标签：#ha

I built an experiment that uses an overfitted transformer and arithmetic coding to compress individual files. Instead of training the model to generalize, I train a 900KB transformer to memorize a single file and predict the next byte. Those predictions are fed into an arithmetic coder to produce the compressed output. On a 100MB NYC taxi CSV, it compresses to about 7MB (~0.5 bits/byte). On a 100MB slice of enwik9, it compresses to about 21MB (~1.68 bits/byte). It's pretty slow right now (roughl

This is not a review of the MSI Claw 8 EX AI Plus, the first gaming handheld available with Intel's new Arc G3 Extreme handheld gaming chip. Now that my colleague Sean Hollister is done reviewing the Steam Machine, I'll let him go deep on the new Claw at some point in the future. This […]

For the past three years, "Meta" and "Ray-Ban" have been synonymous in the smart glasses space. Not anymore. Yesterday, I slipped on several pairs of Meta Glasses - no Ray-Bans - in three different styles and seven colors. One style, I was told several times by various enthusiastic Meta spokespeople, is a collaboration with socialite […]

Data-Oriented Design in C#: Why Objects Are Slowing You Down In my previous article, we talked about starving the Garbage Collector by moving away from heap-allocated class types and leaning heavily into struct , Span<T> , and ArrayPool<T> . That’s a critical first step, but it only solves half the problem. You’ve stopped the GC from pausing your app, but you might still be leaving massive amounts of CPU performance on the table. Why? Because of how your data is structured. It’s time to talk about Data-Oriented Design (DoD) . The Object-Oriented Trap We are taught from day one to model our code after the real world. If you are building a social network graph, you might write something like this: public class UserNode { public int Id { get ; set ; } public string Name { get ; set ; } public List < Edge > Connections { get ; set ; } } public class Edge { public UserNode Target { get ; set ; } public int Weight { get ; set ; } } This makes perfect logical sense. A user has connections, and those connections point to other users. But modern CPUs don't care about your logical models. A CPU only cares about reading data from memory into its L1/L2 caches as fast as possible. When a CPU reads a byte from RAM, it doesn't just read that one byte; it pulls a whole 64-byte "cache line" under the assumption that you will probably want the neighboring bytes next. When you loop through a List<UserNode> , traversing from object to object, you are jumping randomly across the heap. The CPU pulls a cache line, reads your data, and then has to go fetch a completely different block of RAM for the next node. This is called pointer chasing , and the resulting cache misses are devastating to performance. Enter Data-Oriented Design: Struct of Arrays (SoA) Data-Oriented Design says: Stop modeling the real world. Model the data the way the hardware wants to consume it. Instead of an Array of Structs (AoS) (or an array of objects), we invert the architecture to a Struct of Arrays (SoA) . If we

Here is a number that should reframe how you think about the agent economy: in roughly one year, AI agents moved about $73M across 176 million machine-to-machine transactions on a single exchange, at an average of around $0.31 per transaction , across 100k+ registered agents . Read that again. Agents are not "coming." They are already transacting, at scale, in production, right now. The interesting question is no longer whether autonomous software moves money. It is what those transactions are trusting - and what happens the first time that trust is misplaced. Payments scaled. Settlement did not. Almost all of that volume runs on payment rails. A payment rail does one job, and does it well: it moves a unit of value in one direction. Agent pays a service. Agent tips an API. Agent settles a micro-invoice. At thirty-one cents a pop, the failure modes are invisible - if a transaction goes wrong, you are out pocket change, and you move on. The problem is that a payment and a trade are not the same operation. A payment asks one question: did the money move? A trade asks a harder one: did **both * sides happen - or neither?* When your agent pays for something, there is one transfer and one direction of risk. When your agent trades - my asset for yours, your stablecoin for my token, one chain's value for another's - there are now two transfers that must both complete, or both not. The risk lives in the gap between them. One side sends; the other side is supposed to send back. On a payment rail, "supposed to" is doing an enormous amount of load-bearing work. The hidden assumption Every one of those 176 million transactions made an assumption that nobody had to state out loud: the counterparty will deliver. Between parties who already trust each other - a company and its own agents, two services under one operator - that assumption is fine. It holds because the trust was established off-chain, by humans, before the agent ever ran. But the entire promise of the agent economy i