标签：#c

We spent the last months consolidating seven separate sequence classifiers into one multi-head model, our apex model, so to speak, and since the weights are now public, I wanted to share what worked and what surprised us. Setup: a shared mmBERT-small encoder with seven task heads, binary injection (BCE), document class (7-way), tool type (14-way), tool operation (6-way), tool data-flow tags (3× BCE, multi-label), intent routing (5-way), and threat type (7-way). The part that needed care: our training rows only carry labels for a subset of tasks, so absent tasks are masked out of the loss entirely. We ended up writing a self-test that asserts absent-task gradients are exactly zero, which caught two subtle bugs, and I'd recommend it to anyone doing similar masking. About 5k synthetic/real multi-task rows help the heads co-train; the test sets stay 100 % real data. Held-out results per head: injection F1 0.962, documents 0.980, tool type 0.957, tool operation 0.945, tool tags 0.958, routing 0.916, threat 0.952. Quantization: both the unified model and the dedicated single-task variants ship quantized -edge builds (ONNX INT8 + INT4 embeddings, from 96 MB) with measured parity benchmarks in the repos, the worst head loses 0.012 against FP32. Was it worth it vs. seven dedicated models? We released both variants, so you can judge for yourself, the dedicated models score marginally higher on most tasks, but the unified one does one encoder pass instead of up to seven. Our weak spot: routing, at 0.916. The intent classes overlap semantically ("write code that analyzes my data" is that code or analytics?), and I suspect the ambiguity is genuinely in the data. If you have ideas beyond relabeling, let me know :) Weights and per-head metrics: https://huggingface.co/patronus-studio submitted by /u/PatronusProtect [link] [留言]

Hey, I would like to show you my project, but it's difficult because it only works with a registration, so I explain the concept to you. The Idea: Everyone who registers has to do an onboarding and answer meaningful questions that help you to find a right match. The matching happens by the system. Once you're done with the onboarding, you enter the pool. When a match is found, you go into a 1on1 14 question-set with that person. All answers are revealed immediately. At the end both decide if the

Describe your problem, get the YC startup that solves it Discussion | Link

Less than a week before Meta's lawyers were set to return to a Los Angeles courtroom, the plaintiff accusing the platform of inflicting harm dropped the case. Brought by 15-year-old Florida plaintiff going by initials R.K.C., the case was set to be the second in a set of bellwether trials meant to test legal arguments […]

You can now gift games without a Steam account and sort your wishlist into categories.

Google's cloud business is thriving, as companies adopting its AI and AI infrastructure services help the tech giant to report record profits.

Undetectable AI copilot for live meetings Discussion | Link

Build better color palettes. Ship complete color systems. Discussion | Link

Tired of squinting at VS Code’s stacked merge editor? MergeForge brings a JetBrains-style three-pane conflict resolver to VS Code and Cursor — and pairs it with an AI assistant that actually reads your repository before it suggests a fix. The problem We’ve all been there. You’re halfway through a rebase. Git stops. Twelve files are conflicted. You open one in VS Code… and get that familiar stacked layout: Incoming, Current, and a result pane that somehow still feels like a puzzle with half the pieces missing. If you ever used WebStorm or IntelliJ, you know how good merge tools can feel: Your side on the left Their side on the right The result in the middle Gutter arrows that just… work In VS Code land, that flow never quite arrived. You click Accept Current, Accept Incoming, Accept Both, and hope nothing important got flattened. Word-level diffs? Authorship? A clear “who wrote this chunk?” signal? Often missing when you need them most. And when AI entered the chat, a lot of tools treated conflicts like isolated text blobs: “Here are the <<<<<<< markers. Good luck.” But real merges need context. What was the branch trying to do? What does the surrounding file look like? Who touched this last? Without that, “AI resolve” is just confident guessing. I wanted the JetBrains merge experience — inside VS Code and Cursor — with an assistant that behaves more like a careful teammate than a slot machine. So I built it. The solution: MergeForge MergeForge is an open-source VS Code / Cursor extension that turns conflicted files into a proper three-pane visual merge. Layout: Left Center Right Yours (local) Result (editable, seeded from the merge base) Theirs (incoming) Panes scroll together. Chunks connect with bands. Gutter controls let you accept, ignore, or blend sides without fighting the UI. When you’re done, Apply writes the result and stages it with git. If you prefer Cursor, you’re covered too. The editor works the same; for AI features you plug in your own provider key (