标签：#AR

I was initially enamored with the beta version of Apple’s revamped smartphone assistant. As the full release approaches, I’ve forgotten Siri AI even exists.

Don’t let busted pipes or an overflowing washing machine dampen your day. These smart water sensors can help you catch problems quicker.

The shift in the fish’s diet is having significant downstream impacts on the environment and climate.

The best gaming chair is actually an office chair. Here are our top picks from our real-life testing so far.

"Inspiration is for amateurs, the rest of us just show up and get to work." — Chuck Close ...

readm3 can edit now, and it speaks Reddit readm3 started as a markdown reader for the terminal. File browser on the left, rendered document on the right. Version 0.3.0 adds the obvious missing half: you can change the file you are looking at. Press e , type, press esc . The preview has already re-rendered by the time you get back to it, because both modes read the same buffer. There is no second preview to keep in sync, which is the part that usually goes wrong in editors with a live preview pane. ctrl+s saves. Quitting with unsaved work asks first. enter continues the list you are in, so the same bullet, the next number, or an unchecked box for a task, and pressing it on an empty item ends the list. There is no selection and no cut and paste. This is for fixing a typo and adding a paragraph. Your editor is still your editor. Two dependencies, not forty The old parser was a few hundred lines of hand-rolled regex, and it got reference links, nested lists and bare URLs wrong. Every fix was another regex. Parsing moved to marked. The reason it won was not features, it was weight: marked is CommonMark plus GFM with zero dependencies of its own . readm3 went from one dependency to two. markdown-it would have been seven. A remark and micromark pipeline is somewhere between twenty and forty packages, for a program whose whole point is that it starts instantly in a terminal. Only the parsing moved. The layout code that wraps text, draws code gutters and sizes tables is untouched, so readm3.com still renders through the exact same functions the terminal does. There is still no second renderer. The swap fixed reference links, nested and loose lists, bare URL autolinks and hard line breaks for free. The dialects actually disagree marked does not ship GitHub alerts, footnotes, :emoji: , or anything Reddit added. Those are tokenizer extensions in readm3 now, still with no new dependency. They are behind a --flavor switch rather than all on at once, because the dialects contradic

I've been working on a practical implementation of Sliding Window Attention (SWA) for pretrained Hugging Face causal LLMs. The idea is simple: instead of allowing every generated token to attend to the complete historical KV cache, maintain a bounded cache consisting of: attention sinks + recent sliding window I implemented this as a reusable inference layer rather than modifying or retraining the model. GitHub: https://github.com/oraby8/SWA The implementation currently includes: bounded KV cache circular/ring-buffer storage attention sinks streaming prefill chunked attention masking autoregressive decoding Full Attention vs SWA benchmarking TTFT / TPOT / throughput measurements KV-cache memory measurements One interesting result from my Qwen2.5-7B experiment: Context Full KV SWA-64 16K ~923 MB ~3.5 MB 32K ~1.84 GB ~3.5 MB 64K OOM ~3.5 MB At 16K, SWA-64 also reduced TPOT from ~38.4 ms to ~30.5 ms in this setup. However, there is an important trade-off: tasks requiring information far outside the active window can degrade. I'm currently investigating how much of this is inherent to SWA versus implementation/model-specific behavior. I'm sharing the implementation mainly to get feedback from people working on LLM inference, KV-cache optimization, and long-context models . I'd be particularly interested in: Which model architectures should I validate next? What failure cases should I benchmark? What would make this useful for existing HF inference workflows? Are there cache/attention implementation details I may be overlooking? Feedback and experiments are very welcome. submitted by /u/ahsaor8 [link] [留言]

AI agents don’t use web browsers. They don’t click buttons, submit forms, or trigger standard HTTP requests that pass through your middleware stack. They execute logic via API calls, background queues, or CLI commands using tool definitions. When an LLM decides to "fetch the latest invoices," it usually calls a tool function. If that tool function just runs Invoice::all() , your AI agent just became a god-mode data leak. The fundamental problem with integrating LLMs into existing applications is that agents operate in a detached, stateless execution context . They don't have a session cookie. They don't inherently know who invoked them. If you rely on the system prompt to tell the LLM, "Only show John his own data," you are trusting a probabilistic text generator to enforce your security boundary. That is a production incident waiting to happen. To build a secure AI agent in Laravel, you must treat the LLM not as a user, but as a proxy for the user. The agent must inherit the exact Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) and Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) constraints of the human sitting behind the keyboard, and it must enforce those constraints at the database query level, not the prompt level. TL;DR AI agents bypass traditional web middleware because they execute logic through background tools and function calling. Never trust the LLM to filter its own results. Force filtering through Eloquent scopes and authorization gates. Pass the acting user's identity explicitly into the agent's execution context using Laravel's auth guards or custom context DTOs. For complex rules (hierarchies, multi-tenancy, ABAC), standard role packages fall short. Tools like hosseinhezami/laravel-permission-manager are required to evaluate deep permission trees inside agent tools. Audit every tool execution with the acting user's ID, not the system service account. 📋 Table of Contents 1. The "God-Mode Tool" Problem 2. Passing Identity Down the Execution Chain 3. Enforcing RBAC Inside LLM

A process supervisor can tell you that a process exists. It cannot, by itself, tell you that a Minecraft player can join. I work on ChunkCraft, a Minecraft hosting project. Here is a small state model that helps keep operational status separate from player-facing guidance. Separate three questions Is the process alive? The container or service manager owns this signal. Has the game finished starting? Startup logs or a game-level probe provide this evidence. Can this player join? Client version, edition, whitelist and network reachability still matter. A useful state model is stopped → starting → ready , with failure and unknown states represented explicitly. Avoid converting a failed probe into “stopped”: a timeout means the observation failed, not necessarily that the server died. Tie each state to a next action Observed state Useful guidance Starting Wait for world loading; show recent startup progress Ready Show the complete connection address and expected version Unreachable or unknown Show when the last successful observation happened and offer diagnostics Player rejected Read the actual join error; check version and whitelist The same principle applies to control buttons. A copy-address action is helpful when the address exists and startup has completed. Showing it as the only instruction during startup invites repeated failed joins. Do not confuse observation with proof Even a successful game-level probe does not prove every player can reach the server. Likewise, a positive player-count sample proves someone was connected at that sample time; it does not identify that person or establish uninterrupted availability. Store observation timestamps alongside values. When a collector fails, preserve historical observations but mark them stale. A freshly rendered dashboard is not evidence of fresh underlying data. A small review checklist Does every status describe an observation we actually have? Is an unknown state distinguishable from a confirmed failure? Does th

The first version of most AI features is not a system. It is one giant prompt doing too many jobs. It is supposed to understand the user, check account facts, retrieve policies, write a response, avoid legal risk, match the brand tone, and maybe decide whether to escalate. Then one edge case arrives — a refund request with a partially used subscription — and the prompt starts negotiating with itself. That is usually when teams say, “We need better prompting.” Often, the real problem is architectural. A single prompt becomes a god object. It holds competing responsibilities, hidden assumptions, and constraints that are hard to test. Multi-agent orchestration is not about creating a mystical swarm of autonomous bots. It is about doing the boring, Laravel-style thing: breaking a large problem into bounded services, coordinating them with typed contracts, and using queues, events, validation, logging, and failure policies to keep the system honest. Laravel is a good place to build this because it already gives you the pieces: service container, queues, batches, events, validation, HTTP client, rate limiting, caching, structured logging, and database persistence. The hard part is not calling a model. The hard part is coordinating specialists safely. TL;DR A giant prompt becomes fragile when it tries to be researcher, analyst, writer, reviewer, and policy engine at once. Model agents as bounded specialists with explicit inputs, outputs, tools, and permissions. Use a lightweight router to classify work, not to do the work. Coordinate through typed messages, not loose prompt fragments. Use Laravel’s container, queues, batches, validation, and logging to make orchestration operational. Give specialists permissioned tool adapters instead of implicit knowledge. Add budgets, timeouts, retries, and escalation paths from the beginning. Do not use multi-agent orchestration when one deterministic service or one simple prompt is enough. 📋 Table of Contents The Giant Prompt Is a God

Originally published on hexisteme notes . "Will it fit on our hardware?" is the wrong first question. It's the one everyone asks, because it's free to answer — the thing either loads or it doesn't. Throughput costs you a measurement. So the capacity gate passes, and it feels like the decision is made. The measurement Mac Mini M4, 24GB unified memory, ~120GB/s memory bandwidth. A 27B model, IQ4_XS quantized, 15GB on disk. Capacity gate: pass. Metal's recommendedMaxWorkingSet is 17.76GB, the model is 15GB, ollama ps reports 100% GPU resident. No swap, no spillover. By every "does it fit" criterion this is a clean win. Generation: 5.6 tokens/second. That's not a usable interactive worker. It's barely a usable batch worker. And nothing about the capacity check hinted at it. The arithmetic that would have told me in advance Autoregressive generation reads the entire model's weights once per token. So: ceiling ≈ memory bandwidth ÷ bytes touched per operation = 120 GB/s ÷ 15 GB = 8 tokens/second Measured 5.6 against a ceiling of 8. Ratio 0.70. That ratio is the whole verdict. When measured throughput is a large fraction of the arithmetic ceiling, you are bandwidth-bound , and you now know something concrete: the bottleneck is not your configuration, not memory pressure, not thermal throttling. It's how fast bytes move. Rule of thumb I now use: ratio ≥ 0.5 → bandwidth-bound, and size-reduction fixes are dead. Why "just quantize harder" doesn't work The natural move when capacity is tight is to shrink. Lower quantization, smaller batch, heavier compression. It's the reflex, and in a bandwidth-bound regime it's close to useless. I was considering Q3_K_M at 13.8GB. Run the same division: 120 ÷ 13.8 = 8.7 tokens/second (up from 8) Under 9% more throughput. For a real drop in output quality, because quantization error doesn't scale linearly with size the way bandwidth does — you give up more than you get, every time, in this regime. I killed that plan without downloading anythin

Inside OpenAI, coding agents are reshaping AI research. Explore early data on agent usage, experiment velocity, task complexity, and research acceleration.

building a missing data infrastructure and started benchmarking long multi-session conversations (LoCoMo). I know the data looks like: people, facts, claims, events, timestamps, relations. So I extract those into a graph. I did not look at the QA pairs while building extractors or retrieval rules. No “if question contains X, fetch fact #173.” Recall is very high and it keeps working on new conversations in the same format. Is this classical overfitting, or just schema-aware engineering? What is the cleanest test that would convince you it isn’t leakage. submitted by /u/chaachans [link] [留言]

If you're prepping for a Business Intelligence (BI) Engineer, Data Analyst, Data Engineer, or Data Scientist role at Amazon, you probably already know SQL matters. It's a core part of the hiring bar. But Amazon isn't just checking your syntax. They want to see if you can think in sets, write clean queries under pressure, and reason about data the way the business actually uses it. Here's exactly how to prepare based on what the interview actually rewards. What the Interview Really Tests Amazon's SQL rounds usually show up in one of two ways. It's either a technical screen using a shared coding tool, or a whiteboarding case-study during the main loop. Either way, the interviewer is watching for a few specific signals. For starters, correctness always beats speed. A working query is far better than a clever one that fails. Communication is also huge. Do you talk through your logic before you even touch the keyboard? You'll often get a vague ask, like finding the "best" customers. You are completely expected to define what "best" means out loud before you start writing Common Table Expressions (CTEs). And watch out for messy data. Nulls, duplicates, and mismatched grain are almost always baked into the problem on purpose. The Core Topics to Master Focus your prep time on a few specific areas. Actually, it turns out this is where almost all the interview questions live. Joins Inside and Out You need to know your INNER, LEFT, RIGHT, and FULL OUTER joins cold. Be ready to explain exactly why row counts change after each one. A classic Amazon-style question is finding customers who placed orders but never left a review. That's just a LEFT JOIN with a NULL check. The interviewers want to see you reach for it right away. Window Functions Functions like ROW_NUMBER() , RANK() , DENSE_RANK() , and LAG() or LEAD() show up constantly. You might see a common pattern—like finding the second-highest order value per customer, or calculating month-over-month growth. If you're shaky he

Nineteen OOM kills in nine days. Ten WordPress apps on a 32GB shared box. One of them a client site that took a CPU spike on 14 July during a paid campaign burst, and pushed the whole tenant into the wall. This post is the diagnosis before the rebuild. What we actually found when we stopped guessing. Two layers of Cloudflare, one page cache plugin, one preloader being silently challenged, and a language subpath that was cold every time it mattered. I'm writing it partly for anyone who runs multi-tenant WordPress on Cloudways or similar, and partly as a reminder for future-me. There's a checklist at the end. Steal it. The client is anonymized throughout. Every number is real. The stack Traffic hits two Cloudflare layers before it reaches origin. Both are Cloudflare, but they're different zones on different accounts, and they own different things. [ visitor ] ↓ [ Upstream Cloudflare zone (managed by a third party) ] ← DNS, SSL, HTML edge cache ↓ [ Cloudflare Enterprise add-on sold by Cloudways ] ← WAF, bot, rate limit, AI crawler block ↓ [ Cloudways origin: nginx + PHP-FPM ] ↓ [ WordPress + WPML + Elementor + FlyingPress ] Two Cloudflares isn't a mistake. The domain has been on Cloudflare via an upstream party since before the site moved to Cloudways. When Cloudways later offered a Cloudflare Enterprise add-on for its security stack, we kept both. We manage the Cloudways side. We don't own the upstream zone, which shapes what we can and can't do without a request going out. The trap is that both layers can cache HTML, and both can serve security challenges. If nobody writes down which layer does what, they fight. Our ownership split ended up like this: Layer Owns Upstream Cloudflare (third party) DNS, SSL, HTML edge cache, purge lifecycle Cloudways CF Enterprise add-on WAF, bot management, rate limiting, AI crawler blocking, ScrapeShield, Browser Integrity Check FlyingPress Origin page cache, Cloudflare integration pointed at the upstream zone, purge rules Cloudways "

I run Knipsmig , a QR-code photo sharing service for weddings and parties. Guests scan a code and upload straight from the phone, no app. Most of those uploads are 12 MP and print fine. A meaningful slice are not: photobooth captures at 1080x810, WhatsApp forwards at 1600x1200, screenshots, old scans someone re-uploaded. Those end up in the printed photo book looking soft. So I added an "Improve resolution" option to the editor. It adds up to 4x the pixels, and the whole thing runs on my own server. No API, no vendor, nothing leaves the box. This post is about why I went local and what it took to make that work inside a Rails app. Why not just call an image API I already have Gemini and OpenAI keys configured in the app for other things, so the lazy path was obvious. I did not take it, for three reasons. The generative models redraw the image. They don't upscale, they regenerate. Faces drift. These are guests' faces at someone's wedding, and "your aunt looks slightly different now" is not a feature. A super-resolution network stays faithful to the input: it only adds pixels consistent with the ones already there. Privacy paperwork. Every third-party processor I add has to go into the DPA. Guests' photos leaving the server to be fetched by a vendor is a real change, not a footnote. Running locally means the data processing agreement doesn't change and the existing opt-out for third-party AI stays about third parties. Cost. Per-image API pricing on a bulk action over hundreds of photos adds up fast. CPU time on a job lane I already pay for is free at the margin. The model I went with realesr-general-x4v3 from the Real-ESRGAN project (BSD-3-Clause). It's the compact SRVGGNet variant: about 1.2M parameters, roughly 5 MB as an ONNX file, and around 10x faster on CPU than the full RRDBNet x4plus. Quality is more than fine for event snapshots. Getting it into a usable shape was a one-off: export the release weights with the repo's pytorch2onnx.py script using dynamic H/W a

Knowing React Is Not the Same as Being a Frontend Engineer A huge number of self-taught developers can build a React component, wire up useState , and fetch data with useEffect . A much smaller number can build a frontend that stays fast as it grows, handles real error states gracefully, and doesn't quietly re-render half the page every time a user types a letter. That gap — between "I can use React" and "I can build a production frontend" — is where a lot of otherwise-promising candidates get stuck. It's not usually a knowledge problem about React's API. It's a gap in the surrounding skills: state architecture, performance, accessibility, and the unglamorous parts of frontend work that tutorials rarely cover in depth. This guide lays out a realistic path from "knows React" to genuinely job-ready frontend engineer, focused on the specific gaps that show up in real interviews and real codebases. This post originally appeared on the Ciphemic Academia blog . What "Frontend Engineer" Actually Requires Beyond React Basics The role is broader than component-building, and being explicit about what it covers helps target the right skills: State management at scale — not just useState in one component, but how state should flow through an application with many interconnecting pieces Performance — understanding re-renders, memoization, and why a frontend that works fine with test data can slow down badly with real data volume Accessibility and semantic HTML — building interfaces that actually work for everyone, not just visually API integration done properly — loading states, error states, race conditions, not just the happy-path fetch call Testing — component and integration tests that catch real regressions, not just tests that exist to say tests exist A typical React tutorial project touches the first item briefly and skips most of the rest. That's exactly why a portfolio built entirely from tutorial-style projects tends to fall short in real interviews. Step 1: Confirm Ja

I wrote a puzzle generator whose acceptance rate is 0.26% . It throws away 99.7% of everything it produces, and that is the design working as intended, not failing. Generating five valid puzzles takes 1,947 attempts and 84 milliseconds. The point is not the puzzles. The point is that the generator makes no correctness guarantee at all, and a verifier makes every one of them. Once you split those two responsibilities, "make the generator smarter" stops being the obvious optimisation — and that is exactly the position you are in when the generator is an LLM. The loop verigen is a Go CLI that produces cryptarithmetic puzzles — alphametics, the SEND + MORE = MONEY genre, where each letter stands for a distinct digit and the sum has to hold. The known answer to that one is 9567 + 1085 = 10652 . There is one rule, and everything else follows from it: The generator guarantees nothing. Every guarantee lives in the verifier. The generator throws plausible-looking letter combinations at the wall. The verifier does an exhaustive search and confirms two things: that a solution exists, and that it is unique. Anything that fails either check is discarded and the loop asks for another candidate. The loop itself knows nothing about cryptarithmetic. Implement a Domain interface and any other puzzle rides the same loop. What the log actually says Five puzzles, seed 7: ── Puzzle 2 [hard] HAIKU + BONSAI = KOKORO Answer: 96542 + 378165 = 474707 (attempts before this seed landed: 624) === generate/verify loop [alphametic] === seed=7 output=5 puzzles total attempts=1947 elapsed=84ms acceptance rate = 0.2568% (average 389 generations per puzzle) --- rejection reasons --- no unique solution 770 (39.55%) no solution 695 (35.70%) more than 10 distinct letters 477 (24.50%) ok 5 ( 0.26%) Nearly 40% of candidates have more than one valid solution. Another 36% have none. A quarter cannot possibly have one and are rejected before the search starts. Five survive. Filtering by difficulty makes it wo

Hi All, Was reading AIStats' website and it seems like abstract submission is due in 3 weeks. Does anyone know where to find the LaTex template for 2027? It seems like very little information is available on their website. Another question, is a Quant Finance paper a better fit for AIStats or ICLR? Some background about the paper: Rejected by UAI with 76654, had some errors with proofs had to fix it by re-writing 9 pages during rebuttal. AC rejected the paper saying the changes were too substantial and unable to be fully verified during rebuttal period. Resubmitted the fixed paper to a finance conference, won best paper award (best paper for this conference usually end up in journals like JQFA, which is just 1 tier below the big 3 in finance), had the chief editors of a Q1 finance/math journal in the conference verbally offering he will take this paper if we submit it to his journal. Unfortunatley my department requires at least 1 Comp Sci paper to graduate, so my plan is to try and get this paper accepted into a Comp Sci conference, then submit an extension to that Q1 Finance/Math journal. Rejected again at ICDM, despite having all positive scores. Our AC meta-review was blank so we still do not know why we were rejected. All of our emails receieved no reply. I am torn between ICLR or AIStats to re-submit this paper to. My worries are: In comp sci venues we frequently get comments like "this paper lacks novelty. The method is just XXXXX, the math is just XXXXX." But I had a scroll through at previous year's AIStats papers for key words like finance and there were none. It seems like AIStats is very pure stats, not that applied. My co-author is worried that the math in our paper is not hardcore enough. We have never submitted to neither venues in the past. Would be nice to get some advice. submitted by /u/d_edge_sword [link] [留言]

I have no idea what I'm f*cking doing. Something I figured out today: I do not start with the dark version of an idea. I start with a random curiosity, chase it because it is interesting, and then somewhere in the middle I look up and go: oh. This could turn bad. And it is probably already turning bad somewhere, run by someone who never bothered to look up. That happened again this week, while I was thinking about what I want my memory system to do next. So let me walk through the curiosity, and then the exact moment it flipped. AI memory is mostly boring Useful. But boring. Most memory systems store things like: what projects you are working on what tools you use what your preferences are what decisions you already made what facts should survive between sessions I built one of these. It is called mycelium. Connections between memories get stronger when I use them and fade when I do not, so it is a little more alive than a notes file. But at the end of the day it stores what I know. So an AI plugged into it eventually learns: I use Proxmox. I prefer LXC for a lot of workloads. I am building an operating system. I like local-first systems. I am suspicious of unnecessary dependencies. Cool. Accurate. Still not the thing I actually care about. It captures what I know. It does not capture how I think. And more specifically, it does not capture how I become curious. Humans randomly wonder about shit At least I do. I will be working on something unrelated and suddenly think: Wait, why does this work like that? Then: Has anyone tried it differently? Then: Is this whole abstraction actually necessary? And three hours later there is a new project directory on my machine and I am questioning all of my life choices. An LLM can generate questions if I ask it to. That is not the same thing. What it does not have is the persistent causal chain that led me, specifically, to ask certain kinds of questions over and over. A human brain does something like: event ↓ this feels weird ↓