , in a function called assembleContext : function assembleContext ( chunks : RagChunk [], llmSpans : ParsedSpan []): RagChunk [] { const llmPrompts = llmSpans . map (( s ) => s . prompt ). filter (( p ): p is string => !! p ); if ( llmPrompts . length === 0 ) return chunks ; let position = 0 ; return chunks . map (( chunk ) => { if ( ! chunk . content ) return chunk ; const inContext = llmPrompts . some (( p ) => p . includes ( chunk . content ! )); if ( inContext ) { return { ... chunk , inContext : true , contextPosition : position ++ }; } return { ... chunk , inContext :