标签：#an

Shinkei makes a refrigerator-sized robot called Poseidon to kill fish quickly and humanely.

Jumper isn't the only big name leaving Google DeepMind.

Il venture capital con progetti a 4-5 anni incarna perfettamente la tensione tra la teoria di Manso e la filosofia di Taleb. È un orizzonte temporale che suona contro-intuitivo: troppo lungo per la logica del "fail fast" da incubatore, troppo corto per la pazienza della ricerca fondamentale. Eppure è proprio qui che si gioca la partita dell'innovazione dirompente. Il problema strutturale I fondi VC operano tipicamente su cicli di 10 anni. Un progetto a 4-5 anni occupa il cuore del fondo: non è un esperimento rapido da liquidare, ma nemmeno un investimento da tenere per un'intera generazione. Manso ci dice che il contratto ottimale per l'innovazione richiede tolleranza nel breve termine e ricompensa nel lungo. Ma cosa significa "breve" e "lungo" quando il progetto stesso dura 4-5 anni? Qui emerge un paradosso. Il VC tollerante — quello che Manso celebrerebbe — potrebbe essere tentato di mantenere vivo un progetto che sta fallendo, perché il fallimento prematurato distruggerebbe il valore dell'opzione. Ma Taleb ci avverte: l'antifragilità non è la persistenza a oltranza, è la capacità di trarre beneficio dallo stress. Un progetto che assorbe risorse per 5 anni senza generare informazioni utili non è antifragile: è semplicemente costoso. La soluzione di Manso: il contratto come orologio Per Manso, la risposta sta nella struttura contrattuale. Il contratto ottimale per un progetto a 4-5 anni non è lineare: non è un flusso costante di finanziamento legato a milestone arbitrarie. È qualcosa di più sofisticato. Il principale (il VC) deve commettere a un livello di finanziamento iniziale che copra la fase esplorativa — i primi 12-18 mesi — senza richiedere risultati misurabili. Questa è la fase di "tolleranza eccezionale per il fallimento" di cui parlava Holmström. Poi, a intervalli predeterminati, il VC ha l'opzione — non l'obbligo — di continuare. Ma la soglia di abbandono deve essere più bassa del livello ottimale ex-post. In altre parole: il VC deve essere disposto a co

Gustavo Manso (Haas School of Business, UC Berkeley) e Nassim Taleb affrontano entrambi il problema centrale dell'innovazione, ma da angolazioni complementari: Manso con la precisione del contratto ottimale, Taleb con la filosofia dell'antifragilità . Entrambi convergono su un'idea contro-intuitiva: per generare innovazione dirompente, bisogna proteggere il fallimento. Manso: Il contratto come strumento di tolleranza Il lavoro di Manso si concentra sui meccanismi di incentivazione che rendono l'innovazione possibile all'interno delle organizzazioni. La sua ricerca fondamentale (2011) modella esplicitamente il trade-off tra exploration (esplorazione di azioni nuove e non testate) e exploitation (sfruttamento di azioni note). Manso dimostra che i contratti ottimali per motivare l'innovazione richiedono una combinazione specifica: tolleranza per i fallimenti nel breve termine e ricompensa per il successo nel lungo termine . Questo è l'esatto opposto del classico "pay-for-performance" (paga in base alle prestazioni), che funziona bene per compiti routine ma soffoca l'innovazione. Come ha osservato Bengt Holmström (1989), citato da Manso, le attività innovative "richiedono una tolleranza eccezionale per il fallimento" perché il processo è imprevedibile e idiosincratico. Uno studio empirico fondamentale — che applica direttamente la teoria di Manso al venture capital — ha mostrato che i VC più tolleranti verso il fallimento generano startup significativamente più innovative. Un aumento dell'1% nella tolleranza al fallimento del VC porta a un aumento dello 0,5% nelle citazioni per brevetto. L'effetto è amplificato nelle recessioni e per le startup in fase iniziale. Manso ha anche esteso questa logica al finanziamento della ricerca scientifica, mostrando come la struttura dei fondi influenzi gli studi dirompenti. La sua analisi suggerisce che le leggi del lavoro che proteggono i dipendenti dal licenziamento arbitrario — attraverso quello che gli studiosi chiamano "effetto a

Atlassian details the Forge billing platform built for usage-based pricing across its cloud ecosystem. It processes large-scale usage events with correct attribution, deduplication, and aggregation using a streaming pipeline, idempotent processing, and layered storage to enable accurate billing, near real-time visibility, and reliable reconciliation across distributed services. By Leela Kumili

Car buyers love Android Auto. Automakers? Not so much.

You can't optimize what you don't measure. Every blog post about conversion optimization, A/B testing, or paid ads assumes you have reliable tracking in place. But most developers set up analytics as an afterthought — dropping a script on the page and calling it done. The result is data that's incomplete, untrustworthy, and ultimately useless for making decisions. This guide gives you a developer-first approach to conversion tracking. We'll cover event instrumentation, attribution setup, funnel visualization, and the specific tracking architecture you need to answer real business questions. No marketing jargon. No vague advice. Just the exact setup that turns your analytics from a vanity dashboard into a decision-making tool. The Tracking Mindset Before you write any code, understand what you're trying to learn. Tracking every possible event creates noise. Tracking the wrong events leads to wrong conclusions. Start with one question: "What are the 3-5 actions a user takes between discovering my product and paying me money?" Map these actions in order. That's your funnel. Every event you track should map directly to a step in that funnel. For a typical SaaS product, the funnel looks like this: Discovery: User visits your site from a traffic source Engagement: User reads content, explores features, or uses a tool Intent: User clicks "Sign Up" or "Start Trial" Conversion: User completes signup and activates Revenue: User upgrades to a paid plan If you track these five steps reliably, you can answer 90% of the marketing questions that matter: Which traffic source brings the most valuable users? Where do users drop off? What's my true cost per acquisition? Event Instrumentation: What to Track and How Events are the atomic unit of conversion tracking. An event is any action a user takes that you want to measure. Let's build your event taxonomy from the ground up. Foundational Events (Track These First) These four events are non-negotiable. Set them up before you do anythi

After adding one to my home, here's why you might want a home battery, how they work, and what to look for, plus some installation tips.

At WWDC 26, Apple announced the Core AI framework, the official successor to Core ML. It is designed to allow developers to run large language models and generative AI entirely on-device, supporting both custom-converted PyTorch models and pre-optimized open-source models. By Sergio De Simone

The new Siri AI is conversational, omnipresent, and actually helpful.

Plus: Gay bars in San Francisco using face scanners, France quits Palantir, Apple plans to change its private email and more.

Researchers have demonstrated they can make coffee comparable to conventional espresso using ultrasonic waves. Because the process doesn’t need hot water, it consumes 75 percent less energy.

AWS recently introduced Amazon Cognito multi-region replication, which automatically replicates user identities and user pool configurations from a primary region to a secondary one. This enables applications to continue authenticating users from a replica region during outages, without requiring custom replication and failover mechanisms. By Renato Losio

I run Convertify , a free image converter built on Rust and libvips. Last week I decided to stop guessing about format performance and actually measure it. I took 50 real images (26 PNGs, 24 iPhone HEIC photos), ran 17 conversions through the production pipeline, and recorded every file size and encode time. Some results confirmed what everyone says. Others did not. The three results that surprised me 1. Converting HEIC to JPG makes files 14% bigger , not smaller. This one hurt. "Convert iPhone photos to JPG" is probably the most common advice on the internet. But HEIC wraps the HEVC codec, which compresses roughly 2x better than JPEG. Going from a better codec to a worse one means the file grows. Every time. If you actually want smaller iPhone photos: HEIC to WebP saves 43%, HEIC to AVIF saves 57%. 2. AVIF encodes 7x slower than WebP for 10% more compression. AVIF Q63: 55 KB, 1.30s per image. WebP Q80: 61 KB, 0.19s per image. That is a 10% size difference for a 7x speed penalty. For a single hero image, nobody cares. For a batch pipeline processing thousands of product photos, that is the difference between 3 minutes and 21 minutes. 3. PNG at 600 DPI is smaller than PNG at 300 DPI when rasterizing PDFs. This was the weirdest one. I was benchmarking PDF-to-image and noticed PNG output shrank from 2,221 KB at 300 DPI to 1,660 KB at 600 DPI. I spent an hour convinced I had a bug. Turns out it is a real property of PNG encoding. Higher DPI renders smoother gradients between adjacent pixels, and PNG's prediction filters (Paeth, sub, up) compress smooth gradients dramatically better than the sharp edges you get at lower resolutions. Not a bug. Just PNG being PNG. The quick reference table Conversion Size change Speed JPG to WebP Q80 -64% 0.19s JPG to AVIF Q63 -68% 1.30s PNG to WebP Q80 -92% 0.21s PNG to JPG Q85 -86% 0.07s HEIC to JPG Q85 +14% 1.90s HEIC to WebP Q80 -43% 5.64s HEIC to AVIF Q63 -57% 14.52s WebP to JPG Q85 +60% 0.09s AVIF to JPG Q85 +80% 0.15s What I actual

Over 60% of APAC finance leaders say AI-led automation is their top priority for 2026. For Indian businesses, that stat hides a quieter truth: most SMBs have no idea which automation to start with. They hear "AI for finance" and picture an enterprise suite with a six-figure licence fee. Wrong picture. I've built finance automations for CA firms, D2C brands, trading desks, family-run manufacturers, and a few fintech startups. The pattern is always the same. Five finance processes eat the most hours, hide the most errors, and respond best to a simple Python layer on top of whatever ledger you already use. This is the playbook. No enterprise suite. No subscriptions you don't need. Each automation is something I've shipped for real clients using Python, free APIs, and a ledger that's usually Tally or Zoho Books. 1. Bank Reconciliation — The Single Biggest Time Sink in Indian Finance Every finance team I meet has the same nightmare. Statements from three or four banks. Tally or Zoho on the other side. An Excel sheet in the middle. Eight hours a month — sometimes more — matching rows. A CA friend was losing two sleepless nights before every GST deadline on exactly this. We replaced it with a Python script that pulls statements from email attachments, categorizes transactions using keyword rules, cross-references entries with Tally, and flags only the mismatches in a clean Excel file. Eight hours dropped to fifteen minutes of review. "Tu 2 saal pehle kyu nahi mila?" (Why didn't I meet you two years ago?) If your team is still opening each bank statement manually, start here. It's the highest-ROI automation in Indian finance. I've written the full workflow in how a weekend Python script saved a CA firm 209 hours during ITR season . 2. Cash Application — Matching Payments to Invoices at Indian Speeds Globally, AI-driven cash application handles up to 90% of invoice matching without human touch. In India, it's harder — money arrives in more shapes than most tools expect: UPI,

The next attempt was the standard Maps URL: window . open ( `https://maps.google.com/maps?daddr= ${ lat } , ${ lng } ` , ' _blank ' ); This opens Maps, but in the browser — not the app. And it shows the route preview, not turn-by-turn navigation. What worked: Android Intent URLs Android supports a special URL scheme that tells Chrome to launch a native app directly: window . location . href = `intent://navigation/now?ll= ${ lat } , ${ lng } &title=Next+stop#Intent;scheme=google.navigation;package=com.google.android.apps.maps;end` ; Breaking it down: intent:// — tells Chrome this is an Android intent navigation/now?ll=${lat},${lng} — opens Maps in navigation mode, starting immediately #Intent;scheme=google.navigation — the URI scheme to use package=com.google.android.apps.maps — the target app package end — closes the intent syntax This opens the Google Maps app directly and starts turn-by-turn navigation automatically — no extra taps needed. It also works with Android Auto. The full function export function openNavigation ( destination : { lat : number ; lng : number }): void { window . location . href = `intent://navigation/now?ll= ${ destination . lat } , ${ destination . lng } &title=Next+stop#Intent;scheme=google.navigation;package=com.google.android.apps.maps;end` ; } Call it on any user gesture (tap, click) and it works without being blocked by the browser. The app The full PWA is open source if you want to see the context: 🔗 GitHub repo 🌐 Live app Built with React + TypeScript + Vite + Dexie.js + @vis .gl/react-google-maps. If you're building a PWA that needs to hand off to Google Maps navigation on Android, this intent URL is the cleanest solution I found. Hope it saves you the hour I spent figuring it out.

Anthropic’s Fable/Mythos shutdown is the first real model export-control shock The important AI story this week is not just that Anthropic launched bigger Claude models. It is that the US government then told Anthropic to switch two of them off for foreign nationals — and Anthropic says the practical answer was to disable them for customers while it works through compliance. That is a very different kind of platform risk than rate limits or pricing changes. If you are building on frontier models, model access can now move because of export-control decisions, safety claims, and geopolitical pressure. What happened Anthropic announced Claude Fable 5 and Claude Mythos 5 on June 9. Fable 5 was described as Anthropic’s most capable generally available model, with stronger performance across software engineering, knowledge work, vision, scientific research, and longer complex tasks. Mythos 5 was positioned above that: an upgrade to Claude Mythos Preview, with Anthropic calling out cyber-defence and life-sciences use cases. Three days later, Anthropic published a blunt update: the US government had issued an export-control directive requiring Anthropic to suspend all access to Fable 5 and Mythos 5 by any foreign national, whether inside or outside the United States — including foreign-national Anthropic employees. Anthropic said the order arrived at 5:21pm ET on June 12, did not include detailed specifics, and that its understanding was that the government believed it had become aware of a jailbreaking method for Fable 5. Anthropic said access to other models was not affected, but the “net effect” was that it had to abruptly disable Fable 5 and Mythos 5 for customers to ensure compliance. Al Jazeera’s follow-up on June 19 frames the downstream effect clearly: allied countries and companies are now being forced to think harder about dependence on US frontier-model access. It also reports that Anthropic had granted roughly 200 institutions across 15 countries access to Claud

For the last 30 years, stopping the flow of cybersecurity-related software has proven to be ineffective. It's unclear why it would work now with Anthropic’s cybersecurity model Mythos.

Go’s IPO — Japan’s biggest so far this year — has done more than provide a much-needed boost to the country’s languishing listing season. It has also supplied the taxi-hailing app with the capital required to address an existential issue: Japan’s shortage of drivers. Go, which went public Tuesday, plans to use the ¥88.6 billion […]

Ekehi platform has moved from hand-written HTML/CSS/JS pages to a typed, component-driven React 19 client and a module-based TypeScript Express/Node.js API. 0. Where we started and where we landed Before. A static client built from per-page folders ( landing/ , contributors/ , login/ , signup/ , admin/ ), each shipping its own index.html , a shared styles.css , and vanilla ES module scripts under client/shared/ . The server was an Express API written in plain JavaScript. After. Layer Before After Client Static HTML + CSS + vanilla JS React 19 + Vite 8 + TanStack Router + TypeScript 6 Styling One global styles.css Tailwind CSS 4 with @theme design tokens Data fetch scattered per page TanStack Query over a typed lib/api client Server Express in JavaScript Express + TypeScript, module-per-domain Repo Two loose folders pnpm workspace with shared git hooks Quality gate None ESLint 9, Prettier 3, Husky, commitlint, Vitest The migration ran in two phases on separate branches: **Phase 1 — client rewrite. **Phase 2 — server rewrite. 1. Why this framework? Choice: React 19 , rendered as a client-side SPA through Vite 8 , routed by TanStack Router . TanStack Router was chosen rather than React Router because it gives fully type-safe routes, first-class search-param typing, built-in code-splitting, and file-based route generation that pairs cleanly with Vite. 2. The folder and component structure The client uses a feature-sliced layout: code is grouped by domain, not by technical type. client/src/ ├── components/ │ ├── layout/ navbar.tsx, footer.tsx │ └── ui/ button, input, modal, select, dropdown, ... (design system) ├── config/ env.ts, env-schema.ts, endpoints.ts ├── features/ one folder per domain │ ├── auth/ auth.query.ts, auth.service.ts, auth.types.ts, components/, pages/ │ ├── opportunities/ pages/ │ ├── resources/ pages/ │ ├── submissions/ pages/ │ ├── admin/ pages/ │ └── site/ pages/ (landing, contributors) ├── lib/ │ ├── api/ request.ts, errors.ts, refresh.ts, types.t