标签：#AR

CAP Theorem Explained: Choosing Between Consistency, Availability, and Partition Tolerance in Databases Imagine you're trying to book a flight online, and just as you're about to pay, the website crashes. When you try to book again, you find that the flight is now sold out, even though the website initially showed available seats. This frustrating experience is a classic example of a database trade-off between consistency, availability, and partition tolerance. The CAP theorem, first introduced by Eric Brewer in 2000, states that it's impossible for a distributed data store to simultaneously guarantee more than two out of these three principles. In this post, we'll delve into the world of CAP theorem, exploring its fundamentals, real-world database examples, and design implications. Introduction to CAP Theorem Understanding the Basics of CAP Theorem The CAP theorem is based on three primary principles: Consistency : Every read operation will see the most recent write or an error. Availability : Every request receives a response, without guarantee that it contains the most recent version of the information. Partition Tolerance : The system continues to function and make progress even when network partitions (i.e., splits or failures) occur. Importance of CAP Theorem in Distributed Systems In distributed systems, where data is spread across multiple nodes, the CAP theorem plays a crucial role in understanding the trade-offs between these principles. By grasping the CAP theorem, developers can design more resilient and scalable databases that meet the specific needs of their applications. Brief Overview of the Blog Post This post will explore the CAP theorem in depth, using real-world database examples to illustrate the trade-offs between consistency, availability, and partition tolerance. We'll discuss the fundamentals of CAP theorem, examine CA, CP, and AP systems, and provide guidance on designing for each combination. By the end of this post, you'll have a solid un

At GTC 2026, Jensen Huang said something that made a lot of people pause: the PC is being reinvented. He and Microsoft launched RTX Spark with the N1X chip, cramming petaflop-level AI compute into a desktop form factor. On the surface it looks like another hardware upgrade, but this time the use case is genuinely different. Previous PC performance gains served humans: faster rendering, faster compiling, smoother gaming. This round of compute improvement is largely aimed at AI agents. Agents need to run vision-language models locally, understand screen content in real time, and execute GUI operations. These workloads demand sustained compute resources with a load profile completely different from human computer use. Agents Need Different Hardware Than Humans Humans use computers in bursts: typing, clicking, waiting for responses. The load is pulsed. Agents use computers continuously: constantly capturing screenshots, interpreting the display, making decisions, executing operations. The load is steady-state. This means agents need memory bandwidth and energy efficiency more than peak compute. This explains why Apple's M-series chips perform well in on-device AI scenarios. The unified memory architecture lets GPU and CPU share the same memory pool without data transfers between them, which is highly efficient for model inference that frequently accesses large parameter sets. M-series energy efficiency also suits long-running agent workloads without thermal throttling. NVIDIA's RTX Spark takes another path: more GPU compute and more memory (128GB unified) to handle on-device AI demands. The N1X chip has higher total compute than M-series, better suited for heavy workloads. Different tradeoffs, same destination: AI agents running on the device in front of you. There's Already a Complete Agent Stack on Mac What's worth noting is that the on-device AI agent stack on Apple's ecosystem is already fairly complete. M-series chips at the hardware layer. MLX at the framework lay

StudyQuiz has moved forward since the first frontend MVP release. This update focuses less on adding major new features and more on making the app smoother to use, safer to change, and more reliable in production. What’s New Logout functionality Call-to-action section on the user dashboard Edit and delete functionality for questions and answers Guest Mode restrictions for editing and deleting questions and answers Integration tests for core backend workflows Improved Enhanced quiz user experience and feedback Improved quiz creation user experience Improved navigation across the application More reliable page reload behavior for protected routes Fixed Fixed 500 errors when reloading protected frontend pages Fixed production database session configuration issues Improved reliability around authentication-protected routes Why This Release Matters This release is mainly about stability and maintainability. I added integration tests and a GitHub Actions workflow so future changes are checked automatically before they silently break existing behaviour. StudyQuiz now feels closer to a maintainable product rather than just a working prototype. Coming Next The next major focus is slide upload and AI-assisted quiz generation, allowing users to generate structured quizzes more directly from their study materials. Repo: github.com/aissa-laribi/studyquiz Live app: https://www.studyquiz.co

Today I started Week 3 of the Machine Learning Specialization and learned about Classification. Until now, most of my learning focused on regression, where models predict numerical values. Today I discovered that many real-world problems involve predicting categories instead. Some examples include: Detecting spam emails Predicting whether a customer will leave or stay Identifying whether a tumor is malignant or benign I also learned about Logistic Regression. Despite its name, it is used for classification tasks. The model predicts probabilities that help determine which class an example belongs to. Another important concept was the Decision Boundary, which is used to separate different classes based on predicted probabilities. To reinforce my understanding, I completed the graded assignment for this section. This week feels like an important step because classification is widely used in real-world machine learning applications. 🚀 Looking forward to learning more about classification models and improving my understanding of machine learning. MachineLearning #AI #DataScience #Python #LearningJourney

Two Hypotheses In the contemporary discussion about artificial intelligence, two distinct hypotheses intersect and are often conflated. The first hypothesis describes AI as a thin client between intention and result. Historically, a chain of translators existed between a concept and an artifact. A person formulated a task for a programmer, the programmer wrote code, the code became a program. A screenwriter passed an idea to a studio, the studio hired a VFX team, the team produced a film. A composer worked with musicians and a studio to record a track. AI shortens this chain, allowing a result to be obtained directly from a natural language prompt. The second hypothesis is more radical. It asserts that AI washes out not only performers but also apprentices. The main function of many professions was not the production of the current result, but the reproduction of knowledge. A junior was needed not because he is useful today, but because in five years he will become a senior. A student was needed not to create value now, but to become an engineer. A doctoral candidate was needed not for brilliant papers, but to undergo the school of scientific thinking. The Destruction of the Apprenticeship Mechanism The classical model of competence growth was built on review. A junior wrote code, a senior dissected it, extracted the substrate of experience, and transmitted professional intuition. Each review was an act of knowledge transfer. The new model looks different. A person formulates a prompt, AI generates the result. If code of acceptable quality appears immediately, the economic need for a junior declines. Along with it, the mechanism through which knowledge was transmitted disappears. A structural question arises that goes beyond the labor market. Where will the next seniors come from if the intermediate link does not undergo the path of learning through mistakes and reviews. This is a problem of competence reproduction, not simply automation. The Transformation of Educa

The AI world is full of old infrastructure with stochastic organs. That sentence probably explains...

I put my family on a private social network, and all I got was this lousy group chat. At least it’s secure.

After migrating Spark pipelines to Azure Kubernetes Service, two infrastructure settings interacted destructively: spark.kubernetes.local.dirs.tmpfs=true backed shuffle spill with RAM instead of disk, and a hard podAffinity rule forced all executors onto one node. Together, they caused repeated OOM kills invisible to standard diagnostics. By Pranav Bhasker

MiniMax released M3 today and the API is already live. Worth separating what comes from their own official model page versus what comes from the launch announcement, because some of the numbers are sourced differently. From the official model page: BrowseComp 83.5, ahead of Claude Opus 4.7 at 79.3. PostTrainBench 37.1, which ranks third behind Opus 4.7 at 42.4 and GPT-5.5 at 39.3. From the launch announcement: SWE-Bench Pro 59.0%, Terminal Bench 2.1 66.0%, MCP Atlas 74.2%. The headline "beats Opus" is BrowseComp-specific, not a general capability claim across all dimensions. The context window is up to 1M tokens, implemented through their in-house MiniMax Sparse Attention architecture. They state 512K as the guaranteed minimum with 1M as the ceiling. The model was trained on 100T+ tokens and is natively multimodal rather than vision being added after the fact. Open-weights release is coming to HuggingFace and GitHub but listed as "coming soon." API access is available now through several paths, including OpenAI-compatible endpoints, while the weights are still pending. The model also supports native MCP tooling, which is where the 74.2% MCP Atlas number comes from. The demo claims are the part worth being skeptical about. A 12-hour autonomous ICLR paper replication run and a CUDA kernel optimization loop reaching 9.4x speedup are impressive if real, but these are curated showcase demos that are hard to evaluate from a screenshot. Whether sparse attention holds up at 900K+ tokens in practice rather than in controlled benchmarks is an open question. submitted by /u/Drysetcat [link] [留言]

Google has released 2D CAD drawings of the Fitbit Air.

Every impressive agent demo skips the same three things: Auth. The demo target is open. The real one has a login and a 2FA prompt. Identity. The demo agent acts as the developer. The real one needs its own email, accounts, and a place to keep secrets. State. The demo is one clean run. The real one has to remember what it did last time and resume. These are not AI problems, which is exactly why they get skipped in AI demos. But they are most of the work to go from "cool clip" to "thing that runs unattended." The model is increasingly the easy part. The unglamorous identity-and-state layer around it is where products actually live or die. Curious whether people think this layer gets commoditized into the foundation models, or stays a separate thing you assemble. submitted by /u/kumard3 [link] [留言]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy . ] submitted by /u/n4r735 [link] [留言]

Operator perspective. I use AI daily across three companies and I am bullish on it, but the gap between what gets shouted on stage and what the data shows is enormous. Best measured number across hundreds of engineers is about 7.8%, and 66% of the people who hit a peak gain saw it fade the next quarter. At the same time, people are being pushed onto it under threat of their jobs while the return is not even proven to the people mandating it. My read is the anger is not really “AI is bad,” it is “my boss profits from me using it and I do not.” Where do you land - is the resistance cognitive (it erodes skill) or economic (the gain is not shared)? submitted by /u/Alternative_Letter72 [link] [留言]

I’ve been using AI pretty heavily for the past few months — quick research, rewriting emails, brainstorming ideas, even helping outline stuff I need to write. It saves so much time and the output is usually decent. But lately I’ve noticed something weird: I’m second-guessing myself way less. I’ll get an answer from it and just kind of roll with it instead of thinking it through like I used to. Yesterday I asked it about something I already had a rough opinion on, accepted its take, and only later realized I didn’t even challenge any part of it. It feels convenient as hell, but also a little unsettling. Like I’m outsourcing the actual thinking part. Is this normal? Or am I slowly losing the habit of thinking deeply on my own? Anyone else feeling this? submitted by /u/pen-pineapple-apple [link] [留言]

Online it feels like every company is fully embracing AI. In reality, most organizations I interact with are still trying to figure out where it fits into existing workflows, processes and software. The interesting conversations aren't usually about models anymore. They're about trust, reliability, permissions, governance and how AI fits into the way people already work. The gap between AI demos and real-world adoption still feels larger than most people realize. submitted by /u/Bladerunner_7_ [link] [留言]

Most API teams treat the contract as an afterthought: write code, generate a spec, then watch the two drift apart. Git-native API design reverses that flow. You treat the API contract as source code, version it in Git, and review every change the same way you review application logic. Try Apidog today This guide focuses on implementation discipline, not a single tool. You’ll design contracts in branches, review them in pull requests, and turn a committed spec into mocks, tests, and docs. The goal is simple: your Git history should also be your API history. If you already know what Spec-First tooling looks like and want the product walkthrough, read the companion piece on the git-native API workflow . This article stays focused on practice. What “git-native” means for API work Git-native means your API definition lives in your repository as a plain text file. Not in a proprietary cloud database. Not behind a vendor login. A .yaml or .json file sits next to your code and is tracked by the same version control system your team already uses. In many cloud-locked API design tools, the contract lives in the vendor’s backend. You edit through a web UI, and your repository only contains an export. That export can become stale, and your Git history no longer explains how the API evolved. The git-native model inverts that relationship: The file in main is the contract. Any GUI is a view onto that file. Branches, commits, pull requests, blame, and rollback all apply to your API surface. Mocks, docs, tests, and generated clients derive from the committed spec. A git-native setup has three core properties: The spec is a text file in the repo. Changes flow through normal Git operations: branch, commit, PR, merge. Downstream artifacts derive from the committed file, not from a separate database. Why design and develop APIs in Git You already trust Git with your code. Your API contract deserves the same treatment. 1. History When someone asks, “When did we add the cursor pagination

TL;DR Day 2 of AI Native DevCon shifted from agent capability to operating discipline. The strongest sessions focused on how teams can run AI-native delivery with clearer context pipelines, measurable agent behavior, safer execution boundaries, and better organizational ownership. The scale showed up in the numbers too. Across the two days, DevCon brought together 650+ in-person registrations, around 2,000 online registrations, and a packed mix of sessions, workshops, hallway conversations, and practical lessons. Day 2 leaned into workshops. That shift mattered because the second day was less about proving agents can do useful work and more about showing how teams can make that work repeatable. Hey there, welcome back. Rohan Sharma here again continuing the devcon series. Day 1 gave us the framing, including Guy Podjarny ’s core point that skills should be treated like real software assets. Day 2 picked up from there and moved into the operating details. Once agents are inside daily engineering work, platform and product teams need to decide what changes first, who owns those changes, and how the results are measured. Talks that shaped Day 2 Harness engineering beyond code Marc Sloan from Tessl focused on the next gap many teams are hitting. Code context is increasingly structured, but product and design context still lives in external systems such as Figma, Notion, and Linear. Pulling that context live can reduce staleness, but it introduces drift in evals, versioning, and reproducibility. The practical lesson was to stop treating external product and design context as random reference material. Teams need a defined layer between the repository and those external systems, with clear versioning so evaluations can be replayed against known context snapshots. Without that, agents can produce work that looks technically correct while missing the product constraint that actually mattered. That is a very expensive kind of almost-right. From vibes to metrics Simon Obstbau

If you've ever built a REST API with Express, you've probably felt it. Middleware registration, type definitions, body parser setup, connecting Joi or Zod... the structure is simple, but the boilerplate is excessive. When I first saw Hono, I was skeptical. "Another Express clone," I thought. That changed when I actually ran it. Bottom line: Hono v4 is more than just lightweight and fast. TypeScript type inference flows naturally all the way to route handlers. Zod validation connects via a single official package. On Bun, response times are noticeably faster than Express. Everything in this post is based on what I ran in a sandbox in June 2026. Why Hono — Compared to Express and Fastify Understanding where Hono fits means answering three questions. Bundle size : Hono v4 core is about 12KB. Express is 58KB, Fastify is 77KB. The gap might not sound dramatic, but in edge environments like Cloudflare Workers or Deno Deploy, bundle size directly affects cold start time. Edge functions sometimes initialize a new runtime per request — smaller means faster first response. Runtime compatibility : Express is Node.js-only. Fastify targets Node.js by default. Hono was designed from the start to "run anywhere." The same code deploys to Bun, Deno, Cloudflare Workers, Node.js, and AWS Lambda Edge. TypeScript support : Express requires @types/express as a separate install, and properties added to req via middleware don't get type inference. Hono is written in TypeScript from the ground up, and the Hono<{ Bindings: Env; Variables: Variables }> generic gives you type-safe access to environment variables and middleware state. I'm not saying Hono is the right choice for every situation. If your team is deeply invested in Express, or you need a mature plugin ecosystem, there's no compelling reason to switch. But if edge deployment is the goal, or you want type safety from day one, Hono is the most convincing TypeScript API framework right now. Installation and First Server — Response in

Smart Lighting Protocol Showdown: Zigbee vs Matter vs BLE Mesh (2026) After deploying thousands of Zigbee smart lights through our manufacturing line at nexLAMP, and watching countless customers struggle with protocol selection, I decided to write this practical comparison. The Real Problem "My smart lights keep disconnecting! I think I chose the wrong protocol..." This is the #1 complaint I see on Reddit, Xiaohongshu, and Zhihu. The fix isn't a better router — it's choosing the right protocol from day one. Protocol Deep Dive Zigbee — The Workhorse Frequency : 2.4 GHz (separate from WiFi) Topology : Star + Mesh hybrid Max devices : 200+ per coordinator Latency : 50-200ms Cost/unit : ~$3.5-5.0 (Tuya Zigbee drivers) Why it wins for lighting: Each node is a repeater → self-healing mesh Ultra-low power → years on coin cell for sensors Mature ecosystem → Tuya, Hue, Aqara, Xiaomi all ship Zigbee The catch: You need a Zigbee gateway (~$15-20). This is the only upfront cost. BLE Mesh — The Budget Option Frequency : 2.4 GHz (shared with WiFi/BLE) Topology : Managed flood mesh Max devices : ~50 (practical limit ~30) Latency : 100-500ms (increases with node count) Cost/unit : ~$2.0-3.5 The flooding problem: Every command is broadcast to every node. With N nodes, you get O(N²) message propagation. Past 30 devices, you'll notice visible lag. Good for: Small apartments (≤ 6 lights), budget projects. Matter — The Future Transport : Thread (preferred) or WiFi Topology : Thread mesh (similar to Zigbee) Max devices : 250+ (theoretical) Latency : 30-150ms (Thread), variable (WiFi) Cost/unit : ~$7.0-11.0 (currently higher) Matter's promise is genuine cross-platform control. But in 2026: Pros: Native HomeKit, Alexa, Google Home support Thread mesh is excellent (when it works) IP-based → easier cloud integration Cons: Thread Border Routers aren't ubiquitous yet Advanced lighting features still evolving Premium pricing for early adoption Cost Analysis (20-Fixture Deployment) Protocol Driv

Get 20% off your next website, 10% off with exclusive Squarespace discount code, 50% off plans, and more top coupons from WIRED.