标签：#AR

The logo goes on your CV. The team decides your next two years. People get this backwards constantly, and I understand why. Company names are legible. You can say them at a dinner party. They come with salary bands and glassdoor reviews and a shared idea of prestige. Teams are invisible from the outside. Nobody can tell you, before you join, that this particular group of eleven people ships carefully and reviews each other's work with real attention, while the group down the hall is on its third manager this year. But that difference is the entire experience of the job. Two engineers join the same famous company on the same day. One lands with a lead who explains decisions, gives real feedback, and hands out work slightly above their level. Two years later they are noticeably better. The other lands somewhere chaotic, spends two years firefighting, learns a lot about that one legacy system and almost nothing transferable. Same logo. Same offer letter. Completely different careers. So interview the team, not just the company. Ask who you would report to and try to talk to them. Ask what happened to the last person in this role. Ask how code review works here and listen for whether the answer sounds like a practice or an aspiration. Ask what the team shipped in the last six months. If the answer is vague, that tells you something. If they light up, that tells you more. And ask about the boring stuff, because the boring stuff is where you live. How do you handle on call. What does a normal week look like. When something goes wrong, what happens next. None of this makes the logo worthless. A strong company opens doors later, and that is real. Just understand what you are actually choosing between. The name gets you the next interview. The team decides whether you walk into it as someone worth hiring. Optimise for the people you will sit with every day. They are the ones who will shape you. – Asael Shinder

The quiet mistake most new mentors make is assuming the person in front of them wants your life. It is an easy mistake, because your path is the one you understand best. You know where the shortcuts were. You know which turn cost you two years. Of course you want to hand that map over. But it is a map of your terrain, not theirs. I have watched good mentors accidentally push someone toward management because management worked for them, when the person across the table lit up talking about deep technical work and went flat every time the org chart came up. I have also watched the reverse. A mentor who loved staying hands on, telling someone who was clearly born to run a team that leadership is a trap. Both were generous. Both were giving real, hard won advice. Both were answering a question nobody asked. So ask first, and ask properly. Not what do you want to be in five years, which almost nobody can answer honestly. Ask what part of last month did you enjoy most. Ask which meeting you would keep if you could delete all the others. Ask what you would do on a Tuesday with nothing on the calendar. The answers tell you far more than a stated ambition, because ambitions are usually borrowed and preferences rarely are. Then hold your own story loosely. Tell it as one data point, not as the route. I did this and it worked for me, for these specific reasons, and here is why it might not apply to you. That last clause is the whole job. Your value is not that you know where they should go. You almost never do. Your value is that you have seen more of the landscape than they have, so you can describe what is over each hill and let them choose the climb. The measure of good mentoring is not that they end up like you. It is that they end up more like themselves, faster than they would have alone. – Asael Shinder

The idea I wanted a small side project that could actually run itself once shipped — no cron jobs to babysit, no upstream API to go down at 3am and take my uptime with it. That constraint led somewhere specific: an API that validates common business data formats — phone numbers, IBAN, VAT/tax IDs, BIC/SWIFT codes, credit card numbers, postal codes — using nothing but offline checksum and format rules. No third-party lookups. No API keys to rotate for an upstream provider. No rate limits inherited from someone else's infrastructure. If it's slow or wrong, it's my bug, not a dependency's outage. The stack Hono on Cloudflare Workers — TypeScript, no cold starts, runs on the free tier comfortably up to 100k requests/day libphonenumber-js , ibantools , jsvat , card-validator — all well-maintained, all pure computation, zero network calls Vitest for tests, run against real fixtures (not made-up test data — every "valid" example in my test suite is a real IBAN/VAT/card number pulled from each library's own published examples, verified against the actual library output before I trusted it) The whole thing is about 300 lines of TypeScript across the router and six validator modules. Small enough to actually reason about, which mattered more to me than feature breadth. app . post ( " /v1/iban/validate " , async ( c ) => { const body = await c . req . json < { iban ?: string } > (). catch (() => null ); if ( ! body ?. iban ) { return c . json ({ error : " missing required field: iban " }, 400 ); } return c . json ( validateIban ( body . iban )); }); The part that actually surprised me I expected the code to be the hard part. It wasn't. Deploying and listing it on RapidAPI was. Two things stood out: CORS mattered even though I "shouldn't" need it. Real production traffic through RapidAPI's gateway is server-to-server — CORS is a browser-enforced concept, so I assumed it was irrelevant. But RapidAPI's own in-dashboard request tester runs as a real browser fetch, and without an O

Payment reconciliation can look completely reliable until a calendar edge case exposes a hidden...

Ever woke up feeling like a truck hit you, only to realize your Apple Watch had been screaming "Warning!" via your data for the last 24 hours? Heart Rate Variability (HRV) is the "canary in the coal mine" for our bodies. It's a powerful metric that tracks the variation in time between each heartbeat, serving as a direct window into your Autonomic Nervous System. In this guide, we are going to build a real-time HRV anomaly detector using wearable data analysis , Scikit-learn , and AWS Lambda . By applying machine learning to time-series health data, we can identify physiological stress, potential infections, or overtraining before physical symptoms even manifest. If you’ve been looking to dive into anomaly detection in time-series or want to master health data engineering , you’re in the right place! The Architecture: From Heartbeat to Alert 🛠️ To achieve real-time monitoring, we need a pipeline that moves data from your wrist to a cloud-based inference engine. Here is the high-level flow: graph TD A[Apple Watch / Wearable] -->|Sync| B(Apple HealthKit) B -->|Webhook/Hook| C[AWS API Gateway] C --> D[AWS Lambda - Inference] D -->|Fetch History| E[(DynamoDB / S3)] D -->|Isolation Forest| F{Anomaly?} F -->|Yes| G[Push Notification / Alert] F -->|No| H[Log & Silent] Prerequisites 📋 Before we start coding, ensure you have the following: Python 3.9+ Scikit-learn & Pandas for data crunching. AWS Account (for Lambda deployment). An app to push HealthKit data (like Health Auto Export or a custom Swift hook). Step 1: Understanding the Data 📊 HRV data is tricky because it’s highly personalized. What is "low" for an athlete might be "high" for someone else. This is why we use Isolation Forest , an unsupervised learning algorithm that excels at detecting outliers in multi-dimensional datasets without needing labeled "sick" vs. "healthy" days. Step 2: Building the Anomaly Detection Logic Let's write the core logic using Scikit-learn . We’ll use the Isolation Forest algorithm becaus

Many recent vehicles had CarPlay and Android Auto built in, but if yours doesn't, you can add a portable one to your dash.

Smart outdoor tech is changing how people use their backyards, and this handful of clever upgrades can make your space more useful and enjoyable.

When I first started working in scientific machine learning, I understood the physics much better than the coding. Every time I wanted to try a new physics-informed neural network problem, I had to start almost from scratch: changing the PDE, updating boundary conditions, modifying the architecture, tweaking the training schedule, debugging errors, and generating plots—all by hand. That frustration pushed me to build PINNStudio . It is a free, open-source no-code GUI designed to eliminate boilerplate code so you can focus entirely on the physics. Instead of rewriting a new script for every problem, you can define your setup directly through the interface: PDE Definitions & coupled multi-output PDE systems 1D or 2D domains with boundary and initial conditions Network architecture & custom training schedules Forward problems (solving known PDEs) or Inverse problems (estimating unknown parameters from data) What happens next? PINNStudio automatically generates the code (built on top of DeepXDE), runs the model, streams the training log, and displays live loss curves and solution plots directly inside the app. It also includes built-in templates for classic equations like Heat, Allen-Cahn, and Cahn-Hilliard. GitHub (Open Source): https://github.com/AsfandyarKhan72/PINNStudio Quick Install: pip install pinnstudio My hope is that this will be helpful for students and researchers with limited coding experience, as well as experienced PINN users who just want a faster workflow. I’d love to get your feedback, feature suggestions, or bug reports! Huge thanks to Lu Lu and the DeepXDE team for creating the foundation that made this possible. submitted by /u/Impossible-Jello2749 [link] [留言]

Every RAG pipeline needs to convert text into vectors. The question is where that conversion happens. You have two options: run an embedding model locally on your own hardware, or call an API that runs the model on someone else's hardware. Both work. The right choice depends on your constraints — and understanding the tradeoffs is more useful than a recommendation. This article is about why I chose local embeddings with sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2 for this pipeline, and when I'd switch to an API. What Embeddings Actually Do Before the tradeoffs, a quick grounding on what's happening. An embedding model takes text and converts it into a fixed-size vector of floating-point numbers — a list of 384 numbers in the case of all-MiniLM-L6-v2 . That vector encodes the semantic meaning of the text in a way that allows mathematical comparison. Two pieces of text with similar meaning produce vectors that are close together in the 384-dimensional vector space. "Authentication failed" and "login was rejected" are semantically similar — their vectors will be close. "Authentication failed" and "quarterly revenue report" are semantically distant — their vectors will be far apart. This is what makes retrieval work. When you embed a query and search for the nearest chunks, you're finding chunks that are semantically similar to the question — not just chunks that contain the same keywords. The embedding model determines the quality of this semantic matching. A better model produces vectors where semantic similarity maps more accurately to vector proximity. The Local Embedding Choice My pipeline uses sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2 via ChromaDB's SentenceTransformerEmbeddingFunction : from chromadb.utils.embedding_functions import SentenceTransformerEmbeddingFunction embedding_fn = SentenceTransformerEmbeddingFunction ( model_name = " sentence-transformers/all-MiniLM-L6-v2 " ) This runs entirely on your local CPU. No API key, no network request, no cost per embedding,

A lot gets said about models. Hardly anything about the surroundings. Yet in daily work the surroundings are what decide. What is described here is not a product and not something we sell. It is the answer to the question we get asked most in conversation, mostly by people who work with AI themselves: how is this set up at your place. The Editor Is The Stage The work happens in a normal code editor, not in a chat window in the browser. That is the single most important difference. A chat window in the browser only sees what you paste into it. An assistant inside the editor sees the files, can run commands, read results and derive the next step from them. The difference between "explain how I change this" and "change it, run the tests and show me the result" is not convenience, it is a different way of working. Two Model Families, On Purpose Assistants from two different houses run side by side. That is not indecision but the most effective quality lever we have found. Models from the same family make similar mistakes. When builder and reviewer come from the same house, the reviewer reliably overlooks exactly what the builder overlooked. They share the blind spots. Run a model from a different family over the same work, with the explicit assignment to refute it, and different findings come back. Not more findings, different ones. That is now our standard route for anything non-trivial: one builds, a second attacks, and it keeps going until nothing substantial comes back. Recipes Instead Of Explaining Again The second layer is recipes for recurring procedures. A deploy, a blog post, a client onboarding, a server check. The point of them is not automation. The point is that each recipe carries the traps we already fell into. For publishing a site, for instance, it holds the order of checks that are due before the switch. Knowledge like that otherwise disappears. It lives in the head of somebody who is not around that day. In a recipe it is written down and gets followe

When you are building something from scratch, speed feels noble. It feels disciplined. Necessary. Mature, even. You tell yourself you are being practical. The customer does not care if the code is beautiful. The market is moving. Cash is finite. Momentum matters. So you make the trade that almost every founder makes at some point: ship now, clean up later. I understand that instinct very well because I have lived inside it. As a founder, you are not operating in the comfort of theory. You are making decisions with incomplete information, limited time, and a product that still needs to prove it deserves to exist. In that stage, a lot of engineering advice sounds suspiciously like it was written by people who have never had to get a real product out before the window closes. So yes, you move fast. You hardcode things that feel temporary. You defer cleanup. You choose the version that works over the version that would make your future self proud. You call it pragmatism, which it often is. The trouble is that pragmatism has a habit of overstaying. And that is the trap. Because some shortcuts buy you speed. Others quietly sell off your future ability to move. It took me time to really understand that distinction. Founding teaches you that speed has layers Before I started building products as a founder, speed felt simple. Ship the feature. Get the customer. Keep going. Later, I learned that there are at least two kinds of speed. The first kind gets you to launch. The second kind lets you keep moving after the launch. The first kind is exciting. It is visible. It gives you demos, momentum, first users, first revenue, first proof that you are not completely hallucinating the opportunity. The second kind is quieter. It shows up months later when the product has more customers, more complexity, and more reasons to break. It is the speed of a system that can still change safely. A team that can still ship without fear. An architecture that has not turned every roadmap discuss

I'm currently learning Machine Learning through a course, and I want to start building projects alongside it. My main goal right now is simply to build several good ML projects and get familiar with the complete project development process . I want to use AI coding tools such as Cursor, Claude Code, or GitHub Copilot to speed up development, but I'm unsure about the right way to vibe-code an ML project . For example, should I: Give the AI the complete project requirements and let it build the project? First create the architecture/pipeline myself and then let AI implement it? Build the project step-by-step and ask AI to implement each stage? Let AI handle things like data cleaning, EDA, preprocessing, and boilerplate while I focus on the ML decisions? Give AI a detailed specification before starting? Ask AI to review and improve the code after it generates it? Use one long conversation/context for the entire project, or separate prompts for different stages? How should I handle debugging and modifying AI-generated ML code? Basically, what is the best workflow for vibe-coding an ML project from start to finish? I'm not trying to replace learning ML with AI — I'm already studying the concepts separately. I just want to use AI effectively to build projects faster without ending up with a messy or poorly structured project . I'd especially like to hear from people who have built ML projects using Cursor/Claude Code/Copilot: What workflow do you personally follow, and what mistakes should I avoid? Also, please suggest any good communities where I can see how other people are building ML projects and discuss AI-assisted development. Thanks! submitted by /u/TusharKharade_ [link] [留言]

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

In every project, someone says it sooner or later: "we have too much technical debt." Everyone agrees. Nobody asks how much. One day I tried to do the math for real. I learned very little about my code, and a lot about the metaphor. The bank statement If my technical debt were a loan, it would have the same structure: At the bank In the code The principal The shortcut taken to ship on time The interest The extra cost of every new feature Repayment Refactoring Bankruptcy A full rewrite So I listed my lines: a 3,000-line service with no tests, a framework three major versions behind, billing logic copied in four places, and one module everyone avoids. Every feature costs me about 30% more time. And the principal, the amount I would need to pay to reach zero, is measured in months of work that nobody will ever give me. The verdict: I am insolvent. And yet I ship every week, and I have been shipping for years. This is where the analogy breaks. Four reasons why it is not a debt I don't know the amount. A bank debt is a number written in a contract. Technical debt has no number, it has opinions. Ask three developers to rate the same module and you get three answers. I never signed anything. You choose to take a loan. Most of my technical debt arrived on its own: a library abandoned by its author, a business rule that changed, a project I inherited. Ward Cunningham, who created the term in 1992, was talking about a loan you take on purpose, to learn faster. He then spent twenty years repeating that he never meant "badly written code." The interest does not arrive every month. You only pay for the code you touch. I have terrible files that have not cost me a single minute in three years, because nobody goes there. And I have an 80-line file, changed twice a week, that is ruining me. There is no zero balance. The refactoring I do today will be out of date in two years. I never repay anything. I just trade one debt for another one with a better rate. The word itself is a prob

I ported MoE expert expansion to llama.cpp 🚀 Run MoE models with MORE routed experts than the native top-K (8->x), adaptive threshold, 99→50% influence decay, layer range. Runtime-only, all backends. Tested on Qwen 3.6 35B A4B+ https://github.com/vagrillo/llama.cpp/blob/moe-expansion/docs/moe-expansion.md submitted by /u/Specific-Tax-6700 [link] [留言]

Tri-band routers have, unsurprisingly, one more band than dual-band routers have. But what does this mean in practice?

Hello all, TL;DR: point density, not model architecture, was the real bottleneck for a 5-class radar-only classifier on RadarScenes. Going from 1 to 5 points per instance roughly doubles macro F1 (0.381 → 0.764), while a whole set of architecture and feature changes all landed inside a measured noise floor. Real failure case attached: a stationary two-wheeler misread as a pedestrian. Setup I'm a perception / radar signal processing engineer getting into ML on radar data. Trained a 5-class classifier (car, large_vehicle, two_wheeler, pedestrian, pedestrian_group) on RadarScenes radar point clouds only, no camera or lidar. Per-instance histogram (16 bins) encoding into a 3-layer MLP. Main result: point density is the ceiling Macro F1 goes from 0.381 to 0.764 just by increasing points per instance from 1 to 5. Same trained model, nothing else changed. Why: a single point can't carry a size or velocity-spread signature. large_vehicle's F1 is 0.037 at n=1 vs 0.995 at n=11+. Some classes still work at n=1 (car separates cleanly on RCS/Doppler alone), others don't (two_wheeler and pedestrian collapse to the same near-zero-velocity signature when sparse). Ablation studies Wider/deeper networks, six alternative feature encodings, different bin edges, all landed inside the noise floor I measured with a 6-fold split sensitivity check (same train/val/test proportions, sequences reassigned per fold). Closest thing to an exception: swapping the histogram for explicit per-instance statistics (mean/median/std) actually made things slightly worse (0.658 vs baseline's 0.686), and pedestrian's own F1 fell outside its class-specific noise floor. Data caveats RadarScenes is naturalistically collected, not balanced: common classes get broad coverage, rare ones don't. two_wheeler merges two physically different speed regimes (bicycle vs a much rarer motorized variant). large_vehicle merges large_vehicle/truck/train/bus, RadarScenes' own recommended scheme, mostly forced by data scarcity i

I feel that reproducibility is now a lost cause in machine learning research for three reasons: Many research is moving towards the physical AI territory, where you need expensive hardwares or even entire laboratories with high-speed cameras, in order to perform an experiment. You truly have no idea if the experiment can be reproduced and have to trust the demo. But demos are not perfectly reliable. Plus people are incentivized to only show the part of the demo that works. The entire system can fall apart the moment the recording stops. You have big AI companies releasing various tools, which they claim to solve a host of problems with certain amount of accuracy or efficiency. Unless you work at those companies there is really no proof of that and you will have to take their words on it. They have strong financial incentive to blow-up those figures. There is no solid way to check it either because the problem that they solve are so vague and subjective. We need to address the elephant in the room which is that people are incentivized to produce non-reproducible work to prevent their lunch being eaten by their competitors or looking bad. That's why some of us will probably never get a reply when we email the authors for their code. So what now? Maybe everything will be OK because we can contrast it with scientific progress in earlier parts of history, e.g., building the atomic bomb or sending people to the moon. These projects had low "outside reproducibility" but high "internal reproducibility". Plus all these work were mathematical in nature and carefully checked. But I don't think many areas of machine learning research is like that. What do you think? Should reproducibility be abandoned? If not how is it best implemented going forward? submitted by /u/NeighborhoodFatCat [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/ThereWas [link] [留言]

The Uber founder has said that Atoms will allow him to complete "unfinished business."