标签：#Science

We all know the grind of working with data, even with AI tools: every experiment starts with re-explaining everything, every iteration needs you to prompt, wait, review, correct, and repeat. And the moment you close the session, everything learned is gone. It makes us the bottleneck, and this hinders human-AI collaboration... So I built 𝐎𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐃𝐚𝐭𝐚𝐒𝐜𝐢, an autonomous agent purpose-built for DS/ML, and tested it on Kaggle. I enrolled in a recent competition, ran the agent with no hints, no guidance, while ironing my shirts. In one shot, it landed AUC 0.95, a top-30% finish out of 3K+ teams and 36K+ submissions using hashtag#Anthropic's Claude Sonnet 4.6. (More on this in README) The top-1 outperformed this agent by merely 0.004, but at the cost of massive manual effort even while using popular AI tools. The needed a dozen model families, deep learning, 400-feature notebooks, AutoML sweeps across many libraries, and 186 models ensembled carefully. Essentially a few weeks worth of effort and time!! OpenDataSci abstracts away all the complexity and has so much to offer for DS/ML automation: → Owns the entire development lifecycle from EDA to final evaluation → Plans, codes, and executes autonomously in a secure local sandbox → Self-reviews and corrects before anything reaches you → Remembers your data across sessions, gets smarter each run → Runs parallel experiments and ensembles → Has advanced context management for token efficiency and quality → Ships with predefined skills for DS/ML, so it knows how to do things right → Bring your own knowledge: out-of-the-box support for custom skills → Works with any major LLM provider (hashtag#Anthropic, hashtag#OpenAI, hashtag#Bedrock, hashtag#VertexAI, hashtag#Ollama, hashtag#vLLM, and any OpenAI-compatible server). This and so much more!! You set the goal. It does the work. No data science knowledge required. 🔗 https://github.com/f4roukb/open-data-sci 📦 pip install open-data-sci Spin it up on your data and see what it achieves!

An App Store rating looks like a verdict. It behaves more like a monument, built over years and slow to move. It says very little about how this month's users feel. I took the 12 most-rated Productivity apps on the US App Store, 32 million ratings between them, and split the headline star into the two numbers it hides: how far recent sentiment has fallen below the lifetime average, and whether the developer replies when users complain. How it is measured Population truth. Lifetime ratings and the star histogram come from Apple's full ratings data, every rating an app has ever received. Recent sentiment. A fixed window of the most recent reviews by date, so an app captured to a depth of thousands is not compared on a multi-year average against an app with a few hundred. Same window for everyone. Developer response. Reply share and median latency over that recent window. Complaints are bucketed with a rule-based taxonomy. It is a heuristic, not a trained classifier, and I treat it as one. What turned up The AI assistants now own this chart, and they reply to almost no one. App Lifetime Recent Reply share ChatGPT 4.8 4.18 0% Claude 4.7 3.06 0% Grok 4.9 3.77 0% Perplexity 4.8 3.60 0% Google Gemini 4.7 3.65 13% Dropbox 4.8 2.75 58% Gmail 4.7 2.40 26% Google Drive 4.8 3.90 23% Microsoft Authenticator 4.7 2.18 1% The older tools are the ones still in the trenches: Dropbox answers 58% of recent reviewers, Gmail 26%, Drive 23%. The steepest recent drops belong to Microsoft Authenticator (4.7 to 2.18), Gmail (4.7 to 2.40) and Dropbox (4.8 to 2.75). Plotted on two axes, backlash against response, every app falls into one of four archetypes: Firefighters, Ghost Ships, Complacent Giants and Resilient Leaders. Eight of the twelve are Ghost Ships, taking a recent hit in near silence. The honest limits Recent reviewers self-select toward the dissatisfied. A person who hits a bug is far more likely to leave a review than a contented one, so a low recent average blends genuine declin

Hello, I'm Maneshwar. I'm building git-lrc, a Micro AI code reviewer that runs on every commit. It is...

In a world completely powered by technology, have you ever wondered what actually keeps our digital lives from crashing down? Enter the unsung heroes: system and network administration . Think of an operating system like Windows or Linux as a computer's command center, orchestrating everything from the heavy-lifting CPU to the smallest plugged-in device. To keep your data safe and your machine stable, it cleverly splits its brain into two zones: a restricted "user mode" where your everyday apps play, and a highly secure, privileged "kernel mode" reserved strictly for critical system operations. When individual computers connect to form massive global networks, the complexity skyrockets. This comprehensive guide breaks down those complex environments into simple, bite-sized concepts. Here is a quick snapshot of what we will cover: Host & OS Administration : This module covers how an operating system functions as the primary intermediary between a user and a computer's raw physical hardware. It explains how the system kernel manages critical computing processes, memory allocation, local storage file systems, and administrative tasks like security patching and automated scripting. Networking Concepts, Topologies, and Protocols : This module explores how individual computer systems connect and communicate across localized or global distances. It details the structural design of network topologies, addressing rules like IPv4 and IPv6, and the standardized layer frameworks that ensure safe and efficient data transmission. 🏛️ Part 1: Operating Systems & Host Administration 🖥️ Computer Resources and Functions At its core, every computer system is a collection of physical machinery and digital structures working together to solve problems. To understand how an operating system manages these pieces, it helps to look at the foundational puzzle blocks of a computer. This section maps out the primary hardware and data elements the system has to control, alongside a simple breakd

Il pensiero di Popper si intreccia con diversi autori in modi che illuminano il rapporto tra tecnologia, potere e libertà. Hannah Arendt Arendt condivide con Popper l'attenzione per la società aperta, ma la declina in termini di azione politica piuttosto che epistemologici. Dove Popper vede la chiusura come rifiuto della falsificazione, Arendt la vede come perdita dello spazio pubblico dove gli individui appaiono come agenti plurali. L'AI che automatizza decisioni politiche o sociali rischia di eliminare proprio questo spazio di apparizione — non c'è più un "chi" che agisce, ma un "cosa" che calcola. Il banale della tecnocrazia, per Arendt, può essere altrettanto pericoloso del male radicale. Theodor Adorno e Max Horkheimer La Dialettica dell'illuminismo offre un intreccio più critico con Popper. I due della Scuola di Francoforte vedevano la ragione strumentale — quella che calcola mezzi per fini prefissati — come il germe del dominio moderno. Popper difendeva invece la ragione critica come antidoto al totalitarismo. Il punto di tensione è rilevante per l'AI: se l'intelligenza artificiale è pura ragione strumentale ottimizzata, rientra nella diagnosi frankfurtiana più che in quella popperiana. La risposta popperiana sarebbe che l'AI può essere strumento di criticismo se aperta alla confutazione e al controllo democratico. Norbert Wiener Il fondatore della cibernetica condivide con Popper la preoccupazione per i sistemi che sfuggono al controllo umano. Wiener, già negli anni Cinquanta, avvertiva che le macchine intelligenti potrebbero imporre obiettivi incompatibili con i valori umani. Popper avrebbe riconosciuto in questo un caso di teoria non falsificabile: un sistema che apprende senza possibilità di essere corretto dall'esterno è un dogma tecnologico. Entrambi insistono sul human-in-the-loop , anche se Wiener lo motiva in termini di stabilità dei sistemi, Popper in termini di libertà. Michel Foucault Foucault aggiunge una dimensione che Popper lascia in ombra: il

The cycle number on a lithium battery's spec sheet is true and almost useless, because it describes a life the battery will live only in a temperature-controlled lab being cycled gently by a machine that never has a bad day. A cycle, in that test, means a full charge and a full discharge under mild, steady conditions, repeated until the pack fades to some fraction of its original capacity, often eighty percent. Your warehouse does none of that. It charges in bursts, discharges to whatever the shift demanded, bakes the pack in summer and chills it in winter, and counts a cycle as whatever happened between two plug-ins. Depth is the lever nobody quotes The single biggest mover of cycle count is how deep you run the pack on each outing, and that figure almost never shares the page with the headline number that sells the battery. The relationship is steeply nonlinear, which is the part that surprises people. Drain a lithium pack to nearly empty every time and you spend cycles fast. Use the top half and tuck it back on charge, and the same cell can deliver many times the number of shallow cycles before reaching the same faded state. The chemistry is mechanical about it: every deep swing stretches and contracts the electrode structures further, and the wider the swing the more wear each one inflicts. Two fleets on identical batteries can see lifespans years apart purely from how hard they drain them. This is why opportunity charging does double duty. It keeps the truck running, and it keeps each cycle shallow, which stretches the pack's life as a side effect. It also means a published cycle figure measured at full depth understates what a top-up fleet will see, while a figure measured shallow oversells what a run-it-flat operation will get. The same battery, the same number, two outcomes the sheet never warned you about. You have to know the test depth to know what the promise means. Heat is the other clock Cycles are only one of two clocks ticking on a battery, and the s

Relativity Space, the rocket company led by former Google executive Eric Schmidt, was picked to launch NASA's Aeolus payload to Mars in 2028, as reported earlier by TechCrunch. Under a new public-private partnership, Relativity Space will provide the "spacecraft, rocket, and cruise operations" to fly Aeolus to Mars, where the payload will "provide the first […]

Stop Fighting Scikit-Learn Pipelines: How Metadata Routing Fixes Sample Weights & Groups A couple of months ago, I stumbled upon this video by Vincent D. Warmerdam about metadata routing in scikit-learn. I'll be honest, I had no idea what "metadata routing" even meant, but Vincent's explanation completely changed how I think about building ML pipelines. The video showed me that one of the most frustrating problems in scikit-learn; passing sample weights and groups through complex pipelines finally had an elegant solution. It piqued my curiosity enough that I dove deep into the feature, tested it extensively, and honestly, I was surprised by how little coverage this gets in technical blogs and articles. So I figured, why not write about it myself and share what I learned? If you've ever struggled with imbalanced datasets, grouped cross-validation, or just wanted to pass custom information through your pipelines, this article is for you. Let's start from the very beginning. What is "Metadata" in Machine Learning? Let's start with a concrete example. You're building a credit card fraud detection model with this data: # Your training data X = transaction_features # Amount, merchant, time, location, etc. y = is_fraud # 0 = legitimate, 1 = fraud # But you also have additional information: sample_weights = [ 1.0 , 1.0 , 10.0 , 1.0 , ...] # Fraud transactions weighted 10x customer_ids = [ 101 , 102 , 101 , 103 , ...] # Which customer made each transaction Metadata is the "extra information" beyond your features (X) and labels (y): sample_weight : How important is each transaction? (Fraud = 10x more important) groups : Which customer does each transaction belong to? (For proper cross-validation) Custom metadata : Transaction timestamps, confidence scores, data quality flags, etc. Why Metadata Matters: The Credit Card Fraud Problem Imagine you're building a fraud detection system for a financial company. You have: Imbalanced data : 99% legitimate transactions, 1% fraudulent T

"Intelligence isn't about searching everywhere—it's about knowing where not to search." Artificial Intelligence is often associated with neural networks, large language models, and autonomous systems. But long before modern generative AI, computer scientists were solving a much deeper question: How do intelligent systems make decisions efficiently? Whether you're building search algorithms, recommendation systems, autonomous robots, or distributed systems, the architecture of intelligence teaches timeless lessons about solving problems under uncertainty. Let's explore five powerful ideas that shaped AI—and why they matter far beyond computer science. ✈️ 1. The Pilot's Dilemma: Why Blind Search Fails Imagine you're a pilot. Suddenly, one of your engines fails. In the next few seconds, there are hundreds of switches, buttons, and controls available. If you treated every control equally, you'd spend precious time trying random combinations. That is exactly how uninformed search works. Algorithms like: Breadth-First Search (BFS) Depth-First Search (DFS) have no knowledge of where the solution might be. They simply explore. Start ├── Option A ├── Option B ├── Option C └── ... The larger the search space becomes, the less practical this strategy is. A pilot doesn't blindly flip switches. They use additional knowledge : Engine pressure Fuel flow Hydraulic readings Warning systems Those clues dramatically reduce the number of possibilities. This is exactly what AI calls Informed Search . Instead of exploring everything, intelligent systems use knowledge to eliminate impossible paths before searching them. 🧠 2. Heuristics: The Cheat Code of Intelligence The secret behind informed search is something called a heuristic . A heuristic is simply an educated estimate. Mathematically, h(n) represents the estimated cost from the current state to the goal. One important rule always holds: h(goal) = 0 Once we've reached the goal, there's no remaining cost. Example: Finding Bucharest

Years after initial tests, researchers are now racing to see if a vaccine developed in 2011 can help fight the current Bundibugyo outbreak in Congo.

This is Optimizer, a weekly newsletter sent from Verge senior reviewer Victoria Song that dissects and discusses the latest gizmos and potions that swear they're going to change your life. Opt in for Optimizer here. On TikTok, the tanned youths are explaining why they no longer wear sunscreen. In one video, a young man films […]

A French launch startup is scrapping the name of its rocket, apparently due to a trademark issue.

Researchers say these coral strongholds may help repopulate more degraded reefs.

A new report shows that government agencies failed to communicate and includes recommendations for stronger oversight in a bid to avert future disasters.

A London clinic owner has claimed he is treating people with stage 4 cancer by sealing them into a plastic bag while they're naked from the waist down and gassing them with chlorine dioxide.

"I consider this a success already, just from the fact that we're even going to try this."

It's unclear whether the system is currently intact.

We can't blame the Neolithic Transition for the plague anymore.

Wellness influencers have stumbled onto a huge issue when it comes male fertility, though not every solution they're pitching is good advice.

Midjourney CEO David Holz just showed off the company's first hardware product and plans to build a San Francisco spa, which he admitted is a bit different from the "cat pictures" produced by its AI image generator. Dubbed The Midjourney Scanner, it's an ultrasound-based full-body scanner that uses a ring of sensors to capture vertical […]