标签：#AR

Over the past few months, I've noticed that most discussions around AI coding assistants focus on prompts. People share: .cursorrules AGENTS.md CLAUDE.md long prompt templates custom instructions The assumption is always the same: "If I explain my engineering practices clearly enough, the AI will follow them." For simple projects, that works. For real software projects, it eventually breaks down. The problem isn't intelligence. It's governance. Every AI coding assistant eventually produces something like this: giant functions skipped tests undocumented architectural decisions ignored security practices direct commits inconsistent commit messages missing pull request descriptions Not because the model suddenly became "worse". Because nothing prevents it from taking shortcuts. Exactly like humans. We already solved this problem... for humans. Professional software engineering has never relied on trust. Instead, we built systems that enforce discipline. We don't ask developers to: write tests We fail CI. We don't ask them to: use meaningful commit messages We reject the commit. We don't ask them: not to push directly to production Protected branches make it impossible. Engineering isn't based on trust. It's based on constraints. Yet with AI... ...we went backwards. Instead of constraints, we write instructions. We create increasingly sophisticated prompt files hoping the assistant will remember them. Always write tests. Always document architectural decisions. Use GitHub Flow. Follow OWASP. Keep functions below 40 lines. Never commit directly to main. Those aren't guarantees. They're suggestions. And suggestions are eventually ignored. Rules are not enforcement. Recently I came across an article making a simple observation: Rules without enforcement are just hopes. That sentence stayed with me. It perfectly describes the current state of AI-assisted development. An AI may fully understand your engineering rules. It may even agree with them. But unless something checks

A birth-chart form looks simple: ask for a date, time, and place, then calculate. The interface may be simple. The input is not. 1992-11-01 01:30 does not identify one universal instant. It is a wall-clock reading that only becomes meaningful after you resolve the place, the historical time-zone rule, and any daylight-saving transition. If the time is unknown, inventing a convenient default can create chart features that were never supported by the user’s data. I ran into these problems while building AstroZen , a Next.js application that calculates a BaZi Four Pillars chart and a Western natal chart before generating an optional interpretation. The most important architectural decision was this: Calculation is an evidence pipeline. Interpretation is a separate layer. This post explains the calculation pipeline, the failure modes I had to remove, and why “unknown” must remain unknown. 1. A city name is not a coordinate Early prototypes often use a short city list or a default coordinate. That works for a layout demo, but it is not acceptable once location affects the result. Names are ambiguous: Paris can mean France or Texas. Springfield needs a state or region. Country abbreviations come in several forms. A valid city must resolve to both coordinates and a time-zone identifier. AstroZen sends the submitted city to Open-Meteo’s geocoding service, then scores the returned candidates against the requested country and optional region hint. It keeps the following structured result: type ResolvedPlace = { name : string ; region : string | null ; country : string ; countryCode : string ; latitude : number ; longitude : number ; timeZone : string ; // IANA, for example "Europe/Madrid" }; Candidate selection considers exact city-name matches, country matches, an optional region hint, and population as a small tie-breaker. Population never replaces the country check. The more important rule is what happens when resolution fails: if ( ! selected || ! countryMatches ( selecte

Every team shipping an agent has the same meeting. Someone asks "is it ready?" and the room splits. One person saw a great demo. Another watched it invent a refund policy an hour ago. The argument runs in circles because nobody agreed what "ready" means, so the loudest opinion wins and the agent ships on a vibe. Making an AI agent production-ready is not a moment of confidence. It is a bar you write down before you build, then measure against. This post is about that bar: why agents need a different one than the services you already ship, and how to define it so "is it ready?" becomes a number instead of an argument. Why "production-ready" breaks for agents For a normal service, "production-ready" is settled. Correct output for valid input, handles errors, meets a latency target, has tests and a rollback. You know the shape of done. An agent breaks three of those assumptions at once: It is non-deterministic. The same input can produce different output, so "correct" becomes "acceptably right, often enough." Its failure surface is open-ended. A function fails in ways you enumerated; an agent fails in ways you never imagined, because it composes language, tools, and judgment on the fly. Its worst case is not a 500 error. It is a confident wrong answer that looks right, which is far more expensive than a crash, because a crash at least tells you it failed. So the honest question is not "is the agent correct." It is "is the agent acceptably wrong, safely, within budget, and repeatably enough to trust." That question has four parts, and each is a line on your bar. The four lines of the bar Write these down before you build. If you cannot fill them in, you do not have a spec, you have a wish. Task success. On a fixed set of real tasks , not the happy-path demo, what fraction must the agent complete correctly? Pick the number. 85 percent means one in seven users gets a wrong answer. Acceptable for this job, or fireable? Decide on purpose. Failure acceptability. Not all wron

I shipped a Next.js 16 app on Cloudflare Workers via OpenNext. Not a demo. A real product with streaming chat, server components, D1 at the edge, and anonymous user sessions. Here is what broke, what barely worked, and what turned out to be surprisingly fine. The stack Next.js 16.2 (App Router) @opennextjs/cloudflare 1.19 D1 for SQLite at the edge Streaming chat via the AI binding (DeepSeek-V3 through a Workers proxy) React 19 Tailwind CSS 4 No auth wall, no OAuth, no database on the origin The site runs a few thousand sessions a week across ~30 persona pages, blog posts, guides, and learning content. Most pages are statically generated. The chat interaction is server-rendered components with streaming responses. What worked surprisingly well Static generation and ISR Pages, blogs, guides, persona pages — everything that does not need user-specific rendering — runs as static HTML at deploy time. Next.js 16 with generateStaticParams and fetch caching worked without modification. OpenNext handles the Cloudflare output format. The build step produces something Workers can serve. Revalidations are limited to Workers' cache API, but since most content changes at deploy time, I never hit that limit in production. The one caveat: revalidateTag() does not work the same way in a Workers runtime. Tags are Node.js memory constructs, and Workers are stateless. If you depend on tag-based revalidation for content updates, you need to either trigger deploys or accept stale-while-revalidate behavior from the CDN. D1 at the edge D1 was the least surprising part of the stack. SQL queries from Next.js route handlers feel like calling a regular database. Sessions store in D1, messages store in D1, and the latency is low enough that restoring a full chat thread from 30 messages takes under 200ms cold. The only sharp edge: D1 connections count against your Worker's concurrent request limit in development. With Next.js making its own fetch calls for compilation, I hit the D1 connection ce

Why I Switched to Plain Text Accounting Mint is shutting down. After 10 years of financial tracking, I am losing my data again. This time, I switched to plain text accounting with Beancount. The Problem with Traditional Apps Traditional financial apps have several issues: Export limitations : They only provide summary reports, not raw transaction data Proprietary formats : Data is stored in closed databases that require specific software to read Platform lock-in : Different systems are incompatible with each other Financial records are long-term. Over the past decade, dozens of financial apps have shut down, leaving users with years of records wiped out. The Plain Text Solution Plain text accounting with Beancount offers a different approach: Data Sovereignty Your data belongs to you. You can: Open it with any text editor Read it directly as a human Access it permanently, without depending on specific software Process it freely and completely Migrate with near-zero cost Future-Proof Plain text files will remain readable decades from now. They do not depend on any company staying in business or maintaining compatibility with legacy systems. Making the Switch The learning curve was worth it. I now have: Complete control over my financial data No vendor lock-in Confidence that my records will exist as long as I want them to Your data, your sovereignty. PersonalFinance #Fintech #DataSovereignty #Beancount

Samsung's next Galaxy Unpacked event is just around the corner, and the company is expected to take the wraps off a bunch of new devices. Based on the rumors and leaks we've seen so far, Samsung's next generation of foldables will likely be the stars of the show. Samsung is expected to show off a […]

I'm AlanWu. I'm in junior high. I've written a lot of bad code. Here's what I changed to make it less bad. 1. Name things like a human // Don't do this int d ; // days? distance? damage? int cnt = 0 ; // "cnt" — you know, the classic vector < int > v ; // v of what // Do this int daysUntilDeadline ; int errorCount = 0 ; vector < int > studentScores ; Full words, no abbreviations. idx instead of i in loops is fine. But sz for size, cnt for count, ptr for pointer — just type the word. You're not being charged by the character. 2. Functions should do one thing If you need the word "and" to describe a function, split it. // Bad: does two things, name lies void loadAndValidateConfig () { readFile (); checkSyntax (); } // Better Config loadConfig ( string path ) { return parseConfig ( readFile ( path )); } bool validateConfig ( const Config & cfg ) { return cfg . width > 0 && cfg . height > 0 ; } My rule of thumb: if a function is longer than what fits on one screen, break it. If I can't describe what it does in one sentence without "and", break it. 3. Comments explain WHY, not WHAT // Bad — tells me what the code already says // Loop through all students for ( auto & s : students ) { s . score += 5 ; } // Good — tells me WHY, which the code can't // Extra credit: 5 points for submitting early for ( auto & s : students ) { s . score += 5 ; } If you're writing a comment that just restates the next line of code, delete it. The only comments worth keeping are the ones that answer "why did I do it this way?" 4. Don't nest too deep // Bad — 3 levels deep, I've already forgotten what the top level was for ( auto & student : students ) { if ( student . hasSubmitted ()) { for ( auto & answer : student . answers ) { if ( answer . isCorrect ()) { score ++ ; } } } } // Better — flatten with early exits for ( auto & student : students ) { if ( ! student . hasSubmitted ()) continue ; for ( auto & answer : student . answers ) { if ( ! answer . isCorrect ()) continue ; score ++ ; } } Al

Most agent tutorials stop at tools: give the model a function schema, hope it calls the right one. That works for get_time and hash_string . It falls apart when the model skips a knowledge search and opens a ticket, or when eighty APIs all land in one context window. Solon AI keeps tools as the execution unit, then adds Talent as the product unit: tools plus SOP plus activation rules. Think of it this way: Tool ≈ a function Talent ≈ a class that owns those functions, their playbook, and when they appear This post is a practical map of when to stay on tools, when to wrap them in a talent, and how registration actually works in Solon v4.0.3. The product failure behind “just add more tools” Bare tools only answer two questions for the model: what can I call? what args does it need? They do not answer: should this capability even be visible right now? what order must I follow before a dangerous call? which tools belong to the same business domain? That gap shows up as: premature side effects (ticket created before diagnosis) context blow-up (full tool tables on every turn) weak SOP compliance (model freestyles across domains) Talent is Solon’s answer: a reusable package of awareness + instruction + tools , with automatic coloring so tools keep their domain identity. Tool vs Talent in one table From the official comparison: Dimension Tool ( FunctionTool ) Talent ( Talent ) Unit Single function / method Instruction + tool set + state Abstraction Physical: how Logical: when and under which SOP Context awareness Passive isSupported(Prompt) can activate or hide Injected content Tool schema (JSON) System prompt fragment + tool list Constraint strength Weak — model freestyles from description Strong — SOP via getInstruction Registration defaultToolAdd / toolAdd defaultTalentAdd / talentAdd They are not rivals. A talent contains tools. Registering a talent also registers its tools; you do not need a second defaultToolAdd for the same set. Lifecycle: what actually runs at reques

The Range Rover GT will debut as an EV with a hybrid version to follow.

It’s “the most car-like Range Rover ever created,” but will this all-electric grand tourer spoil Jaguar’s Type 01 party?

The cybersecurity-focused models, including GPT-5.6 Sol, broke out of a testing sandbox, exploited a zero-day, and gained access to the open internet to pull off the attack.

I've been building an AI that learns to play the classic Snake game through reinforcement learning. The goal is to reach high scores while keeping training time as low as possible. The current version averages 86 points (87 is the maximum) after less than 10 hours of training on a single free Google Colab T4 GPU. To keep training fast, it runs 4,096 Snake games directly on the GPU, combines GPU-native environment simulation with PPO + GAE, and uses a spatially-preserving CoordConv architecture that maintains the full game grid throughout training. I'm sure there's still room to improve. If you've worked on reinforcement learning or efficient training systems, what would you try next? Better exploration, reward design, network architecture, or something else? Repository: ( https://github.com/siddhartha399/PPO-CoordConv-Snake ) I'd really appreciate any feedback or criticism. submitted by /u/Due_Highlight_9341 [link] [留言]

Meituan's LongCat team shipped a quiet but meaningful update to its open-source talking-avatar stack: version 1.5 swaps the audio encoder, distills sampling down to 8 steps, and adds an INT8 path to fit the model on tighter GPUs. Here's what actually changed under the hood, and which flags you now have to pass. LongCat-Video-Avatar 1.5: DMD2 distillation, Wav2Vec2 replacement, and INT8 offloading LongCat-Video-Avatar 1.5 is an audio-driven talking-avatar generator that turns one portrait plus an audio clip into a lip-synced video with head motion, expression, and body dynamics. Released May 21, 2026, it is an avatar head built on the 13.6-billion-parameter dense LongCat-Video diffusion transformer [base model, Oct 2025]. The headline change: v1.5 replaces the Wav2Vec2 audio encoder used in v1.0 (Dec 16, 2025) with Whisper-Large-v3, which the team attributes to smoother, more natural lip dynamics. Three new flags define the v1.5 workflow, none of which exist in v1.0: Flag What it does Notes --use_distill Enables DMD2-based step distillation, collapsing generation to 8 NFE Mandatory for v1.5 — omitting it falls back to the full-chain v1.0 sampling schedule, not an 8-step path --use_int8 Loads the 13.6B dense DiT in INT8 to cut VRAM pressure Main lever for consumer GPUs --resolution Selects 480P or 720P output New in 1.5 Under the hood, the technique report describes Cross-Chunk Latent Stitching, which removes redundant VAE decode/encode cycles between autoregressive chunks, enabling seamless minutes-long generation without re-encoding overhead [arXiv:2605.26486]. That matters for long-form output where earlier tools drift or stutter at chunk boundaries. One caveat worth flagging before you invest a GPU-hour: Meituan claims parity-or-better results versus HeyGen, Kling Avatar 2.0, and OmniHuman-1.5 across 508 image-audio pairs, 770 crowdsourced evaluators, and 13,240 judgments [human-eval benchmark]. That evaluation is entirely author-controlled and reported as win-rat

Durante anos fizemos a pergunta errada "Será que a IA vai substituir os desenvolvedores?" Hoje sabemos que essa não era a pergunta correta. A pergunta correta é: O que passa a ter valor quando escrever código deixa de ser caro? Isso muda completamente a engenharia de software. Por décadas, metodologias como Waterfall, Scrum, XP, DDD e Clean Architecture nasceram em um mundo onde escrever código era caro. Documentação envelhecia rapidamente porque reescrevê-la custava caro. Especificações eram abandonadas porque implementar consumia semanas. Então surgiu a IA. Pela primeira vez na história, produzir código ficou quase gratuito. O valor migrou. Código ficou barato. Julgamento não. Hoje qualquer LLM produz centenas de linhas de código em segundos. Mas ela não decide: qual problema resolver; quais regras de negócio existem; quais exceções importam; quais compromissos arquiteturais devem permanecer pelos próximos cinco anos. Essas continuam sendo responsabilidades humanas. O gargalo mudou Antes, escrevíamos código. Agora escrevemos decisões. Especificações. Arquiteturas. Critérios de aceitação. Revisões. A vantagem competitiva deixou de ser velocidade de digitação. Passou a ser clareza de pensamento. Por que o vibe coding não escala Conversas são uma péssima fonte de verdade. Cada prompt aumenta o contexto. Cada correção adiciona mais tokens. Cada interação obriga a IA a reconstruir sua intenção. Em algum momento ela deixa de raciocinar sobre o sistema e passa a raciocinar sobre a conversa. Esse é o verdadeiro custo escondido do vibe coding. Especificações passam a ser o centro do projeto Foi essa percepção que originou o Spec Driven Development . A ideia é simples: A conversa deixa de ser a memória do projeto. A especificação passa a ser. Cada funcionalidade nasce de uma spec, evolui para um plano, transforma-se em tarefas e somente depois é implementada. O resultado é previsibilidade. Menos retrabalho. Menos tokens. Menos ambiguidades. https://books.kodel.com.br/pt-br/

In the ever-evolving landscape of technology, software engineers continually seek optimal solutions to complex problems. To achieve this, a deep understanding of the underlying technologies is essential. When considering adopting new technologies, it's crucial to ask: Why : What problem does this technology solve? How does it align with our project's goals? What : What specific tools or frameworks can address our needs? How do they compare in terms of features, performance, and community support? How : How does the technology work? Understanding its inner workings can significantly enhance problem-solving and troubleshooting capabilities. The Benefits of Understanding Technology's Building Blocks Enhanced Problem-Solving : A deep understanding of a technology's fundamentals empowers developers to diagnose and resolve issues more efficiently. Effective Integration : Knowledge of a technology's architecture facilitates seamless integration with existing systems. Optimal Utilization : By grasping a technology's capabilities, developers can leverage its features to their full potential. Future-Proofing : A solid foundation in technology principles enables developers to adapt to emerging trends and innovations. A Case Study: Containers Containers, a popular virtualization technology, provide isolation and portability for applications. By understanding the underlying concepts of namespaces, control groups, CRI, and the Linux kernel, developers can effectively manage and troubleshoot containerized environments. In conclusion, the fast-paced world of software development, staying ahead requires a proactive approach to technology adoption. By carefully considering the "why," "what," and "how" of new technologies, software engineers can make informed decisions, optimize their projects, and deliver innovative solutions.

If your Clio integration started returning 401 and you are trying to work out why, the first question is not about your code. It is which of Clio's two OAuth systems you are on, because they have different rules and most advice on the internet does not say which one it is describing. There are two, and they are not interchangeable Clio Manage is the older one. OAuth at app.clio.com/oauth , API at app.clio.com/api/v4 . Clio Platform is the newer one, covering Grow and the lead inbox among others. OAuth at auth.api.clio.com/oauth , API at api.clio.com . They differ on essentially every point that matters when a token dies. Manage Platform Access token lifetime 2,592,000s, 30 days 86,400s, 24 hours Refresh token expiry Documented as none No time expiry, but rotates Refresh token rotation Not documented, and the refresh sample returns no new refresh token Documented: rotates on every use, previous one revoked Revocation endpoint POST app.clio.com/oauth/deauthorize , Bearer auth POST auth.api.clio.com/oauth/revoke , Basic auth Treat the lifetime row as the documented default rather than a constant. Honour the expires_in you get back on each response instead of hardcoding 30 days, because there are field reports of accounts issuing much shorter access tokens, and a hardcoded assumption fails in a way that looks exactly like revocation. That rotation row is the one that decides your debugging. On Platform , every refresh gives you a new refresh token and kills the old one, so failing to persist the new value out of each response leaves you holding a dead token the next time you try. Clio's docs say it directly: store the new refresh token returned in each response. On Manage , the documented behaviour is a long-lived refresh token that does not expire and is not replaced. Their refresh response sample does not even include a refresh_token field. So on Manage, a token that suddenly stops working usually points somewhere else: revocation, or the wrong region. The region trap

If you have ever stared at a misbehaving circuit at two in the morning, muttering about the "bug" you cannot find, you are part of a lineage that runs back to a very literal insect. On September 9, 1947, engineers working on Harvard's Mark II computer opened up the machine, found a moth wedged inside a relay, and taped it into their logbook. The note beside it reads: "First actual case of bug being found." It is one of the most charming artifacts in the history of computing, and it carries a surprisingly practical lesson for anyone who builds connected hardware today. What actually happened in 1947 The Mark II was an electromechanical monster: a room-sized calculator built from thousands of relays, switches that physically clacked open and closed to represent ones and zeros. On that September day the machine was producing errors, and the operators -- part of the U.S. Navy computing effort that Grace Hopper worked in -- traced the fault to Relay #70 in Panel F. Inside was a moth, its wings shorting across the contacts. They removed it, taped it into the logbook at 15:45, and recorded the now-famous line. That page, moth still attached, lives today in the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. Hopper loved telling the story for the rest of her career, which is why her name is forever attached to it. She is often credited with coining "bug" and "debugging" because of that moth, but the honest history is a little different, and the difference is the interesting part. The word "bug" was already old Engineers had been calling faults "bugs" for decades before 1947. Thomas Edison used the term in an 1878 letter to describe the little glitches and "difficulties" that show up when a new invention meets the real world. By the early twentieth century "bug" was common shop-floor slang among electrical and telephone engineers. So the moth did not invent the word. What made the logbook entry so memorable is the joke buried in it: "first actual case of bug being found"

The discounts may not beat Prime Day, but I found worthwhile prices on WIRED-approved TVs, laptops, tablets, speakers, and other home gear.

Taylor Farms stirred confusion on FDA test and provided a vague recall list.

Pat Gelsinger wants to pave the way to ever more powerful artificial intelligence using tiny beams of light.