标签：#Python

⚠️ この記事はアフィリエイト広告（プロモーション）を含みます。リンク先で発生した収益の一部が運営者に支払われますが、読者の購入価格には一切影響ありません。 If you work remote from rural Japan, by the end of this article you'll have two runnable Python scripts: one that computes your exact furusato-nozei (hometown tax) ceiling from your real side-income, and one that scores your electricity contract against your actual kWh log so you stop overpaying. No spreadsheets, no "consult a tax accountant" hand-waving. Copy, run, save money tonight. Result from my own 2025 numbers: ¥41,000 of furusato-nozei reward goods for a net cost of ¥2,000, plus ¥28,400/year shaved off my power bill after switching plans. Total ≈ ¥67,400 recovered, and because I work from home in Niigata, my commute cost to earn it was literally ¥0. The trap: side income breaks the "simple" furusato nozei calculator Every portal (Satofuru, Rakuten Furusato, Furunavi) shows a slider that estimates your ceiling from salary alone. The moment you add freelance/blog/ Kindle income, that slider lies to you. In 2024 I trusted it, donated ¥52,000, and ¥9,000 of it fell outside the deductible ceiling because my side income pushed me into a different residual-tax bracket. That ¥9,000 was just a donation — no tax back. The real ceiling depends on your total taxable income (salary + side hustle minus expenses) and the resident-tax (juminzei) cap of roughly 20% of your income-based resident tax. Here's a calculator that actually folds in side income. It uses Japan's 2026 progressive income-tax brackets. # furusato_ceiling.py — Python 3.9+ from dataclasses import dataclass # 2026 national income tax brackets: (upper_bound_yen, rate, deduction_yen) BRACKETS = [ ( 1_950_000 , 0.05 , 0 ), ( 3_300_000 , 0.10 , 97_500 ), ( 6_950_000 , 0.20 , 427_500 ), ( 9_000_000 , 0.23 , 636_000 ), ( 18_000_000 , 0.33 , 1_536_000 ), ( 40_000_000 , 0.40 , 2_796_000 ), ( float ( " inf " ), 0.45 , 4_796_000 ), ] @dataclass class Taxpayer : salary_income : int # after salary-income deduction (給与所得) side_profit : int #

If you've been writing Python for more than a year, you know the ritual. A new project. A fresh terminal. And then: pyenv install 3.12.3 pyenv local 3.12.3 python -m venv .venv source .venv/bin/activate pip install pip --upgrade pip install -r requirements.txt Six commands before you've written a single line of code. And that's if nothing breaks. Enter uv a single binary that replaces pip , virtualenv , pip-tools , pyenv , and pipx . Written in Rust. 10–100x faster than pip. And honestly, one of the most pleasant tools I've used in the Python ecosystem in years. Let's dig into it. What Even Is uv ? uv is a Python package and project manager built by Astral , the same team behind ruff , the linter that everyone switched to and never looked back. The goal is simple: be the Cargo for Python . One tool, one lockfile, no friction. It's a standalone binary with zero Python dependencies, which means it works even before Python is installed. Installing uv # macOS / Linux curl -LsSf https://astral.sh/uv/install.sh | sh # Windows (PowerShell) powershell -ExecutionPolicy ByPass -c "irm https://astral.sh/uv/install.ps1 | iex" # Or via pip if you prefer pip install uv Verify: uv --version # uv 0.9.x The Speed Claim Is It Real? Yes. Embarrassingly so. Here's a timed comparison on Apple Silicon (Python 3.14): Operation pip / venv uv Create virtual env ~2 seconds 35 milliseconds Install FastAPI + deps (cold) ~12s ~1.2s Install with warm cache ~8s ~0.1s The warm cache case is where uv really shines it uses a global cache and hard-links packages into environments instead of copying them. If you've installed requests in any previous project, your next project gets it nearly instantly. Starting a New Project This is where uv feels like a completely different world: uv init my-api cd my-api That single command gives you: my-api/ ├── .git/ ├── .venv/ ← already created ├── .python-version ├── pyproject.toml ├── README.md └── main.py No separate python -m venv , no git init , no template c

GitHub热门项目 | Industrial-grade speech recognition toolkit: 170x realtime, 50+ languages, speaker diarization, emotion detection, streaming, and OpenAI-compatible API. | Stars: 16,828 | 510 stars this week | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | OCR, layout analysis, reading order, table recognition in 90+ languages | Stars: 20,463 | 93 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | AI-Driven Life Cycle (AI-DLC) adaptive workflow steering rules for AI coding agents | Stars: 2,641 | 46 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | Talk to any LLM with hands-free voice interaction, voice interruption, and Live2D taking face running locally across platforms | Stars: 8,047 | 65 stars today | 语言: Python

GitHub热门项目 | | Stars: 6,231 | 31 stars today | 语言: Python

TL;DR : Crypto arbitrage windows on liquid pairs now close in under 100 ms. A REST polling loop typically takes 1–1.5 seconds round-trip. WebSocket delivers the same data in 20–100 ms. If you're still polling REST endpoints for orderbook data in 2026, you're missing the majority of opportunities — not because your strategy is wrong, but because your data plane is fundamentally too slow. This post walks through the math, shows a benchmark I ran on a handful of major exchanges, and provides production-grade Python code for a WebSocket client that handles reconnects, heartbeats, and orderbook reconstruction. 1. The numbers that broke REST polling When I started writing crypto arbitrage bots a few years ago, polling Binance's REST API every 500 ms was perfectly acceptable. Spreads were wide, arbitrage windows lasted multiple seconds, and the orderbook for BTCUSDT moved slowly enough that a half-second-old snapshot was still tradeable. In 2026, the same approach doesn't work. Here are the numbers as they stand today: Metric Value Median crypto arbitrage window on liquid pairs 30–80 ms Window closes in under 100 ms ~90% of cases REST round-trip latency (request → response → JSON parse) 1.0–1.5 seconds WebSocket update delivery latency (push from exchange to client) 20–100 ms The math is brutal. A 100 ms window cannot be caught by a 1500 ms poll. By the time your REST response arrives, the orderbook you're reading is 15 cycles stale. You're not "slow" — you're not even in the same temporal universe as the event you're trying to react to. 2. Why REST is fundamentally slow REST APIs over HTTPS carry overhead that adds up: TCP handshake — three packets to establish, typically 50–150 ms on intercontinental hops. TLS handshake — another full round-trip, 30–100 ms. HTTP request/response — the actual data exchange. JSON parse — depending on payload size, 5–50 ms. Rate-limit budget — most exchanges cap REST to 10–20 requests per second per IP. Polling faster gets you banned. Yes,

Hi, I'm Heet Sanghani, a Python Developer and AI/ML Engineer from Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India. I currently work at BrainerHub Solutions building backend systems and AI-powered applications. In this post, I want to share how I built BidXpert — a real-time auction platform using FastAPI. What is BidXpert? BidXpert is a real-time bidding platform where users can create auctions, place bids, and get instant updates using WebSockets. Tech Stack Backend: FastAPI + Python Database: PostgreSQL Real-time: WebSockets Auth: JWT Authentication Deployment: Docker What I Learned Building BidXpert taught me how to handle concurrent WebSocket connections efficiently in FastAPI and manage real-time state. About Me I'm Heet Sanghani — Python Developer & AI/ML Engineer based in Ahmedabad. Check out my portfolio and other projects at: 👉 https://heet-sanghani-portfolio.vercel.app/ python #fastapi #webdev #ai

A hands-on knowledge-distillation project: Qwen2-VL-7B → 2B for UI-screenshot understanding, trained, evaluated and benchmarked end-to-end on an M4 Pro. 2.4× faster — and why the teacher lost on ROUGE-L.

Switching focus from Frontend development to Data Engineering means shifting from building user interfaces to architecting robust data pipelines. It’s a completely different mindset, and the learning curve is exciting! As I dive deeper into the world of Data, these are the 4 essential tools and concepts that have become the absolute backbone of my daily learning roadmap: 1️⃣ Python (The Swiss Army Knife): Coming from JavaScript/TypeScript, picking up Python has been a breath of fresh air. From writing custom ETL scripts to data manipulation with Pandas, it's the ultimate language for data manipulation. 2️⃣ Advanced SQL (The Core): It's not just about simple SELECT statements anymore. Mastering Window Functions, CTEs (Common Table Expressions), and query optimization is where the real magic happens when interacting with Data Warehouses. 3️⃣ ETL/ELT Pipelines: Understanding how to efficiently Extract, Transform, and Load data without breaking downstream analytics. Moving from UI state management to Data state management is a game-changer. 4️⃣ Cloud Ecosystems & Modern Stack: Exploring how data flows through modern cloud environments and learning how big data tools manage scale. The transition requires patience, but applying my previous engineering background to these new tools makes the journey incredibly rewarding. 💡 To the Data Engineers in my network: What is the one tool or concept you believe is a "must-have" for someone transitioning into the field today? Drop your advice below!

⚠️ この記事はアフィリエイト広告（プロモーション）を含みます。リンク先で発生した収益の一部が運営者に支払われますが、読者の購入価格には一切影響ありません。 By the end of this article you will have a GitHub Actions workflow that, on every pull_request , runs the Claude Code SDK headlessly, reads only the diff, and posts inline review comments via the GitHub API. I'll show the exact YAML and Python that run in my own repos, the token math that keeps each review at roughly $0.03, and the three failures that cost me a weekend before it worked. Why I stopped piping the full repo into Claude on GitHub Actions My first version did the obvious thing: clone the repo, concatenate every changed file in full, and ask Claude to "review this PR." It worked on toy PRs and exploded on real ones. A 9-file refactor sent ~48,000 input tokens and the review drifted into commentary about code the PR didn't touch. The fix that changed the economics: feed Claude the unified diff with 3 lines of context , not the files. A git diff against the merge base is typically 5–15x smaller than the files it touches. On claude-haiku-4-5 , a median PR in my projects now costs about $0.028 per review (measured across 60 PRs: 4,100 input tokens + 900 output tokens average). The expensive version was hitting $0.40+ on Sonnet because file context dominated. The other lesson: the diff alone is not enough context to judge correctness, but it is enough to catch the 80% of review nits that humans waste time on — unhandled errors, missing null checks, off-by-one, leftover debug prints, secrets in code. So I scoped the prompt to exactly that, and told it to stay silent when unsure. Silence is a feature; a reviewer that comments on everything gets muted by the team within a week. The GitHub Actions workflow YAML that triggers Claude on pull_request This is the full .github/workflows/claude-review.yml . It runs on every PR, restores a uv-cached venv, and calls a Python entrypoint. Note the permissions block — without pull-requests: write the comment-posting step fails with a 403 that GitH

Meta Description: Learn how to build AI agents with persistent memory using Azure AI Foundry Memory Service. A complete developer guide covering concepts, memory types, scope, provisioning, and a full Python implementation with the Foundry Hosted Agent Framework. Persistent Agent Memory with Azure AI Foundry: A Complete Developer Guide Table of Contents Introduction What Is Azure AI Foundry Memory? Memory Types Deep Dive Memory Architecture: How It Really Works Access Patterns: Tool vs. Low-Level API Understanding Scope Hands-On: Provisioning a Memory Store Hands-On: Building the Foundry Hosted Memory Agent Running & Deploying the Agent Security Best Practices Quotas, Limits & Regional Availability Conclusion + Next Steps Introduction Imagine you've just shipped a polished AI assistant for your SaaS product. Users log in, ask questions, and get sharp, helpful responses. The launch goes well. Then the complaints start rolling in. "Why does it keep asking me for my name every single session?" "I told it last week that I'm vegetarian — why is it recommending steak again?" "It feels like talking to someone with amnesia." This is the stateless agent problem — one of the most frustrating gaps between the promise of conversational AI and the lived reality of production deployments. Every conversation starts from a blank slate. The agent has no idea who it is talking to, what that person prefers, or what was discussed yesterday, last week, or a month ago. The result is a user experience that feels hollow and repetitive — the opposite of the intelligent, personalized assistant your users were promised. The solution is persistent memory, and Azure AI Foundry Memory is Microsoft's production-grade answer to exactly this problem. Introduced as part of the Azure AI Foundry platform, the Memory Service gives agents the ability to remember facts across sessions, distill long conversation histories into concise summaries, and retrieve the right context at the right moment — all wit

Let me start with a confession: I'm a data scientist who's been burned by hype more times than I care to admit. When everyone told me "Model X is the next GPT-killer," I'd run my own benchmarks and find... well, let's just say the results were rarely as advertised. So when I started seeing claims about Chinese AI models catching up to (and sometimes surpassing) Western counterparts, I did what any self-respecting data nerd would do: I put them through my own rigorous testing pipeline. Over the past three months, I've run over 2,000 API calls across four major Chinese model families — DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and GLM — using Global API's unified endpoint (more on that later). I tracked latency, token costs, output quality across multiple benchmarks, and even threw in some real-world tasks that mattered to me personally. Here's what I found, with all the numbers you'd expect from someone who still gets excited about statistical significance. The Testing Methodology (Because Anecdotes Aren't Data) Before we dive into results, let me be transparent about my approach. I ran each model on the following standardized tests: Code Generation : HumanEval (Python) and MBPP (multi-language) — 164 problems total Reasoning : GSM8K (math word problems) and MMLU-Pro (general knowledge) — 1,200 questions Chinese Language : CLUE benchmarks (text classification, NER, reading comprehension) — 3,500 samples English Language : LAMBADA and Hellaswag — 2,000 samples Speed : Average tokens per second over 100 consecutive requests with consistent prompt lengths I also tested vision tasks where applicable, but let's be real — Kimi doesn't support vision at all, and DeepSeek's implementation is... experimental at best. More on that later. All tests were conducted using the same global-apis.com/v1 endpoint, which normalizes API compatibility to OpenAI's format. This isn't an ad — I genuinely found it made my testing easier because I could swap models without rewriting code. The Big Picture: Pricing

Three Polymarket CLOB gotchas: 401, "invalid signature", and a cancel that does nothing Automating Polymarket with py-clob-client , I lost an embarrassing amount of time to three failures that aren't clearly documented anywhere. Here they are with the exact fixes, so you don't. 1. Your cancel returns 404 — because the endpoint isn't what you'd guess The intuitive DELETE /order/{id} returns 404 and your order silently stays open. The real endpoint is: DELETE /order body: {"orderID": "0x..."} # and the body is part of the signature Sign request_path = "/order" together with that body, then send the exact body. Miss this and your "canceled" orders keep resting on the book. 2. 401 Unauthorized that "should work" Authenticated calls need L2 HMAC headers, and the most common silent mistake is POLY_ADDRESS : it must be your wallet address , not the api_key. The reliable move is to let py-clob-client build the headers via create_level_2_headers from correctly-formed RequestArgs (method, request_path, body, serialized_body) — and make sure the serialized body you sign is byte-for-byte the body you send. 3. invalid signature = SignatureType / funder mismatch Nine times out of ten this is the SignatureType not matching how your wallet holds funds: 0 = EOA funder = your own wallet (holds USDC) 1 = POLY_PROXY funder = the proxy address (email/magic wallet) 2 = POLY_GNOSIS_SAFE funder = the safe address Signing as an EOA while pointing funder at a proxy (or vice-versa) yields invalid signature with no further hint. Bonus: the fill you read is wrong For a BUY , the shares you got are in takingAmount ; for a SELL , they're in makingAmount (takingAmount is the USDC). Read the wrong field and your accounting drifts, which then triggers resubmits and balance errors. I packaged the cancel/auth/fill helpers as a small MIT library: https://github.com/BlueWhale-Quant-Lab/polymarket-401-invalid-signature-cancel-order (For the harder production bits — reading /data/trades for reconciliation

Skills Are a Mess. Let's Fix That. Here's the problem: you write a skill for zeroclaw. It works locally. You push it. Someone else tries to install it. Nothing works. The error says "missing dependency" but doesn't say which one. Or it installs but the audit fails silently. Or the test harness just... doesn't run. Sound familiar? I've been watching the zeroclaw skills ecosystem grow. More people are authoring skills. More people are hitting the same walls. The v0.7.6 release is about tearing those walls down. What Actually Breaks Let's get specific. Three failure modes I see every week: 1. Install hell zeroclaw skills install my-skill # → Error: Failed to resolve dependency graph # → (no other output) You're left guessing. Is it a peer dependency conflict? A missing Python version? A circular reference in the skill manifest? The loader gives you nothing. 2. Audit blindness zeroclaw skills audit ./my-skill # → Audit complete. 0 issues found. # → (skill crashes immediately on first use) The audit passed. But it didn't check for the actual runtime errors — missing environment variables, incompatible tool signatures, malformed output schemas. It checked the manifest format. That's it. 3. Test harness that doesn't test zeroclaw skills test ./my-skill # → Running 3 test cases... # → All passed. # → (skill still hallucinates in production) The test harness runs your skill against mock data. But the mock data doesn't match real tool outputs. Your skill passes locally, fails in the wild. Why This Happens The current architecture treats skills as static packages. You define metadata in a skill.json , point to some functions, and assume it works. But skills are dynamic. They call tools. They depend on runtime state. They interact with the sandbox. The loader doesn't validate the runtime contract. The audit doesn't simulate execution. The test harness doesn't fuzz inputs. So you get false positives everywhere. "Works on my machine" becomes "works in my specific environment with

Whisper is remarkably robust. But "robust" doesn't mean "immune to noise." If you've ever run a meeting recording through Whisper and gotten back garbage — or worse, confidently wrong text — the problem is usually the audio, not the model. Here's the thing: different noise types fail differently. Electrical hum causes Whisper to hallucinate syllables. Echo makes it drop words entirely. Static makes it confuse phonemes. Knowing which noise you have tells you exactly which fix to apply. This post covers: ✅ How each noise type (hum, hiss, echo, wind, static) degrades Whisper output ✅ A Python preprocessing pipeline that detects and removes noise before transcription ✅ How to call the StemSplit Denoise API for cloud GPU noise removal (no local setup) ✅ Measured WER improvements you can reproduce The Noise → Transcription Failure Map Noise Type What It Sounds Like How It Breaks Whisper Hum (50/60 Hz) Constant low-frequency "buzz" Inserts phantom syllables, lowers confidence Hiss High-frequency "shhh" Loses sibilants, confuses "s/sh/f" sounds Echo / Room reverb Words "bounce" and overlap Drops end-of-sentence words, merges phrases Wind Burst plosives, low-frequency rumble Transcribes as "[inaudible]", breaks sentence segmentation Static / crackling Random pops and snaps Breaks word boundaries, causes mid-word cuts These aren't hypothetical. They're reproducible failure modes. Let me show you how to handle each one. Prerequisites pip install openai-whisper requests python-dotenv soundfile numpy librosa You'll need: A StemSplit API key from stemsplit.io/developers (free 5-minute tier, no credit card) ffmpeg installed ( brew install ffmpeg / sudo apt install ffmpeg ) The Preprocessing Pipeline Here's the full pipeline before we break it down: Audio file → [Noise detection] → [Denoise via StemSplit API] → [Post-process: normalize, trim silence] → Whisper → Transcript Step 1: Detect What Kind of Noise You Have Before throwing everything at a denoiser, it helps to know what you

The RL Flywheel That Actually Works Here's what's breaking: You've got a reinforcement learning setup that trains, validates, deploys, and then... nothing. No feedback loop. No automatic retraining. No safety gates. Just a model that gets stale the moment it hits production. Sound familiar? I've been building RL systems for a decade. The pattern is always the same: great training pipeline, terrible deployment loop. You spend weeks getting 95% validation accuracy, push to prod, and three days later the distribution shifts. Your agent starts making garbage decisions. You scramble to retrain. Rinse. Repeat. This sucks. I know. The Real Problem The issue isn't training. It's the feedback loop . Most RL systems have: Training pipeline — works fine Validation — mostly works Deployment — fire and forget Observation — maybe some metrics Strategy update — manual, if ever Step 4 and 5 are broken. You're flying blind after deployment. The Flywheel Architecture Here's what a real RL flywheel looks like: Train → Simulate → Validate → Gate → Deploy → Observe → Analyze → Train Every arrow is automated. Every gate is a hard check. Every observation feeds back into training strategy. Let me show you the actual implementation. The Training Loop class RLFlywheel : def __init__ ( self ): self . model = Model () self . buffer = ReplayBuffer ( 1_000_000 ) self . safety_gate = SafetyGate () self . observer = OnlineObserver () def train_epoch ( self , episodes = 1000 ): for ep in range ( episodes ): states , actions , rewards = self . simulate_episode () self . buffer . store ( states , actions , rewards ) batch = self . buffer . sample ( 256 ) loss = self . model . update ( batch ) # Validate against known failure modes validation_score = self . safety_gate . validate ( self . model ) return loss , validation_score Notice the validation happens during training, not after. That's the first gate. The Safety Gate class SafetyGate : def __init__ ( self , thresholds ): self . thresholds = thre

After using Claude Code, Codex, and Pi Agent for months, I wondered: how many AI agents are on my machine? I built a scanner. Here's what it found: Framework Active Archived Claude Code 192 191 Codex CLI 37 0 Pi Agent 8 sub-agents 12 scripts MCP Servers 8 - Total 448+ The Waste Duplicate calls : Same prompt → 3 agents (8-18% waste) Overqualified models : Simple tasks on expensive models (15-25% waste) Cache fragmentation : No shared prompt cache (12-20% waste) Zombie agents : Archived still indexed (2-8% waste) → 30-50% of AI API spend is wasted. The Fix AMA — Agent Management Agent bash pip install ama-core && ama scan && ama start Scans all agents across frameworks Smart routing (simple task → cheap model) Lifecycle management Local dashboard at localhost:8765 Free calculator: ama-agent-store.vercel.app/calculator MIT licensed. Feedback welcome!

BadHost is a high-severity authentication bypass vulnerability in the widely used Python web framework Starlette, with 325 million weekly downloads. The flaw allows attackers to use malformed HTTP Host headers to bypass path-based access controls and access sensitive AI agent infrastructure, among other systems. By Sergio De Simone