标签：#learn

Originally published on tamiz.pro . The current generation of AI coding assistants operates on a fundamental paradox: they are trained on the entirety of public code, yet they struggle to understand the specific codebase they are embedded in. For years, the industry has relied on prompt guessing —feeding the LLM a ragged collection of nearby code lines, hoping the semantic context is implicit. This approach is brittle. It fails when symbols are imported, when types are inferred, or when the logic spans multiple files.\n\nThe solution isn't a bigger model; it's a better protocol. The Language Server Protocol (LSP) is the missing link between static analysis and generative AI. By integrating LSP into AI agents, we move from probabilistic guessing to deterministic understanding. This article explores why LSP is critical for reliable coding agents, how to architect an LSP-augmented agent, and the technical pitfalls of this integration.\n\n## The Semantic Gap: Why Prompts Aren't Enough\n\nTo understand why LSP is necessary, we must first diagnose the failure modes of prompt-only AI coding agents. An LLM is a probabilistic next-token predictor. It does not "know" your code; it has seen patterns similar to your code in its training data. When you ask an AI agent to \"refactor this function,\" it relies on the context window to provide relevant information.\n\n### The Context Window Bottleneck\n\nThe primary limitation is the context window. Even with 128k tokens, you cannot fit an entire modern codebase. Agents must select a subset of files to include. Without explicit semantic queries, this selection is often heuristic-based (e.g., \"include the last 50 lines\") or simple semantic similarity (vector search). Both approaches miss critical structural relationships.\n\nConsider this example:\n\n python\n# file: user_service.py\nclass UserService:\n def get_user(self, user_id: int):\n # ... logic ...\n return db.query(User).filter(id=user_id)\n\n# file: controllers.py\ndef ha

As review season for NeurIPS wraps up, I have now reviewed for 3 major conferences this year. And I'm noticing a worrying trend: Out of the 12 papers I reviewed this year, only 1 provided full code (that runs the whole training pipeline from input dataset to output AUROC). 4 provided partial code with fragments of their method, but no ability to run the experiment end to end. And 7 provided no code. This is really bad for ensuring quality and reproducibility. Of the 5 papers that provided at least some code, 3 of them contained obvious bugs that completely invalidated the results. ML is highly technical and small bugs can have huge impacts if they are in the wrong place. Who knows what was going on in the remaining 7 papers. The fundamental issue here is of incentives: there is almost no cost to hiding code during the review process. Releasing code only increases odds of rejection due to reviewers finding bugs. The only way to fix this is to change the game by imposing real penalties on hiding code. submitted by /u/Flaky-Ambition5900 [link] [留言]

Alibaba officially launched Qwen3.8-Max on Monday, marking the debut of its most substantial artificial intelligence model. This new open-weight release aims at enterprise sectors, specifically targeting software engineering and complex reasoning. It represents a significant expansion of the company’s existing portfolio of digital tools for large-scale business operations. Technical architecture and performance benchmarks The Qwen3.8-Max model utilizes a mixture-of-experts (MoE) design, featuring a total of 2.4 trillion parameters. However, the system only activates approximately 95 billion of those parameters during any single inference cycle. This approach balances high-level processing power with the need for operational speed. Alibaba plans to make the open-weight versions of this technology available to the public through its cloud-based studio platform starting next week. Company representatives stated that this new architecture ranks among the most capable systems currently in existence. They position it as a direct competitor to the most advanced frontier models available globally. Internal data suggests the performance levels are trailing only the very top tier of experimental AI systems. This move signals a clear intent to capture market share from established western technology firms. Competitive testing and industry analysis To prove its capabilities, Alibaba released internal data comparing Qwen3.8-Max against top models from Anthropic and OpenAI. The tests focused heavily on coding benchmarks such as SWE-bench Pro. According to the company, their new model held its own against Claude Opus 4.8 and GPT-5.6 Sol. They utilized the specific coding frameworks recommended by each competitor to ensure a fair and rigorous comparison during the evaluation process. Industry analysts have noted that the gap between proprietary and open-weight models is closing rapidly. While proprietary leaders still hold certain advantages, the rise of open-weight alternatives pr

I tried to do all my NeurIPS reviews responsibly, even for the papers I suspected to be AI slop. I even gave what apparently were very nice scores compared to the scores I ended up getting. (I don't just mean the absolute number for my scores were higher, but that they were calibrated differently--I only rejected for severe issues, while I had a reviewer who only raised very minor issues but gave a reject, with a 1 for all the subscores.) I got shockingly bad reviews for my own paper; two of them were straight up adversarial. (I have quite a bit of experience publishing at this point, so I say with some confidence that I rolled an unusually adversarial batch.) The AC was almost nonresponsive until the last day. All but one of the reviewers was nonresponsive, only one responded when the AC prompted them to, and that was to say that their concerns were addressed but they maintained their reject score. I'm not surprised by my experience given how much of a lottery these conferences are, but it's a very toxic system. submitted by /u/WhiteBear2018 [link] [留言]

So our paper had very good initial reviews but one of the reviewers decreased now their score although we addressed 3 out of 4 weaknesses. There’s no further justification or something like “your results arise more issues”. It seems to be very annoying because why decreasing now and not having assigned the lower score beforehand. I wanted to ask to people that was accepted previously with “middle” scores from reviewers (avg 3.5 for example), because I guess that in those cases AC helped to push up the scores. Did you focus more on the meta review? Was your AC talkative with you, or forcing the reviewers to engage? Our AC has been silent since the meta review but I guess that maybe they are busy with other papers submitted by /u/pdastronut [link] [留言]

Potentially a hot take? I am not sure why our community is plagued with reviewers who, after acknowledging that their concerns were addressed by a rebuttal, decide to maintain their score because they don't vibe with the paper. So here is my plea to all reviewers: If you list a set of concerns in your review and these concerns are addressed during the rebuttal, please adjust your score accordingly. This should apply whether or not you like the paper and/or its methodology. The beauty of scientific research is that we each get to explore ideas that we find meaningful whose value may not be immediately obvious to every individual reviewer. submitted by /u/undesirable_12 [link] [留言]

Continuando com a saga de siglas, encontrei de maneira simplista a versão oposta do ACID, o BASE....

You wouldn't believe what they were preaching about in church this week. Normally, these days you walk in expecting to be bombarded with Bible verses and the classic "tell your neighbour to tell their neighbour" routine. But guess what, my preacherman was on point. The whole sermon was about how to realise your full potential and grow your career. And here's the interesting part: it wasn't aimed at the start-your-own-empire crowd. It was for the intrapreneurs , the people who'd rather climb high inside someone else's company than run their own thing. If that's you, this one's for you. So let me try to break it down in my own words, with a few of the insights I picked up from the preacherman (and a couple of my own). Let's begin. What is it that we actually need to do to discover ourselves and reach our full career potential? 1. Start Early There's a popular idea that life comes in four quarters: 0–25 — the learning phase 25–50 — the earning phase 50–75 — the serving / enjoying phase 75+ — the reflecting phase (You'll see different versions of this floating around, with different age bands; it's a framing, not a law of physics, so take the exact numbers loosely.) The first quarter is where the magic is supposed to happen. This is your discovery phase. You're meant to learn as much as you can, try different things, fail, get back up, and try again. This is where you find out who you actually are. If you spend this quarter as a couch potato, there's a good chance you end up miserable and stuck in the wrong career. Your environment matters too. Get born in India, you'll probably force yourself onto a cricket pitch, even if your real gift was on a tennis court; therefore, you have to force yourself into trying quite a number of things. For the parents reading this: give your kids as much exposure as you possibly can. Let them join different clubs. Let them be around different kinds of people. Someone out there might spot a talent you never even knew your child had. A lot

I used to learn like this. Buy the cheap Udemy course, get three hours in, realize it was recorded...

Was just looking at the list of preprints on Arxiv cs.LG https://arxiv.org/list/cs.LG/recent?skip=0&show=500 Everyday 100 - 400 new machine learning papers gets uploaded on this server. Looking at this unending list of preprints is as if you stepped into a crowded room, like the stock trading floor on wall st. in the 1980s. Everyone is shouting over each other. Nobody is talking to each other. Everyone's trying to prove something, to someone, to themselves, to build some credentials in the ML/AI space to meet those job requirements, or dying to get their truth out. Every title contains some new terminology invented by the authors that feels not worth the effort in keeping it in your working memory. Burn-out by endless novelty. Frontier research are now corporate trade secrets that politicians and military are watching closely. Research papers are ir/unreproducible he-said-she-saids. Marketing material are research paper and vice versa. Extremely major breakthroughs are announced via tweets, whereas extremely minor results are unannounced via journals. Everything feels simultaneously mostly true and possibly false (because nobody is seriously checking). Nobody knows what's going on, and people who knows what's going on has a non-disclosure clause in their job contract. Is the theory of generalization that we learned in school true or false? It feels false, why hasn't there been any retractions? Many questions like these. Is it too late to regain some coherence in this field?? submitted by /u/NeighborhoodFatCat [link] [留言]

I used to laugh at people who panicked over data limits. Then my carrier switched my "unlimited" plan...

I often see people using the term "namespace" incorrectly. Even when explanations of what a namespace is are presented, they only go as far as describing its function, neglecting to properly define the name "namespace" itself. Definition of the Namespace A namespace is literally the space to which a name belongs . If we were to classify the term namespace, it would be a specification (concept), not a tool. In namespaces, the higher level is represented as outer and the lower level as inner . In terms of class structure, this corresponds to outer classes and inner classes. In other words, to explain it from a different perspective, it looks like this. Representation of namespaces from the outer perspective Build namespaces (best) Define namespaces (to fit many programming language implementations) Open namespaces (such as Ruby's class definition and module definition ) Create namespaces (such as the pseudo-namespace hack in older JavaScript) Declare namespaces (such as the package declaration in Java or the namespace declaration in PHP) Representation of namespaces from the inner perspective Belong to a namespace (best) Entering the namespace (This is entirely from an inner perspective, so it might feel out of place depending on the context) Be included in the namespace (this is a reasonable explanation if explained objectively). Incorrect expression From the definition above, it is clear that the following expressions are incorrect. Add/Paste a namespace (the expression "add/paste a space" is grammatically incorrect). Use namespaces (not to the point of being completely broken, but treating namespaces as a tool) Separate/Cut namespaces (While "Separated by namespaces" is understandable, "separate/cut" can be misleading) Meaning of "Name" in Namespace The "names" referred to here can be class names, module names, or package names. What they represent varies depending on the language that implements namespaces. For example, in Ruby, it refers to constant names. In Rub

Introduction Artificial Intelligence has moved from being an experimental technology to becoming a core component of modern software systems. Companies today are integrating AI into customer support, analytics, automation, healthcare, finance, education, and enterprise applications. However, as organizations start building AI-powered solutions, one major question appears: “How do we make an AI model work specifically for our business needs?” Many teams immediately assume they need to train their own AI model. Others believe a well-written prompt is enough. Some organizations invest heavily in fine-tuning without understanding whether it is the right approach. The reality is that there is no single solution. Modern AI development usually revolves around three major strategies: Prompt Engineering Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) Fine-Tuning Choosing the wrong approach can lead to higher costs, poor AI performance, security issues, and unnecessary complexity. This article explains the differences between these approaches and how businesses can select the right AI strategy. The Problem: Making General AI Models Business-Specific Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT, Claude, Gemini, and Llama are trained on massive amounts of publicly available data. They are excellent at: Understanding language Generating content Writing code Answering general questions Summarizing information ** However, businesses usually need AI systems that understand:** Internal company documents Customer information Product knowledge Industry-specific terminology Private databases Business processes For example: A hotel company wants an AI assistant that can answer: “What is our cancellation policy for premium customers?” A general AI model does not know this information because it was never trained on the company’s private policies. So the challenge becomes: How do we customize AI without rebuilding an entire model from scratch? This is where Prompt Engineering, RAG, and Fine-Tuning come

Full title: [Advanced Rust] 2.3. API Design Principles of Unsurprising Pt.3 - Implementing serde Serialize and Deserialize Traits, and Why Copy Is Not Recommended 2.3.1. It Is Recommended to Implement Serialize and Deserialize in serde Serde is the core Rust library for serialization and deserialization : Serialization : converts a Rust struct or enum into a string or binary representation such as JSON or YAML Deserialization : parses a string or binary representation such as JSON or YAML back into a Rust struct or enum Serialize and Deserialize are both traits from the serde crate. Serialize Trait The Serialize trait allows a type to be converted into a serializable data format such as JSON, YAML, or TOML. Its main methods include: serialize_bool serialize_i32 serialize_str serialize_struct These are methods on the Serializer (and related) traits that a Serialize implementation calls; the Serialize trait itself only requires serialize . Its definition is: pub trait Serialize { fn serialize < S > ( & self , serializer : S ) -> Result < S :: Ok , S :: Error > where S : Serializer ; } Here is an example showing how to implement Serialize manually: use serde :: ser ::{ Serialize , SerializeStruct , Serializer }; struct Point { x : i32 , y : i32 , } impl Serialize for Point { fn serialize < S > ( & self , serializer : S ) -> Result < S :: Ok , S :: Error > where S : Serializer , { let mut state = serializer .serialize_struct ( "Point" , 2 ) ? ; state .serialize_field ( "x" , & self .x ) ? ; state .serialize_field ( "y" , & self .y ) ? ; state .end () } } serializer.serialize_struct("Point", 2)? creates a struct serializer state, and 2 is the number of fields state.serialize_field("x", &self.x)? serializes the struct fields one by one state.end() finishes serialization Deserialize Trait The Deserialize trait allows Rust types to be parsed from various data formats. Its main methods include: deserialize_bool deserialize_i32 deserialize_string deserialize_struct These are

Full title: [Advanced Rust] 2.2. API Design Principles of Unsurprising Pt.2 - Implementing Clone, Default, PartialEq, PartialOrd, Hash, Eq, and Ord 2.2.1. It Is Recommended to Implement the Clone Trait and the Default Trait Clone Trait The Clone trait in Rust allows an implementer to explicitly create a deep copy of itself through the clone method, as opposed to the by-value copy provided by the Copy trait. Example: #[derive(Debug, Clone)] struct Person { name : String , age : u32 , } impl Person { fn new ( name : String , age : u32 ) -> Self { Self { name , age } } } fn main () { let person1 = Person :: new ( "John" .to_owned (), 25 ); let person2 = person1 .clone (); println! ( "{:?}" , person1 ); println! ( "{:?}" , person2 ); } The Person struct implements the Clone trait In main , person2 clones the data from person1 because it implements Clone Output: Person { name: "John", age: 25 } Person { name: "John", age: 25 } Default Trait The Default trait in Rust allows a type to define a default value and return that default instance through the default() method. Example: #[derive(Default)] struct Point { x : i32 , y : i32 , } fn main () { let p = Point :: default (); println! ( "Point is at ({}, {})" , p .x , p .y ); } Output: Point is at (0, 0) 2.2.2. It Is Recommended to Implement the PartialEq , PartialOrd , Hash , Eq , and Ord Traits PartialEq Trait PartialEq provides support for the == and != operators, allowing custom types to participate in partial equality comparisons. Example: #[derive(Debug, PartialEq)] struct Point { x : i32 , y : i32 , } fn main () { let point1 : Point = Point { x : 1 , y : 2 }; let point2 : Point = Point { x : 1 , y : 2 }; let point3 : Point = Point { x : 3 , y : 4 }; println! ( "point1 == point2: {}" , point1 == point2 ); println! ( "point1 == point3: {}" , point1 == point3 ); } By implementing PartialEq , we can compare whether two structs are equal Output: point1 == point2: true point1 == point3: false PartialOrd , Eq , and Ord Trait

You loaded an image, got a tensor shaped (batch, height, width, channels) , and your convolution wants (batch, channels, height, width) . Stack Overflow says permute . Someone else says transpose . And reshape(2, 3, 28, 28) gives you the right shape too — so why is everyone making this complicated? Because two of those three are the same tool, and the third one silently destroys your data. The short answer transpose(dim0, dim1) swaps exactly two dimensions. permute(...) reorders all of them in one call, and you must list every dimension. transpose is a special case of permute . Both return a view — no data is copied, only the strides change — which also means both leave you with a non-contiguous tensor. reshape is not in this family at all. It reinterprets the flat memory under a new shape without moving anything, so it can produce the shape you asked for while completely scrambling what the numbers mean. import torch t = torch . arange ( 24 ). reshape ( 2 , 3 , 4 ) print ( t . transpose ( 0 , 1 ). shape ) # torch.Size([3, 2, 4]) — swapped dims 0 and 1 print ( t . permute ( 2 , 0 , 1 ). shape ) # torch.Size([4, 2, 3]) — full reorder transpose — swap two axes transpose(dim0, dim1) takes two dimension indices and swaps them. Everything else stays put. t = torch . arange ( 24 ). reshape ( 2 , 3 , 4 ) print ( t . shape ) # torch.Size([2, 3, 4]) print ( t . transpose ( 0 , 1 ). shape ) # torch.Size([3, 2, 4]) print ( t . transpose ( 1 , 2 ). shape ) # torch.Size([2, 4, 3]) The order of the two arguments doesn't matter — t.transpose(0, 1) and t.transpose(1, 0) are the same thing. A swap is a swap. On a 2-D tensor this is the matrix transpose you already know, and .T is the shorthand: m = torch . arange ( 6 ). reshape ( 2 , 3 ) print ( m . T . shape ) # torch.Size([3, 2]) print ( m . transpose ( 0 , 1 ). shape ) # torch.Size([3, 2]) — identical One caution on .T : on tensors with more than two dimensions, .T reverses every dimension, and modern PyTorch has deprecated that

Learn how to build professional PDF reports in Odoo 19 using QWeb . This guide covers everything from creating your first report to advanced techniques like reusable templates, custom paper formats, barcodes, multilingual reports, RTL support, and performance optimization. Introduction Every Odoo application relies on reports. Whether you're printing: Sales Quotations Customer Invoices Purchase Orders Delivery Slips Manufacturing Orders Inventory Labels Payroll Documents Custom Certificates you're using QWeb , Odoo's XML-based templating engine. Although creating a basic report is straightforward, building maintainable, scalable, and professional reports requires understanding how the entire reporting pipeline works. In this tutorial, we'll build a complete report from scratch while exploring best practices used by experienced Odoo developers. By the end of this guide, you'll be able to: Create custom PDF reports Understand how Odoo generates PDFs Design reusable templates Display relational data Build dynamic tables Format currencies and dates correctly Add company logos, images, barcodes, and QR codes Create custom paper formats Pass additional data from Python Optimize report performance Debug common QWeb issues How Odoo Generates a PDF Before writing any XML, it's important to understand the report generation process. User clicks "Print" │ ▼ ir.actions.report │ ▼ Report Model (_get_report_values) │ ▼ QWeb Template │ ▼ Rendered HTML │ ▼ wkhtmltopdf │ ▼ PDF Download Each step has a specific responsibility: Component Responsibility ir.actions.report Registers the report Report Model Prepares business data QWeb Generates HTML wkhtmltopdf Converts HTML into PDF Understanding this workflow makes debugging significantly easier. Project Structure A clean module structure helps keep reports maintainable. my_module/ │ ├── models/ │ └── sale_order.py │ ├── report/ │ ├── sale_order_report.xml │ ├── report_action.xml │ └── paperformat.xml │ ├── security/ │ ├── views/ │ └── _

hey there, so i wanted to share something with you. this is a bit personal but i have been watching the news this week and bruh... things are not going good. i am jobless right now, no other source of income, and day by day things are getting worse. and the worst part? AI is literally fuking every job in the software field. so when i saw this week's stock market drama, it hit me different. Microsoft popped. Meta tanked. Same AI boom. Two completely opposite reactions. and all i could think was... yeah, this is exactly my life right now. The Numbers, Bruh let me break it down real quick because this is wild: Microsoft jumped like 15% after beating expectations. Azure grew 43%. full year Azure revenue crossed $100 billion. insane. Meta dropped 8–9% after missing on guidance. their free cash flow collapsed 91% year-over-year to just $784 million. like... 91%?? gone. same AI boom. same crazy spending. and the market said "you're amazing" to one and "you're done" to the other. Why Microsoft Won Microsoft actually showed receipts. they didn't just talk about AI, they showed the money coming in. Azure is growing, Copilot is making real revenue, investors can literally see the line between billions spent and billions earned. lesson? Wall Street doesn't hate AI spending. it hates AI spending without proof. Why Meta Lost Meta's problem is that nobody can see where the money comes back. Zuckerberg talked about the "AI capacity dilemma" — how much compute to keep for yourself vs sell to others. but guidance missed, free cash flow went to hell, and the market was like... nah bro, i need answers. and honestly? i relate to that feeling more than i want to admit. putting everything into something and people still saying "not enough." The Bigger Picture this week is a preview of everything coming. companies are dumping hundreds of billions into data centers, chips, and models, all betting AI demand keeps exploding. the ones who can prove it pays off? they get rewarded. the ones who

Two weeks ago, I published "Why Agent Evaluation Is Harder Than Model Evaluation." The core argument:...

So, here's the thing. A few months ago, I kept hearing these four words everywhere — AI, machine learning, deep learning, generative AI — and honestly? I just nodded along like I knew what they meant. I didn't. Not really. Then I actually sat down and learned them properly, and it turns out they're way simpler than people make them sound. So here's my attempt at explaining them the way I wish someone had explained them to me. No scary maths, no fifty-page research papers. Just the actual ideas. First, the one thing everyone gets wrong These four terms are NOT the same thing. They're more like Russian dolls — each one fits inside the bigger one: AI is the biggest doll. The whole concept. Machine learning is inside AI. Deep learning is inside machine learning. Generative AI is a specific use of deep learning. Once I saw it like that, everything else clicked into place. AI: the big umbrella Artificial intelligence is basically any system that does something we'd normally say requires human thinking. That's it. That's the definition. And here's the part that surprised me — AI is old. Like, really old. The chess computer that beat Kasparov in 1997? That's AI. The enemy characters in old video games that chase you around? Technically AI. Most of that stuff doesn't "learn" anything. A programmer just wrote a bunch of rules, like "if the player is close, move towards them." So AI ≠ robots taking over the world. Most AI is honestly pretty boring. It's spam filters, autocorrect, and the thing that recommends which video plays next. Machine Learning: where it gets interesting This is where computers stopped following rules and started finding them. The classic example: a spam filter. The old way, a programmer would write rules like "if the email contains the word FREE!!! in all caps, it's spam." But spammers just change their spelling and the rules break. It's a never-ending game of cat and mouse. Machine learning flips it around. Instead of writing rules, you show the compute