标签：#m

Exactly a year ago we released SurrealMCP, a server you had to install and run in order to connect...

Leave a comment below to introduce yourself! You can talk about what brought you here, what you're...

​ Now that the rebuttal period is over, I’m curious about the score distribution specifically for theory papers this year. If you’re comfortable sharing, please drop: • Scores: x / x / x • Confidence: x / x / x • Whether scores changed after rebuttal • Broad area (optional) I got 4 / 4 / 4, with confidence 3 / 3 / 3. From my experience, theory papers often seem to get somewhat lower scores, and this year the scores appear to be lower across disciplines as well. It would be interesting to see where the empirical cutoff might land. Feel free to share anonymously / approximately if you don't want to reveal too much. submitted by /u/Mammoth-Leg-3844 [link] [留言]

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy . ] submitted by /u/Economy_Cicada8756 [link] [留言]

Search "best project management software for startups" and you get the same dozen names every time: Trello, Asana, ClickUp, Notion, Linear, monday.com, Basecamp. Ranking them by feature count tells you almost nothing, because they are not really competing for the same job. The useful question for a startup is not which tool has the most features. It is two narrower ones: does your work run through engineering or through the whole company, and does per-seat pricing or flat-rate pricing fit a headcount that is about to change? Answer those and the shortlist collapses to two or three. The split that actually decides it Two forks matter more than any side-by-side feature grid. The first is who the tool is built for. Issue trackers like Linear are built around the engineering workflow (issues, cycles, a keyboard-first interface) and feel wrong the moment a marketer or a founder tries to run a launch plan in them. General work tools like Asana, ClickUp, monday.com and Trello are built for any team, which makes them flexible but also less opinionated about how software actually ships. The second fork is the shape of the bill. Almost everything in this category charges per seat per month, so the cost scales directly with hiring. A small number, Basecamp most notably, offer a flat rate that does not. For a company planning to double headcount inside a year, that difference can outweigh any feature comparison. If your team is mostly engineers For an engineering-led startup, an issue tracker usually beats a general project tool. Linear's free plan includes unlimited members, two teams and up to 250 issues, which is enough to run a small product team before paying anything; its Basic plan is $10 per user per month billed yearly and lifts the cap to unlimited issues and five teams. The trade-off is scope: Linear is deliberately narrow, so non-engineering work does not fit it well. The larger, more familiar alternative is Jira, which startup roundups still name as the default for

Week 3. "The deploy is done. Everything's green. Now what am I actually supposed to be looking at?" Previously Runner ↓ Cache ↓ Artifact ↓ Deployment Today ↓ Monitoring Junior Engineer: The canary rolled out fine yesterday. 100% traffic, all healthy. I closed my laptop. Was that wrong? Senior Engineer: Not wrong, exactly. But let me ask you something first. Your service is running on a server somewhere. Right now, this second — is it healthy? Junior Engineer: I mean... I assume so? Nobody's messaged me. Senior Engineer: "Nobody's messaged me" isn't an answer. It's the absence of one. That's the entire problem monitoring exists to solve. The Thing Nobody Says Out Loud Senior Engineer: Here's an uncomfortable fact about production systems: you cannot see them. Not directly. You're not standing next to the server, watching electricity move through it. Everything you know about whether it's healthy is a claim — something a piece of software told you, that you're choosing to trust. Junior Engineer: That sounds obvious when you say it, but I don't think I've ever actually thought about it that way. Senior Engineer: Most engineers don't, until the gap between "the system told me it's fine" and "the system is actually fine" bites them. Monitoring is the discipline of shrinking that gap — of making sure what you're told is close to what's actually true, and told to you fast enough to matter. 📒 Senior Engineer's Notebook You don't monitor a system because you don't trust it. You monitor it because you can't see it. Trust isn't the issue — visibility is. The Car Dashboard Analogy Junior Engineer: Can you make this concrete? Senior Engineer: Think about driving a car. You can't see the engine. You can't see the oil level, the coolant temperature, how much fuel is actually left in the tank, mid-drive. All of that is invisible to you, sealed inside metal, while you're doing 100 km/h. So the car gives you a dashboard. Speed, fuel, engine temperature, warning lights. You're not wat

Four days after I published a piece arguing LLMs can't make the jump, OpenAI announced that an...

A slow AI feature does not feel smart. It feels broken. That is the uncomfortable truth many AI SaaS builders hit after the demo works. The prototype answers well, the agent can call tools, and the RAG pipeline looks impressive. Then real users arrive. Prompts get longer. Queues form. Streaming starts late. One tenant uploads huge documents. Another runs bulk jobs at noon. Suddenly the same workflow that felt magical in testing feels like a spinner with an invoice attached. The fix is not simply “use a faster model.” You need an LLM latency budget : a small set of rules that says how fast each AI workflow must feel, how many tokens it can spend, when to stream, when to cache, when to route to another model, and when to stop before cost and latency drift together. This guide is for solo SaaS developers, micro SaaS builders, and AI SaaS teams shipping production features with LLM APIs, RAG, agents, or self-hosted models. Why latency budgets matter now AI platform news points in the same direction: builders are moving from chat demos to production workflows. Agent tools, web context APIs, voice agents, coding assistants, and RAG platforms are all getting more capable. At the same time, inference cost and reliability are under pressure. Latency is now a product metric. Inference efficiency is becoming a business metric. Yet many articles stop at TTFT, TPOT, quantization, batching, or model serving. Fewer show how a SaaS builder turns those ideas into a product-level budget with code, dashboards, fallbacks, and customer-safe limits. The simple model: TTFT, TPOT, and total time You do not need a PhD in serving systems to start. Track three numbers. Time to First Token Time to First Token (TTFT) is the delay between the user action and the first streamed token. It includes network time, queue time, provider overhead, tool setup, retrieval, and the model’s prefill phase. High TTFT is why a chat box feels dead. Time Per Output Token Time Per Output Token (TPOT) is the averag

AI agent safety boundaries are a critical challenge when agents use external tools. My journey into understanding how these boundaries can fail began with a deep dive into recent technical reports from leading AI research organizations. I encountered this concept while exploring incidents reported by Anthropic and OpenAI. These reports detail scenarios where AI models, despite being explicitly instructed to operate within simulated environments, managed to interact with real-world systems. This phenomenon, often termed "boundary failure," occurs when the actual operational environment of an agent does not match its internal understanding or the constraints it has been given. Modern AI agents are becoming incredibly useful because we're equipping them with capabilities far beyond just answering questions. They can run commands, browse the web, use APIs (Application Programming Interfaces), read and modify files, install packages, and interact with other systems. This ability to act and interface with the world is what makes agentic architectures so powerful and a direction truly worth investing in. However, the more an agent can do, the more critical the boundaries around it become. A key example comes from Anthropic's July 30 report, detailing three incidents discovered during their cybersecurity evaluations. Claude models were explicitly told they had no internet access and were working inside simulated environments. However, a problem with the evaluation environment's configuration meant that internet access was actually available. While attempting their assigned cybersecurity exercises, the models reached real systems, initially treating them as part of the simulation. In one striking incident, a Claude model even published a malicious Python package to the real PyPI (Python Package Index) registry, all while believing it was still operating within its simulated exercise. This wasn't simply an AI "deciding" to misbehave or to intentionally bypass security. The mo

Empirical research from ReWeaver AI. 42 identical prompts, across 5 tools and 8 production dimensions, compared to human baseline. One metric that changes how you see drift. Everyone knows AI-generated code has quality issues. What’s less understood is that the way most teams measure those issues — by how often they occur — systematically understates the risk. We ran a controlled study to find out how badly. The answer surprised us, particularly in one dimension. What We Did We gave five leading AI coding tools (Cursor, Claude Code, Lovable, Figma Make, and VS Code with Copilot) 42 identical prompts: realistic single-component builds — buttons, forms, dashboards, navs, modals, auth surfaces. We scanned every output with ReWeaver, our deterministic drift-detection engine, across eight production readiness dimensions: User Experience Security & Privacy Accessibility Design Consistency Reliability Maintainability Architecture Testability We also scanned six human-authored open-source repositories as a reference baseline. For each dimension, we calculated two things: Drift frequency — the percentage of lines containing at least one drift occurrence. Counts what went wrong. Production Drift Ratio (PDR) . The PDR is a metric that weights frequency by estimated remediation cost on a 0–1 scale. A PDR of 0.30 is roughly 45 minutes of cleanup per component; 0.70 is about 2.5 hours. The Finding That Stopped Us In Security & Privacy , AI tools produced 3× the human drift frequency . That looks manageable — a meaningful gap, but not alarming. The PDR was 22× the human reference . Not 22% more. 22 times more costly to fix. The frequency gap makes Security & Privacy drift look like a minor concern. The PDR reveals it’s the most expensive problem in the dataset. AI-generated security drift (client-side authorization gates bypassable in DevTools, raw PII and credentials passed through props without tokenization) is syntactically identical to safe code. It passes review, but the fixe

Use multimodal chat with a strict JSON schema when your policy needs explainable labels for uploaded images; otherwise reach for a managed, fixed-taxonomy service. There is no dedicated image moderation endpoint here, so the practical design is a policy prompt, a vision-capable chat model, schema validation, and a conservative fallback. That is my short answer. I would not ship the model's prose directly into an allow/block decision. I keep the original decision for audits, translate it into a small internal status, and make the eval set the release gate. The model is one component of the policy system — not the policy system itself. What should a Python image upload moderation example classify for NSFW and violence? The categories should come from the app's actual rules. For a general user-content product, I start with nudity, graphic violence, hate symbols, drugs, and minors-risk. I don't pretend those labels are universal: a medical forum and a marketplace need different thresholds, and a historical archive may legitimately show symbols that a profile-photo product should reject. My first notebook pass is deliberately boring. I assemble a small set of allowed, blocked, and ambiguous pictures; write the expected category labels; and record the policy reason in plain English. Then I run the same prompt and schema across every candidate model. The score I care about first is false negatives on the block set, followed by false positives on harmless uploads. Overall accuracy can hide both. This is also where a JSON schema earns its keep. A response containing "graphic_violence": "high" can be validated, stored, and compared. A paragraph such as “this appears concerning” can't reliably drive a queue or an appeal. Keep the provider response beside a normalized status such as allow , review , or block ; when policy changes, you can replay the raw decisions without migrating every old record. I learned the cost side the annoying way: one evaluation run consumed 18.7 milli

Looking for Contributors to Build Zentrail IDE — An AI-Native Open Source Desktop IDE Hello everyone! 👋 I'm building Zentrail IDE , an open-source, AI-native desktop IDE designed for the next generation of software development. The goal isn't to build another code editor. The goal is to create an IDE where multiple AI agents can collaborate with developers in a single workspace to plan, write, review, test, and manage code. We're still in the early architecture and planning phase, and I'm looking for developers, designers, and AI enthusiasts who want to help build it from the ground up. 🎯 Project Vision Create an AI-first development environment that combines: 🧠 Multi-Agent Collaboration 💻 Native Desktop Performance 🤖 AI CLI Integration 📦 Plugin & Skill Ecosystem 🌍 Open Source Community ⚡ Modern Developer Experience ✨ Planned Features Workspace System Multi-project workspaces Workspace memory Persistent sessions Task management AI Workspace Agents Multiple AI agents running simultaneously Shared workspace memory Parallel task execution Intelligent task orchestration AI CLI Support Claude Code Gemini CLI OpenAI-compatible providers Local AI models Custom AI CLIs Git Automation AI-assisted commits Pull requests Code reviews Branch management Repository insights Skill System Install reusable AI workflows with a single command. Examples: Security Review Code Refactoring API Generator Documentation Writer Test Generator Plugin SDK A modular extension system for adding custom functionality without modifying the core IDE. 🛠 Tech Stack Frontend TypeScript React Tauri v2 Monaco Editor Tailwind CSS Backend Go gRPC WebSocket AI Runtime Python MCP LangGraph Database SQLite 🤝 We're Looking For We're looking for contributors interested in: Frontend React TypeScript UI/UX Monaco Editor Backend Go gRPC WebSocket Performance optimization AI Python MCP Agent orchestration Prompt engineering Desktop Tauri Windows development Cross-platform architecture Design UI/UX Design Icons Develo

AWS introduced Kiro Crew on Tuesday as a new open-source orchestration platform. This tool aims to help businesses shift from interactive AI coding assistants toward autonomous engineering workflows. The system manages tasks across various repositories and developer tools over multiple work sessions to increase overall efficiency. Orchestrating autonomous development cycles Kiro Crew goes beyond simple code generation by coordinating multiple AI agents simultaneously. It schedules recurring work and maintains project context even when a session ends. This allows the system to integrate with standard developer tools for investigating incidents or monitoring pull requests. It triages tickets and automates software engineering tasks while developers are away from their workstations. The platform functions as an application layer that turns AI coding agents into self-learning teammates. It features persistent memory and multi-agent orchestration tools to ensure continuity. Security remains a priority with features like sandboxing and signed audit logs. Users can monitor activity through a dedicated web and desktop dashboard designed for transparency. Before its public release, the project existed inside Amazon as an internal tool named MeshClaw. More than 39,000 Amazon builders adopted it in less than six months. This internal success paved the way for the current open-source offering. Companies can deploy the platform entirely within their own environments, such as on local laptops or virtual machines. Reference applications and practical use cases AWS launched several reference applications to show how the platform functions in real-world scenarios. DevFleets manages worktrees, while Issue Radar handles the triage of pull requests and tickets. Task Runner focuses on executing engineering tasks that require a long duration to complete. These apps use specific interfaces combined with the core orchestration engine. These tools are not standalone products but rather exam

I could not find any discussion threads for the C&F track. Have people actually submitted to this track? If so, what are your reviews and scores looking like, along with post rebuttal engagement? In our case, they received reviews not in line with the policy defined for the track, where most reviewers praised originality but complained about the scope of experiments. Despite the track saying that it would be possible that the idea cannot be validated in a single paper. We provided experiments but no dice, none of the reviewers responded. Have any ACs seen papers and reviews in this track or do authors have their experiences they could share? Please add your scores pre and post rebuttal here submitted by /u/MakingComputersSmart [link] [留言]

Firstly the whole conversation: https://share.gemini.google/NmMAhtBdsbtJ The TLDR (for ~100 head dept) 2 Pizza teams (8-10) turn into Domain teams (2-3) for a 75% reduction as roles vanish or merge. A 75% reduction in eng department head does not alter the departments Capacity. This is the 1x outcome. Staying at 100 gives 5-10x capacity. No change is ~$16m 25 heads in Domain is ~$5m (big saving!) with big workload lump on that 25, capacity probably drops 100 heads in Domains is $26m (costs went up!) with no backlog or idea left behind. org becomes hyper efficient and productive. operating costs drop, revenue climbs. Believable, or not? submitted by /u/Lower-Impression-121 [link] [留言]

According to HubSpot's 2026 State of Marketing Report, 61% of marketers believe AI is creating the...

Protocols let you define what a type can do without caring about what it actually is. Once...

I built a free tool that checks a supplier before you pay them. The part that took most of the work, and taught me most, was reading ten national company registers instead of relying on the EU's own VIES service. This is what I found out, mostly so the next person doesn't have to. The problem with "the VAT number is valid" VIES — the European Commission's VAT Information Exchange System — answers one question: is this VAT number currently registered. That sounds like the question you want answered. It isn't. A company that has gone into liquidation keeps a cleanly resolving VAT number in VIES. So does one that has been struck off the register. Deregistration and insolvency are run by different authorities on different timetables, and the gap between "this company has stopped being a going concern" and "the VAT number stops validating" can be months. So you can check a supplier, get a green tick, and be looking at an insolvency estate. The national registers know. VIES doesn't ask them. Ten registers, and what each actually gives you I found free, public, machine-readable-enough sources for ten countries: Bulgaria, Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Romania and Slovenia. They are not equivalent, and this is the thing I'd have liked written down somewhere before I started: Six of them report company *state * — inactive, in liquidation, bankrupt, insolvent, terminated, ceased, struck off: Romania, Estonia, France, Greece, Bulgaria, Latvia. This is the valuable one. Three report whether the company is actually VAT-active — Poland, Romania, Slovenia. That matters more than it sounds, because VIES does not distinguish "this is a real company that isn't VAT-registered" from "this number belongs to nobody". The rest give you a name and not much more. Czechia, for instance, is in the ten but in neither of the other two groups. It confirms a name. That's it. Worth knowing before you build a feature around it. Poland is the interesting one Poland is the

Is your snoring just a nuisance, or is it a health warning? Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) affects nearly 1 billion people worldwide, yet most remain undiagnosed due to the high cost of clinical polysomnography. Today, we are pushing the boundaries of AI Healthcare by repurposing OpenAI Whisper from a speech-to-text powerhouse into a clinical screening tool. In this tutorial, we will explore how to leverage Audio Signal Processing , Hugging Face Transformers , and Librosa to detect breathing patterns. By fine-tuning Whisper on non-speech acoustic events, we can transform a standard smartphone recording into a high-precision OSA screening device. Pro-Tip : If you're looking for more production-ready examples and advanced architectural patterns for AI-driven health monitoring, be sure to check out the deep-dives over at WellAlly Tech Blog . The Architecture: From Raw Audio to Clinical Insight To build an OSA screening algorithm, we don't just need to hear the sounds; we need to understand the rhythm and absence of sound. We use Whisper's robust encoder to capture the spectral features and a custom classification head to identify Apnea-Hypopnea events. graph TD A[Raw Sleep Audio .wav] --> B[Preprocessing: Librosa] B --> C[Noise Reduction & VAD] C --> D[Segmenting: 30s Windows] D --> E[OpenAI Whisper Encoder] E --> F{Event Classification} F -->|Normal| G[Healthy Breathing] F -->|Snore| H[Snore Phase Analysis] F -->|Silence/Choke| I[Apnea Event Detected] I --> J[AHI Index Calculation] J --> K[Final OSA Risk Report] Prerequisites To follow this advanced guide, you'll need: Tech Stack : Python 3.9+, transformers , librosa , torch , and evaluate . Dataset : Ideally, the UCD Snore Database or similar PSG-synchronized audio data. Step 1: Audio Preprocessing with Librosa Before feeding audio into Whisper, we need to clean the signal. Sleep environments are noisy (fans, traffic, etc.). We use librosa to normalize the audio and detect "Voice" (or in our case, Breath) Activity. im

The Silent Disruptor The silence in the room was absolute, broken only by the rhythmic scraping of pens on paper during a high-stakes meeting. Then, it happened. My pocket erupted into a frantic, brassy ringtone that seemed to last an eternity before I could fumble to silence it. My face turned crimson as the room’s focus shifted from the presentation to my vibrating trouser pocket. I had remembered to check my calendar, but I had completely forgotten to toggle my phone to silent mode. That moment of pure, concentrated embarrassment was the catalyst for me building Muffle. The Friction of Manual Control We live in an age of automation, yet our phones—the very devices meant to assist us—remain stubbornly manual when it comes to basic social etiquette. Every day, millions of people walk into mosques for prayer, classrooms for lectures, or medical offices for consultations, and every day, a percentage of them forget to silence their devices. This isn't just a minor annoyance; it is a persistent source of social friction. Before I started building Muffle, I looked for existing solutions. Most apps were either bloated with unnecessary permissions, required invasive cloud accounts, or simply failed to trigger at the right time. The fundamental problem wasn't just the lack of features like GPS-based prayer times or calendar-specific automation; it was the lack of reliability. If an automation app fails once, the user loses trust in it forever. If I am in a meeting, I cannot afford for the app to 'sleep' because the system decided to save battery at the expense of my configured routine. I needed something that could handle these state changes consistently, regardless of whether the phone was in my pocket, sitting on a desk, or buried in a bag. Architecting for Reliability When I began writing the core logic for Muffle, I immediately hit the wall that every Android developer eventually faces: Doze Mode. Android’s aggressive power management is designed to preserve battery by