今日已更新 188 条资讯 | 累计 24145 条内容
关于我们

标签:#an

找到 1807 篇相关文章

AI 资讯

Claude can now use your 1Password credentials for you

1Password has launched a new browser integration for Claude that allows the Anthropic chatbot to access stored security credentials like usernames and passwords. The 1Password for Claude feature means that users can authorize Claude to complete multi-step tasks like booking travel and managing online accounts on their behalf without having to manually input their login […]

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

OnePlus never had a chance in the US

Twelve years after the launch of the OnePlus One, OnePlus announced today that it has exited the United States. It's bittersweet, as the brand has been on a comeback tour of sorts with its excellent OnePlus 15 and widely praised (though still too expensive) OnePlus Open. The writing has been on the wall for a […]

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

Arc 11 Catch-Up: Composing Solana Programs with CPIs

Arc 11 covered Days 71–77 of Epoch 3, and it was all about Cross-Program Invocations. In Arc 9, we wrote our first Solana program. In Arc 10, we gave that program a more useful state model with Program Derived Addresses. But our programs were still mostly working alone. They could read and update their own accounts, enforce their own constraints, and respond to instructions sent by a client. They could not directly change state owned by another program or bypass the rules that program enforced. That is an important part of Solana’s security model. The System Program owns the rules for creating accounts and transferring lamports. Token-2022 owns the rules for mints, token accounts, supply, and mint authorities. If our program needs one of those capabilities, it calls the program that owns the operation. That call is a Cross-Program Invocation, or CPI. The Web2 comparison is a service-to-service API call. One service sends a request through another service’s public interface, and the receiving service applies its own rules. A CPI works in a similar way, with one important difference: the outer and inner instructions execute as part of the same Solana transaction. If the inner call fails, the state changes made by the outer instruction are rolled back too. That combination of clear program boundaries and atomic execution is what makes Solana programs composable. Our first CPI called the System Program The arc began with the smallest useful CPI we could build. Our Anchor program accepted a sender, a recipient, and an amount of SOL to transfer. But the program did not edit the sender’s balance directly. Instead, it called the System Program’s transfer instruction. That distinction matters. Accounts on Solana are owned by programs, and the owner program controls how their data may be changed. Our program could not simply reproduce the effect of a System Program transfer by adjusting balances itself. It had to ask the System Program to perform the operation. Every CPI need

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

Presentation: The Rust High Performance Talk You Did Not Expect

Ruth Linehan explains how migrating high-performance caching services from Kotlin to Rust shattered internal preconceptions around delivery velocity and engineering overhead. She discusses the ergonomics of the Rust borrow checker, shares how compile-time safety shortens the developer feedback loop, and profiles how tools like Criterion and flamegraphs optimize concurrent code paths. By Ruth Linehan

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

RoomCraft AI: optimizar la distribución de una habitación con Simulated Annealing

Colocar los muebles de una habitación es un problema de optimización con muchas restricciones: la cama no va delante de la puerta, el escritorio quiere luz natural, hay que poder circular. Hay un número enorme de disposiciones posibles. RoomCraft AI las explora automáticamente a partir de una descripción en lenguaje natural. El pipeline de tres etapas Parser con LLM: el usuario describe su habitación en texto libre ("un dormitorio de 4x3 con la puerta al norte y una ventana al este"). Un LLM ( Llama 3.1 vía Groq ) lo convierte en una estructura de datos validada con Pydantic : dimensiones, aberturas, muebles deseados. Latencia: <1s. Optimizador con Simulated Annealing: aquí está el corazón del proyecto. Visualización y export: los layouts se renderizan en 3D en el navegador con Three.js y se exportan como plano técnico en PDF con ReportLab . Por qué Simulated Annealing El espacio de disposiciones posibles es combinatorio y lleno de óptimos locales. Una búsqueda voraz se queda atascada en la primera solución "decente". El Simulated Annealing imita el enfriamiento de un metal: al principio acepta movimientos malos con cierta probabilidad (alta "temperatura"), lo que le permite escapar de óptimos locales; según baja la temperatura, se vuelve cada vez más exigente y converge. Es una metaheurística ideal cuando el espacio de soluciones es irregular y no tienes gradiente. La función objetivo puntúa cada disposición de 0 a 100 según ergonomía: espacio de circulación, relaciones entre muebles, acceso a luz y aberturas. El sistema devuelve el top 5 de layouts, no solo el mejor, para dar opciones. Rendimiento Parse: <1s . Optimización: 2–5s . Export PDF: <1s . Footprint en reposo: ~100 MB de RAM. Qué aprendí Que combinar un LLM (para entender lenguaje) con una metaheurística clásica (para optimizar de verdad) es un patrón potentísimo: el LLM traduce el problema humano a uno formal, y un algoritmo determinista y barato lo resuelve mejor —y de forma más explicable— que pedirle

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

Why heat pumps are still so hot in the US

It feels as if it should be illegal to even think about heating appliances during the height of summer—seriously, these heat waves in New York have been brutal—but we need to talk about heat pumps. The appliances use electricity for heating, they’re incredibly efficient, and they’re on the rise. (For what it’s worth, many heat…

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

Building Nexo Player: An Offline-First Android Media App with PDF-to-Audiobook Support

Most Android media apps solve only one part of the problem. A video player plays videos. A music player handles songs. A PDF reader displays documents. A text-to-speech app reads text. A vault hides private files. But real media libraries are not separated that neatly. My phone may contain downloaded movies, music, lecture notes, ebooks, PDFs, recordings, subtitles, and files I do not want exposed in the normal gallery. Constantly moving between different apps creates friction and breaks playback or reading continuity. That is why I built Nexo Player : an offline-first Android media app that brings local playback, document reading, audiobook generation, text-to-speech, and private storage into one experience. What Nexo Player does Nexo Player currently supports: Local video and audio playback PDF and EPUB reading PDF, EPUB, and text narration Background audiobook generation MP3, M4B, and ZIP export Multiple narrator voices Resume playback and reading progress Equalizer, sleep timer, subtitles, and playback-speed controls Picture-in-Picture Secure Vault protected with PIN or biometrics The app is built natively for Android using Kotlin , Jetpack Compose , and Android Media3 . The main product idea: local-first media The core rule behind the app is simple: A local file should remain local unless the user explicitly chooses otherwise. This rule influenced the entire product. Opening a downloaded video should not require an account. Reading a PDF should not require uploading it to a server. Listening to a generated audiobook should remain possible without a permanent internet connection. Private files should not leak into normal galleries, thumbnails, or recent-history screens. Offline-first is not only about caching data. It means the main workflow must remain useful, understandable, and recoverable without depending on the network. Building the playback layer For video and audio playback, I used Android Media3 as the foundation. The visible player looks simple, but a

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

Sanity image-url hotspot not working: four causes and fixes

Sanity's hotspot and crop system works well when all the pieces line up — but if your rendered image is ignoring the focal point you set in Studio, one of four things is almost certainly wrong. None of them are subtle bugs; they're all configuration mistakes that are easy to miss and easy to fix. The four causes (and their fixes) 1. fit is still set to clip instead of crop This is the most common cause. The @sanity/image-url builder defaults to fit('clip') , which scales the image to fit inside the requested dimensions without cropping anything. Hotspot data is only applied when the builder is told to crop — that is, when it cuts the image down to the requested dimensions, centering the cut on the focal point. Fix: always chain .fit('crop') when you pass .width() and .height() . // src/lib/sanity-image.ts import imageUrlBuilder from ' @sanity/image-url ' import { client } from ' ./sanity-client ' const builder = imageUrlBuilder ( client ) export function urlFor ( source : SanityImageSource ) { return builder . image ( source ) } // Usage — hotspot will only apply if fit is 'crop' const url = urlFor ( image ) . width ( 800 ) . height ( 600 ) . fit ( ' crop ' ) // <-- required for hotspot to do anything . auto ( ' format ' ) . url () Without .fit('crop') , Sanity's CDN receives no crop instruction and the hotspot coordinates are silently ignored. 2. Missing options: { hotspot: true } on the schema field If the image field in your Sanity schema is not configured with hotspot support, Studio never renders the focal point UI, and the hotspot and crop keys are never written to the document in the first place. The URL builder can't use data that isn't there. Fix: add options: { hotspot: true } to every image field where editors need focal control. // schemas/post.ts export default { name : ' post ' , type : ' document ' , fields : [ { name : ' coverImage ' , type : ' image ' , options : { hotspot : true , // <-- enables the focal point UI in Studio }, }, ], } After adding

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

How to Build a Semantic Search Engine for E-Commerce in Python

Building a semantic search engine for an e-commerce catalogue doesn't require a team of PhDs or a six-figure cloud budget. In this tutorial, I'll walk you through a production-ready pipeline using open-source tools: sentence-transformers for embedding, FAISS for vector indexing, and FastAPI for serving. The core insight is that semantic search isn't magic — it's just good engineering wrapped around a pre-trained language model. We'll start by setting up a product embedding pipeline that transforms your catalogue (title, description, category, attributes) into dense vectors. The key architectural decision is whether to embed each product as a single vector or to use late interaction models like ColBERT that preserve token-level detail. For most e-commerce use cases with fewer than 1 million SKUs, single-vector embedding with sentence-transformers' all-MiniLM-L6-v2 offers the best balance of speed and accuracy. The entire indexing pipeline — from CSV export to queryable vector index — runs in under 100 lines of Python. The re-ranking layer is where most tutorials stop and real-world systems begin. Pure vector similarity doesn't understand your business: it doesn't know that out-of-stock items should be deprioritised, that high-margin products should float up, or that a customer's purchase history should influence results. I'll show you how to build a hybrid scoring function that blends semantic relevance (cosine similarity), business rules (margin, inventory), and personalisation signals (user embedding) into a single ranked result set that returns in under 100ms. Canonical: https://alteglobal.ai/insights/ecommerce-ai-automation-personalisation-fulfillment/

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

AI Wrote a GPU Kernel 18 Faster Than Humans. Now Who Reviews It?

Last week an AI-generated GPU kernel ran 18.71× faster than an optimized PyTorch baseline. The model—Fable 5—didn't just edge past the human implementation. It lapped it. Claude Opus 4.8 reached 14.4×. GLM-5.2 hit 11.14×. GPT-5.5 managed 4.34×. Fable's kernel was in a different tier entirely. The exciting read: AI is starting to improve the low-level machinery that makes AI itself cheaper and faster. Specialized performance work that once required rare expertise just got dramatically easier to explore. The uncomfortable read: what happens when the best implementation is also the one nobody on your team would have written—or can fully explain? That question is about to land on every engineering team that ships AI-generated code. The Benchmark Problem A benchmark shows the kernel ran fast under tested conditions. It doesn't show: How it behaves across different GPU hardware How it handles numerical edge cases What happens under months of production changes Whether it degrades gracefully when inputs shift The person who wrote it can't answer these questions either. The AI generated this code through a process that doesn't leave a reviewable chain of reasoning. There's no commit message that says "I chose this approach because X." So the reviewer's job just got harder—not easier. The Real Shift I've been watching this pattern across engineering teams this year. The argument is moving from "can AI generate working code?" to "can our org absorb generated code without breaking quality, morale, or judgment?" The GPU kernel story makes the tension concrete: One side says the code ran, it was measured, it won. Stop moving the goalposts. The other side says somebody still has to know where it can fail and take responsibility when it does. Both are right. AI can make implementation cheaper while making proof more expensive. Senior engineers may write less code but spend more time designing adversarial tests, checking assumptions, planning rollbacks, and deciding whether an impr

2026-07-16 原文 →
AI 资讯

Métricas de qualidade de software na era da IA

Não é novidade para ninguém que estamos passando por uma transformação na área de desenvolvimento de software, em que a IA está assumindo diversas atividades. E isso me faz pensar: o que vamos medir, ou o que teremos como parâmetro para qualidade de software daqui pra frente? É sobre isso que vou falar neste texto. Antes das métricas: entenda o momento do seu time Antes de entrarmos nas métricas em si, precisamos entender o momento em que o nosso time está. É muito fácil eu simplesmente jogar métricas aqui e você aplicá-las ao seu time de maneira automática — mas será que elas fazem sentido para o seu contexto? Uma coisa que eu falo bastante aos meus alunos da mentoria que dou na He4rt Developers é: pra que eu quero isso? Softwares representam necessidades do mundo real, logo, medir o sucesso e a qualidade deles vai depender muito das necessidades que eles buscam suprir. Partindo agora para as métricas, eu gosto de dividi-las em dois grupos: Métricas para stakeholders Métricas para o time Qualidade de software não se resume a número de bugs — ela se aplica tanto em como o software é recebido pelo cliente final, quanto em como ele é desenvolvido. Métricas para stakeholders Uma coisa que eu aprendi neste tempo na empresa em que tenho atuado, principalmente com a transformação digital, é que mostrar número de bugs abertos ou resolvidos não mostra para o público o que realmente importa: como está a qualidade do produto. E, para me ajudar nisso, eu sempre tento me colocar no lugar de um cliente que não tem conhecimento profundo sobre o ciclo de desenvolvimento de software. A primeira coisa que eu gostaria de ver quando um QA, ou o time, vier me mostrar os resultados de uma sprint ou de um quarter é: quantos problemas eu tenho em produção — mas não só isso, quanto tempo tenho levado para resolvê-los. Mean Time to Resolve/Repair (MTTR) Essa é a famosa métrica que vai mostrar o tempo que leva desde que o problema é identificado até ele ser resolvido em produção. Dependendo

2026-07-16 原文 →