标签：#AR

I'm training an AlphaZero-style agent (Gumbel MuZero via DeepMind's mctx ) to lay out working factory modules for Factorio: the network places machines, belts and inserters on a grid, and the reward comes from an exact throughput verifier. Everything runs in JAX on a single RTX 5070: 128 environments in one batch, an action space of A = 1729 (3 entity types × 144 cells × 4 rotations + "done"), and a small 474k-parameter conv net in bf16. While benchmarking training configurations I hit this: MCTS simulations per move training throughput XLA compile time 16 143 episodes/s 5 s 32 47 episodes/s 13 s 64 9 episodes/s 60 s Doubling the simulation budget should roughly double the cost — each simulation is one network call plus some tree bookkeeping. Instead, 16→32 costs ×3 and 32→64 costs ×5 . Something in the search was superlinear, and this post is the story of finding it in the compiled HLO and fixing it by rewriting one ~80-line function ( PR #116 ), with bitwise-identical search results. Ruling out the network First, components in isolation (batch 128): one network evaluation takes ~0.8 ms , and the rest of recurrent_fn (environment step + observation + legal-action mask) adds almost nothing on top — the whole function is also ~0.8 ms. So at 64 simulations the network accounts for roughly 50 ms per move. But a full policy step at 64 simulations costs 362 ms . Hundreds of milliseconds were going somewhere else. To localize them I benchmarked three variants of the same policy step: full — production setup; no-net — network replaced by constant logits, real environment; tree-only — no network and no environment: recurrent_fn returns the embedding unchanged. Nothing left but mctx's own tree machinery. sims full no-net tree-only 8 10.7 ms 3.7 ms 3.8 ms 16 20.9 ms 8.3 ms 8.3 ms 32 64.7 ms 34.0 ms 33.7 ms 64 362.1 ms 124.7 ms 125.0 ms The pure tree machinery is superlinear all by itself. Per simulation it costs 0.47 → 0.52 → 1.05 → 1.95 ms as the budget goes 8 → 16 → 32 → 64

Jake Mannix discusses moving AI agents past chaotic "1970s BASIC" architectures. He shares how implementing an intermediate protocol layer allows engineering leaders to build versioned, encapsulated "virtual tools." This design enables interface mapping, dynamic schema projection, and runtime taint tracking to proactively eliminate data exfiltration risks without slowing velocity. By Jake Mannix

When choosing a university for a masters in ML/DL, what is more important if someone wants to go into research and an eventual PhD. Is it the ranking/prestige factor of the university or the strength of the research groups in the university? Should an admission decision be made hoping that I will get to work with X/Y professor or lab? submitted by /u/Hot_Version_6403 [link] [留言]

Ukraine's battlefield surge of robots now features airdrops and beach assaults.

When it comes to enthusiast-geared Honda hardware, the Civic Si, Civic Type R, and Acura NSX often come to mind first for their revvy VTEC (Honda's form of variable valve timing) engines and playful chassis dynamics. The Prelude, on the other hand, less so. Instead, the Prelude is a technological study - still aimed at […]

The fitness trackers I’d recommend to beginners, athletes, and kids.

Glow is targeting a new class of endpoint risks created by the rapid adoption of AI agents and developer tools inside enterprises.

The most dangerous overengineering does not look careless. It looks thoughtful. It has clean interfaces, reusable components, configurable behavior, extension points, and an architecture diagram that makes the system appear ready for anything. Then the next feature arrives. A change that should take one afternoon touches seven layers, breaks three abstractions, and forces the team to understand a framework built for requirements that never appeared. That is what makes overengineering difficult to recognize. It rarely presents itself as unnecessary complexity. It presents itself as responsible engineering. It Usually Begins With a Reasonable Fear Developers do not overengineer because they want to make systems harder. They usually remember an earlier project that became painful. Maybe duplicated business logic spread across several screens. Maybe a component could not support a second use case. Maybe an integration became impossible to replace. Maybe a narrow implementation eventually required an expensive rewrite. The next time a similar problem appears, the team tries to protect itself. What if this feature grows? What if another team needs it? What if product asks for configuration? What if we add more providers? What if the rules change? These are reasonable questions. The problem begins when imagined requirements receive the same architectural weight as real ones. A single approval flow becomes a workflow engine. Two similar components become a universal rendering framework. One pricing exception becomes a configurable rules platform. The team tries to avoid future pain and creates immediate friction instead. The first use case now has to support requirements that do not exist. Developers must understand extension points nobody uses, configuration nobody needs, and interfaces protecting boundaries that have not appeared. Thinking about the future is not the mistake. Building the future before there is evidence is. Reuse Is Expensive Before the Pattern Is Stable

Open a lot of .NET projects and you'll find the repository pattern sitting on top of Entity Framework Core. IProductRepository, GetById, Add, Save, the whole set. Underneath, every method just calls the EF Core DbContext and passes the result straight back. The wrapper adds a name and nothing else. So do you need the repository pattern with EF Core? For most apps, no. EF Core already gives you one. DbSet is a repository. It already does the thing the pattern is for. The reason this keeps happening is that the repository pattern got taught alongside EF, so people assume you need one to use the other. You don't. What the Pattern Was For The repository pattern came before EF Core. It started in a time when data access meant hand-written SQL, SqlCommand, and mapping DataReader rows to objects by hand. Wrapping all of that behind an interface was worth it. It hid a real mess, and it let you swap what was underneath without the rest of the app noticing. EF Core already does that. DbContext is the unit of work. DbSet is the repository. SaveChanges() is the commit. The pattern you're adding is one the tool already gives you. What the Wrapper Actually Does Here's the shape you see in most codebases: public class ProductRepository : IProductRepository { private readonly AppDbContext _db ; public ProductRepository ( AppDbContext db ) => _db = db ; public async Task < Product ?> GetById ( int id ) => await _db . Products . FindAsync ( id ); public async Task < List < Product >> GetAll () => await _db . Products . ToListAsync (); public void Add ( Product product ) => _db . Products . Add ( product ); } Read what each method does. GetById calls FindAsync. GetAll calls ToListAsync. Add calls Add. It's a passthrough. Every line hands the call straight to EF Core and returns whatever comes back. You wrote an interface, a class, and a registration to rename methods that already existed. This is what people mean by a generic repository over EF Core, and it's the most common version y

It didn’t keep my coworkers at bay, but Flipper’s expensive productivity tool did help me focus on the task at hand.

When NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope launches, as early as the end of next month, it will attempt one of astronomy’s most precise disappearing acts to date. The telescope will carry the first space-bound “active” coronagraph, an instrument that effectively erases most of the light from a star during photography. It will allow astronomers…

Reviews drop today. This thread is for reactions, celebrations, commiserations, and anything useful in between. First: if you got good reviews, say so. There's a norm in these threads where only the bad news gets aired, and it skews everyone's sense of what's normal. Post your wins. Second , the thing worth repeating every cycle: the review process is noisy, and that noise is measured, not folklore. The NeurIPS consistency experiments (2014, repeated 2021) found that a large fraction of accepted papers would have been rejected by an independent second committee. Reviewer assignment, load, and luck of the draw account for a lot. A score is a weak signal about your work and a strong signal about the process that produced it. That cuts both ways. It's not a license to dismiss every criticism as noise — it's a reason to weight reviews by the quality of the argument rather than the number attached to them. The reviewer who found a real hole in your evaluation did you a favor, even if the tone was rough. The one who clearly skimmed did not, regardless of the score. So: prioritize the reviews that make the paper better. Fix what's fixable, contest what's genuinely wrong, and concede the rest gracefully in the rebuttal. Things worth discussing: Reviews that caught something you'd missed Rebuttal strategy — what's worth contesting vs. conceding, and when new experiments actually shift a score Patterns you're seeing this cycle (missing baselines, compute comparisons, ablation depth, reproducibility asks) Framing a response when a reviewer has clearly misread the submission Backup plans: ICLR, AISTATS, workshops Please paraphrase rather than paste review text, and no speculation about reviewer or AC identities. To anyone who got bad news: this doesn't define your research impact. Plenty of heavily-cited work took two or three cycles to land somewhere. Rejection is a scheduling problem. How did everyone do? submitted by /u/Afraid_Difference697 [link] [留言]

Synthesia launched AI Roleplay Sessions, an interactive enterprise training platform where employees practice workplace conversations with AI avatars that provide feedback, scoring, and analytics to help companies measure training effectiveness.

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.19058 Code (GitHub): https://github.com/nuemaan/skewadam Hi everyone, I just published a preprint on a new optimizer designed to tackle the massive VRAM bottleneck in Mixture-of-Experts (MoE) training. If you've trained MoEs, you know that optimizer state is usually the largest single line item in the memory budget. AdamW, for example, spends 50.6 GB of state memory just to update a 12.6 GB model. I built SkewAdam to fix this by using a tiered state allocation . Instead of treating all parameters equally, it allocates precision based on parameter behavior: Backbone (5% of params): Momentum + Factored 2nd moment Experts (95% of params): Factored 2nd moment only Router (<0.01% of params): Exact 2nd moment The Hardware Results: Optimizer state memory drops from 50.6 GB to 1.29 GB (a 97.4% reduction). Peak training memory drops from 81.4 GB to 31.3 GB. This allows a 6.78B MoE to fit comfortably on a single 40GB GPU without sacrificing convergence or router stability. submitted by /u/Kooky-Ad-4124 [link] [留言]

I honestly thought learning REST APIs would be easy. At first, creating a simple GET or POST endpoint feels straightforward and you start thinking, "I've got this." Then reality hits. Every API needs middleware, validation, error handling, controllers, database integration, authentication, authorization, testing, pagination, CORS, environment variables, deployment and a dozen other things. Somewhere along the way, you realize you didn't just sign up to build an API—you signed up to build an entire backend ecosystem. 😂💻

When people hear about a new project scaffolding tool, one of the first questions they ask is: "Can I choose React Query or TanStack Query?" "What about pnpm instead of Bun?" "Can I use ESLint instead of Biome?" "Can I choose Radix instead of Base UI?" "Can I skip Tailwind?" These are reasonable questions. In fact, I asked myself the same ones while building create-notils . My first instinct was to make everything configurable. The more I thought about it, the more I realized I was about to build something I didn't actually want to use. The Configuration Trap Most project generators start simple. Then someone requests another option. Another package manager. Another ORM. Another authentication provider. Another CSS framework. Another UI library. Eventually the CLI starts looking like this: ? Which package manager? ❯ npm pnpm yarn bun ? Which CSS framework? ? Which ORM? ? Which auth library? ? Which formatter? ? Which icon library? ? Which deployment target? It feels flexible. But every new option creates more combinations to support. Five choices in one prompt don't create five possible projects. They multiply with every other prompt. The complexity grows much faster than the number of features. I Built the Tool I Wanted to Use One thing I've learned from building side projects is this: the first user should always be yourself. Every project I start today uses almost exactly the same stack: Next.js 16 React 19 Bun Tailwind CSS v4 shadcn/ui Base UI Biome TypeScript Turborepo (when needed) I wasn't switching between ten different combinations every week. I was rebuilding the same foundation over and over. So instead of asking twenty questions during scaffolding, I decided to optimize for the workflow I actually have. npx create-notils my-app A few seconds later, I'm writing features instead of answering prompts. Opinionated Doesn't Mean Closed There's an important distinction between opinionated and restrictive . Some tools hide their implementation behind abstraction

As I was reading interp papers, I found myself copy-pasting passages back and forth to Claude to parse through them. Eventually just vibe-coded a tool to annotate and discuss papers in place. https://paper-reader.dev - select a passage, a formula, or a figure, and explain the selection with the full paper as context. You can also select a citation to get a brief overview of the cited paper without switching context. Repo is at github.com/tumanian/paper-reader if anyone curious (mostly Claude, some Cursor, some me - built on vercel and supabase). Please be gentle, this runs on my own API key with a modest cap, so don't be too enthusiastic. Hoping this can be useful to someone, and genuinely looking for feedback, especially on where the explanations are wrong or unhelpful — that's the part I can't fully self-evaluate. submitted by /u/tumanian [link] [留言]

🚀 JavaScript Fundamentals (Week-03): Understanding the Concepts That Every Developer Should Know "Writing JavaScript code is one thing, but understanding what happens behind the scenes is what makes you a better developer." When I first started learning JavaScript, I knew how to declare variables and write functions. However, I often found myself asking questions like: Why are there three ways to declare variables? What exactly is hoisting? How does JavaScript execute my code? Why can an inner function access variables from its parent function? What does the this keyword actually refer to? Why do developers keep talking about writing clean code? This week, I focused on understanding these core JavaScript concepts instead of simply memorizing syntax. In this article, I'll explain each concept in a beginner-friendly way with examples and practical explanations. 📚 Topics Covered Variables ( var , let , const ) Hoisting Lexical Scope Execution Context Call Stack Closures this Binding DRY Principle KISS Principle Let's start from the beginning. 📦 Variables in JavaScript What is a Variable? A variable is a named container used to store data in memory . Instead of writing the same value repeatedly, we store it inside a variable and reuse it whenever required. For example, let name = " Sai " ; console . log ( name ); Output Sai Here, let → Variable declaration keyword name → Variable name "Sai" → Stored value Why Do We Need Variables? Imagine writing this: console . log ( " Sai " ); console . log ( " Sai " ); console . log ( " Sai " ); If the value changes, every occurrence must be updated. Using variables, let name = " Sai " ; console . log ( name ); console . log ( name ); console . log ( name ); Now changing one line updates every usage. Variables improve: Readability Reusability Maintainability Types of Variables JavaScript provides three ways to declare variables. var let const Although all three create variables, they behave differently. var var was introduced in the

Join us as we bring you live coverage from Samsung's Unpacked event in London, where it's expected to reveal new foldables and wearables.

Technical books have a shelf life that nobody prints on the cover. A cookbook from 2018 still works. A history book from 2018 still works. A Laravel book from 2018 will teach you a middleware pattern that was replaced twice, recommend a package whose maintainer archived it, and show you a test suite in a syntax that no longer runs. I've written a series of ebooks on PHP, OOP, SOLID, design patterns, Laravel conventions, testing with Pest, application architecture, and AI-assisted development. There are also two aimed at kids learning to code. Every one of them was correct when I wrote it. That is a much weaker claim than "correct now," and I'd rather find the gap myself than have a reader find it for me. So: I'm opening the series to technical reviewers before the final edition ships. Applications close Sunday, 26 July. Why I can't do this alone Not because I lack the time. Because I lack the distance. When you write a technical book, you build a mental model of the reader and then you write to that model for months. The model is always partly wrong, and you are the last person who can see how. You skip a step because it's obvious to you. You keep an example that made sense when you drafted the chapter and no longer matches the surrounding code. You cite a package because it was the right answer for a project you shipped two years ago, and you never checked whether it's still maintained. None of this shows up on a reread. Rereading your own work is mostly pattern-matching against your own memory. You see what you meant, not what you wrote. A reviewer who has never seen the manuscript reads what's actually on the page. That's the whole value, and it's not something more effort on my side can substitute for. What the job actually is You pick one book from the series. You read it properly — not skim it — and you flag what's broken. Four things in particular: Things that are outdated. The framework moved, the syntax changed, there's now a cleaner way to do the same thin