标签：#m

Honda wants in on the lucrative energy storage market. This week it began producing batteries destined for data centers, not driveways.

I’ve been experimenting with local AI setups for a while, and honestly, most guides online are either too complicated or miss key steps. I recently set up Open WebUI with Docker and Ollama , and once it clicked, it actually felt pretty straightforward. Here’s a simple breakdown of what worked for me: Used Docker to avoid dependency issues (this saved a lot of time) Connected Open WebUI to Ollama local models Accessed everything through browser (ChatGPT-like interface) Tested basic prompts + API flow Played around with pipelines for structured outputs The biggest confusion I had was around connection between Open WebUI and Ollama, but once the API endpoint was correct, everything just worked. I also documented the full step-by-step setup, errors I faced (like 500 errors), and fixes here if anyone’s interested: 👉 Build your own ChatGPT locally in minutes If anyone else has tried similar local LLM setups, curious what stack you’re using or if there’s a better workflow. submitted by /u/thecoode [link] [留言]

"You gods don't speak in ways we understand."

I’m building an experimental HTML-to-PDF engine in Rust and would like technical feedback from people who understand browser engines, PDF generation, rendering, or high-volume document systems. The goal is to build a very low-RAM, highly parallel HTML-to-PDF engine for server workloads. Think invoices, reports, tables, receipts, business templates, generated dashboards, and API-based PDF rendering. The motivation is that Chromium/Puppeteer is very compatible, but expensive for high-volume PDF generation because each render can involve a heavy browser process/runtime. I want to explore whether a dedicated engine can cover common server-side HTML-to-PDF use cases with much lower memory and better multi-core scaling. Current architecture: HTML -> html5ever parser -> compact arena DOM -> cssparser stylesheet parsing -> cascade + computed styles -> box tree -> layout / pagination -> display list -> compressed PDF writer Some current design choices: Rust implementation no Chromium or browser subprocess compact arena-based DOM instead of pointer-heavy node graph independent render jobs so many PDFs can render in parallel across worker threads display-list boundary so layout is separate from PDF writing optional bounded pre-layout JavaScript stage behind a trait PDF backend supports compressed streams, selectable text, embedded fonts, Unicode/ToUnicode, and font subsetting work The long-term ambition is “lean and fast HTML-to-PDF with broad CSS and controlled JS support,” but I’m trying to be realistic. I know “full CSS/JS” is basically browser-engine territory, so I’m thinking the practical first target should be server-generated documents rather than arbitrary websites. Questions for the community: Is this technically realistic if the scope starts with business/document HTML rather than full browser compatibility? What are the hardest parts I’m likely underestimating? Which CSS/layout features are absolutely necessary for real-world adoption? Is pre-layout deterministic J

submitted by /u/fagnerbrack [link] [留言]

The autonomous vehicle space is starting to feel like a repeat of the 2016 hype cycle. Travis Kalanick is back building a robotics company, and the talent wars and capital are heating up the same way they did the first time around. The money’s flowing back, and it’s the people who lived through that first […]

Starliner's certification may be delayed to 2027, 10 years later than Boeing's original schedule.

Thus ends the messy saga of Subnautica 2.

The government has removed restrictions on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 AI models—but there were strings attached.

These six free settings will not make your project unhackable. Nothing will. What they will do is close the easy doors. Turn these on, and your project will be meaningfully harder to attack than it was before. The post 6 security settings every GitHub maintainer should enable this week appeared first on The GitHub Blog .

Key Takeaways You can't unit-test a coach agent the way you test a pure function — the output is non-deterministic and "good" is a judgment call, not an assertion. An LLM-as-judge harness lets you grade a whole test set automatically against a rubric, which is the only way solo-scale eval stays sustainable. But the judge is itself a fallible model. If you don't design around its known biases — position, verbosity, self-preference, and quiet drift when the judge model updates — you build a green dashboard that means nothing. The mitigations that actually work are mechanical, not prompt-magic: shuffle order on every pairwise call, pin the judge version, keep a small human-labelled anchor set, and re-check the judge against it. The problem I actually had FamNest's coach agent generates responses to parents — check-ins, encouragement, the occasional gentle redirect. I have a growing pile of these interactions, and every time I change a prompt, swap a model, or adjust the pipeline, I need to know one thing: did I just make it better or worse? For normal code, that's what tests are for. I change something, the suite runs, red or green, done. But there's no assertEqual for "was this an empathetic, useful response to a tired parent." The output changes every run even at temperature zero-ish, and the quality bar is a human judgment, not a fixed string. Two responses can be worded completely differently and both be good. One can match my "expected output" word for word and still be worse than a version that didn't. So the honest options were: read every response by hand every time I change something (does not scale past about week two), or build a harness where a model grades the outputs against a rubric. I built the harness. Then I spent an uncomfortable amount of time learning all the ways a harness like that can lie to you. What the harness actually is At its simplest, it's a loop: def evaluate ( test_cases , coach_agent , judge ): results = [] for case in test_cases : res

A ChatGPT subscription starts at $20 a month and is one of the cheapest ways to run inference. OpenAI has also been fairly relaxed lately about third-party agents using them , which makes the deal even better for a lot of us. But a subscription can't be used as freely as pay-per-token access , and the providers police the difference. Anthropic recently narrowed its subscriptions to first-party apps; OpenAI has its own limits. Here's what will get you banned from an OpenAI subscription. Sharing your subscription A ChatGPT subscription is strictly personal. One subscription, one user. Sharing yours breaks OpenAI's terms of service. That also covers account pooling and account rotation, where several people share the same credentials to dodge rate limits. Running it in automation Automation (CI, runners, schedulers) should run on per-token pricing, not a subscription . Once a system calls the OpenAI API with your token while you're not in the loop, the usage stops being personal. No unattended production system should run on a ChatGPT subscription. Serving other users For now, you can point an autonomous agent like OpenClaw or Hermes at your ChatGPT subscription, as long as it only talks to you. The moment that agent starts chatting with other people, or serving them in any way, it turns into a team use case , and that inference should be paid per usage. Putting it in a commercial product Same logic here. Making an LLM call authenticated with an individual ChatGPT subscription inside a product you ship breaks OpenAI's terms. That access is subsidized, and reselling it in any form isn't what it's meant for. If you've built something just for yourself and you're the only user, you're probably fine. The bottom line A ChatGPT subscription is personal . Anything that stretches past personal use can get you restricted or banned. If you're not sure your usage counts, move it to pay-as-you-go. If you want to keep the subscription for your own work and fall back to per-token pr

A few weeks ago I was in Copenhagen for my first Codegarden, and one quiet thought has stuck with me since. It didn't come from a keynote. It came from the bit the keynote leaves out. I've worked with Umbraco for years, but I'd never been to Codegarden, and I turned up without much of a fixed idea of what the two days would be. I kept that open on purpose. I wanted to take it in rather than measure it against something I'd decided in advance. What struck me most was that the value came from two places at once. The sessions were a fantastic source of inspiration; everything from keynotes to guest speakers all seemed to resonate in some way or another. The conversations in between the sessions - drifting around the event space and finding common ground with anyone and everyone - proved just as valuable. I came home more energised than I've been in a while, with a notebook full of half-formed ideas and a better feel for the community I'm part of. But the thing I kept turning over afterwards was that bit the keynote leaves out. That's what I want to write about. The easy half and the hard half Every major Umbraco release gets the same treatment. A polished keynote, a clean demo, a feature that looks effortless on stage. There's plenty in 18, and which part matters most depends on what you're building. For me it's Elements: a new Library section where you manage reusable content and reference it through a new element picker. Create once, use everywhere. It's a genuinely good direction. Reusable content has lived awkwardly in the content tree for years, and Library finally gives it a proper home. What the demos don't show you is the part I've been playing around with for the past few weeks. Taking a real Umbraco 17 site, with content pickers threaded through block lists, block grids, rich text blocks and base document properties, and getting all of it to point at the new Library without an editor ever noticing anything moved underneath them. The feature is the easy half.

Here is a question that sounds like a trick: can you build an accurate classifier out of models that are barely better than flipping a coin? Surprisingly, yes. That is the whole idea behind boosting, and AdaBoost is the algorithm that made it famous. I built it from scratch and dropped it into an interactive demo — here's how it actually works, real math, no hand-waving. Play with the live version: https://dev48v.infy.uk/ml/day21-adaboost.html The weak learner: a decision stump AdaBoost's building block is the simplest classifier you can imagine: a decision stump . It is a decision tree with exactly one split. Look at one feature, compare it to one threshold, and call everything on one side "+1" and everything on the other side "−1". That's it. One line, one cut. def stump_predict ( X , dim , thresh , polarity ): pred = np . ones ( len ( X )) if polarity == 1 : pred [ X [:, dim ] <= thresh ] = - 1 else : pred [ X [:, dim ] > thresh ] = - 1 return pred On anything that isn't trivially separable, a single stump is hopeless — on a checkerboard layout it barely passes 55-60%. That is exactly why it's a "weak learner": a model that only beats random guessing by a hair. The magic is in how we combine hundreds of them. Sample weights: a moving spotlight The engine of AdaBoost is a weight on every training point that says "how much does getting this one right matter?" Everything starts equal: n = len ( X ) w = np . full ( n , 1.0 / n ) # uniform: every point weighs 1/n These weights are a probability distribution — they sum to 1. After each round they change: points we got right get lighter, points we missed get heavier. Since we always pick the next stump to minimise weighted error, the heavy points end up dominating the search. The next stump is effectively forced to stare at whatever the committee keeps blowing. Weighted error, not a plain count When we hunt for the best stump each round, we don't count mistakes — we add up the weight of the mistakes: def weighted_error

Tree of Thoughts was a genuine leap. Instead of reasoning in one straight line, it branches into several lines, scores them, prunes the dead ends, and searches for the best path — so a puzzle that would sink a single chain of thought becomes solvable. But a tree has one restriction baked right into its shape, and once you see it you can't unsee it: every node has exactly one parent. A branch can be extended or abandoned. It can never be combined with another branch. That matters more than it sounds. Real problems decompose, and when they do, different branches each get part of the answer right. Branch A nails the first half; branch B nails the second half; neither is fully correct on its own. A tree is forced to pick one and throw the other's good half away. Graph of Thoughts (GoT) removes exactly that restriction. 🕸️ Interactive demo (a real merge-sort that branches, merges, and refines — with live-verified scores): https://dev48v.infy.uk/prompt/day21-graph-of-thoughts.html The core idea: thoughts are nodes in a graph GoT reframes reasoning as building a graph . Each vertex is a thought — a partial solution or intermediate result. Each edge is an operation that produced one thought from one or more others. Because it's a general graph and not a tree, a thought is allowed to have several parents, and edges can even loop back on themselves. That single change in the data structure is the entire conceptual leap. Everything else is just the operations you're now free to run on that network. The four operations generate (branch) — the familiar move, straight from Tree of Thoughts. From one thought, produce several different next thoughts. This can also be a split : break the input into independent sub-problems solved on separate branches. Diversity matters here — near-duplicates waste budget. score / rank — turn each thought into a number so the controller can compare them. Objective scorers win: a validator, a test, a metric. In the demo, the scorer is deliberately con

NBCUniversal executives are about to find out whether Peacock will sink or swim in the streaming industry. Now that Comcast is planning to split NBCUniversal, Peacock, and Sky from its broadband and wireless businesses, Peacock will be forced to stand on its own - without the backing of a combined company that pulled in more […]

submitted by /u/RichOliveira56 [link] [留言]

Please post your questions here instead of creating a new thread. Encourage others who create new posts for questions to post here instead! Thread will stay alive until next one so keep posting after the date in the title. Thanks to everyone for answering questions in the previous thread! submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [留言]

The future of video game preservation just took a major hit. This morning, Sony announced that, starting in January 2028, the company will no longer produce physical PlayStation discs, which means that from that moment on you can only purchase new PS5 games digitally. At the same time, Sony also announced that it's going to […]

submitted by /u/Xaneris47 [link] [留言]