标签：#m

Complete preparation breeds complacency. What is seen every day no longer raises suspicion. The...

submitted by /u/Amazing_Elderberry61 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Remarkable_Offer_347 [link] [留言]

Aprende a programar en español con águila submitted by /u/Remarkable_Offer_347 [link] [留言]

PDF work shows up in dev life more often than we'd like to admit — exporting docs, compressing build artifacts, merging client deliverables, or converting a spec sheet someone sent as a scanned PDF into something you can actually search. Paid suites like Adobe Acrobat are overkill for most of these one-off tasks. Here are 10 free, no-signup tools that get the job done, ranked roughly by how often you'll reach for them. 1. ToolTiny — PDF to Word/Excel/PowerPoint ToolTiny converts PDFs into editable DOCX, XLSX, or PPTX files directly in the browser, alongside the usual merge/split/compress/watermark/password toolkit. No account, no watermark on output. What's actually useful for dev workflows: it handles presentation-style PDFs (think exported slide decks or design-heavy one-pagers) reasonably well — most converters flatten these into a single unreadable text blob, but ToolTiny keeps the layout intact while still giving you editable text. Good for the "client sent a PDF, I need it as a Word doc by EOD" scenario. 2. Smallpdf The OG in this space. Smallpdf's PDF-to-Word conversion is excellent at preserving layout — it renders the page as a background image and overlays editable text boxes at the correct coordinates, which is why it handles complex layouts better than most. Free tier caps you at 2 tasks/day though. 3. iLovePDF Similar feature set to Smallpdf, slightly more generous free tier. Their "Organize PDF" drag-and-drop page reordering is one of the smoother UX implementations out there if you need to quickly reshuffle a multi-doc PDF before sending it out. 4. PDF24 A German tool that's been around forever and quietly does everything — OCR, forms, signing, comparison. Less polished UI than the others but the OCR accuracy on scanned technical docs is genuinely strong. 5. Stirling-PDF If you want something self-hosted, Stirling-PDF is the open-source answer. It's a Docker container you spin up yourself, giving you a full PDF toolkit (split, merge, compress, OCR, wa

Prediction markets have become increasingly popular among traders looking for alternative ways to speculate on asset movements. While much of the attention has been focused on short-term 5-minute and 15-minute markets, I believe one of the most overlooked opportunities right now is the 1-hour market on Polymarket. In this article, I'll share some of my ongoing research, explain how I'm collecting and analyzing market data, discuss potential arbitrage and mispricing opportunities, and show how automation can help traders capitalize on these inefficiencies. Why I'm Focusing on the 1-Hour Market Many traders are currently concentrated on the 15-minute Bitcoin prediction markets. While these markets can be profitable, competition has increased significantly, and recent fee changes have made certain strategies less attractive. The 1-hour markets, however, present a different opportunity. These markets offer: Longer trading windows More time to manage positions Higher flexibility for order placement Potentially lower competition No trading fees on some hourly markets Because of the longer duration, traders have more time to identify inefficiencies and execute strategies that may be difficult to implement in shorter timeframes. Collecting Market Data Directly from Polymarket One of the projects I've been working on involves collecting market data directly from Polymarket and monitoring token price movements in real time. Rather than relying solely on the displayed market prices, I use blockchain-based data sources that can provide updates faster than the front-end interface. This allows me to analyze: YES token price swings NO token price swings Order book movements Temporary mispricings Combined token costs The goal is to understand how both sides of a market move throughout the trading period and identify situations where the combined cost of YES and NO tokens falls below $1. Understanding YES and NO Token Swings One interesting metric I track is the lowest price reached

Production vLLM is 100,000+ lines of C++, CUDA, and Python. It powers most of the industry's LLM serving — but reading it cold is brutal. So I built a study series around nano-vLLM , an open-source reimplementation of vLLM's core ideas in ~1,200 lines of pure Python. Every algorithm is visible. Every design decision is legible. It turned out to be the perfect lens for actually understanding how LLMs generate text. The result is an 11-chapter interactive guide. No ML background required — every piece of jargon is explained from scratch with analogies, diagrams, annotated source code, interactive simulators, and quizzes. What it covers: What Is LLM Inference? — tokens, autoregressive generation, Q/K/V attention, HBM vs SRAM Architecture — how 1,200 lines are organised; CPU control plane vs GPU data plane KV Cache — why storing Keys and Values turns O(N²) recomputation into O(1) lookup PagedAttention — virtual memory for the KV cache; how fragmentation wastes 60–80% of GPU memory The Scheduler — continuous batching; keeping the GPU at 95% utilisation instead of 12% Prefill vs Decode — same model, two completely different bottlenecks (compute-bound vs memory-bound) Prefix Caching — skip prefill for shared tokens; ~700ms → ~90ms TTFT Sampling Strategies — greedy, temperature, top-k, top-p, and what each does to the distribution Tensor Parallelism — splitting a model across GPUs; column/row parallel and all-reduce The Optimization Stack — FlashAttention, kernel fusion, CUDA Graphs, torch.compile Benchmarks — measuring honestly; why nano-vLLM matches vLLM on core throughput Each chapter is fully self-contained and interactive. A few of the simulators I'm most happy with: a PagedAttention block allocator you can fill up and watch fragment, a live scheduler you step through token by token, and a sampling playground where you reshape the probability distribution with sliders and sample from it. 🔗 Read the full series: https://ashwing.github.io/vllm-guide/ It's free and open.

If you give an LLM agent a table of A/B variants and ask "which one should we send next?", it will confidently pick the one with the highest conversion rate. That feels right. It is often wrong. The model has no concept of sample size , exploration , or regret . It pattern-matches "biggest number = winner" and moves on. For a one-off question, fine. But inside an agent loop that picks a variant on every request — email subject lines, ad copy, model routing, recommendation ranking — that naïve pick quietly accumulates regret and starves the options it never gave a fair chance. The fix isn't a better prompt. It's to not ask the LLM to do the math at all. Route the decision to a real bandit algorithm and let the model do what it's good at (orchestration, language) while a deterministic solver does what it's good at (the optimization). This post is a copy-paste demo you can run in your terminal right now , no signup, no API key. I'll use OraClaw — a deterministic decision-intelligence MCP server — but the point stands regardless of tool: stop letting the model guess at math it can verify. The trap, concretely Here's a realistic state mid-experiment. Three subject lines, different amounts of traffic: Variant Pulls Rewards (conversions) Raw rate A 120 18 15.0% B 80 17 21.3% C 15 4 26.7% Ask an LLM "which should we send next?" and you'll usually get B — it has the best rate among the well-tested variants, and C "only has 15 samples, too noisy to trust." That reasoning sounds responsible. It's exactly backwards. With only 15 pulls, C is under-explored — we don't actually know it's worse, and the cost of finding out is tiny. A bandit's whole job is to weigh that uncertainty instead of hand-waving it away. Let's get a real answer. Run it yourself: the no-key REST endpoint (60 seconds) OraClaw exposes a free, no-auth REST endpoint. Paste this into your terminal — nothing to install, nothing to sign up for: curl -s -X POST https://oraclaw-api.onrender.com/api/v1/optimize/bandit

TL;DR: A single eval number hides its own uncertainty. Eval confidence intervals from bootstrap resampling turn a point estimate like 84.2% accuracy into a range, so you stop shipping models on a difference that is noise. Two checkpoints came back from a fine-tuning run at 84.2% and 85.7% on our 500-example agent eval set. The 1.5 point gap read like a win, and someone wanted to promote the second checkpoint to staging. Before that, I wanted eval confidence intervals on both numbers, because a 500-example set carries more sampling error than most teams admit. At 500 examples, the 95% interval on a single accuracy near 85% spans roughly 3 points on each side. The win sat well inside the noise. I lead the fine-tuning and evaluation team at Nexus Labs, and the most common mistake I see is treating an eval score as exact. It isn't. Your eval set is a sample drawn from the input space you care about, and a different 500 examples would return a different number. Confidence intervals make that variance visible. What an eval confidence interval actually tells you An eval confidence interval is a range around a metric, like accuracy or F1, that quantifies how much the score would move if you resampled the eval set. A 95% bootstrap interval of [81.0%, 87.1%] means that across thousands of resamples of your data, 95% of the recomputed scores fell in that band. It measures sampling noise, not model quality. That distinction matters. Two checkpoints scoring 84.2% and 85.7% with overlapping intervals are, as far as your eval set can tell, indistinguishable. Card et al. showed in "With Little Power Comes Great Responsibility" that many NLP experiments are underpowered to detect the effect sizes they report. Computing bootstrap confidence intervals The bootstrap is resampling with replacement. You take your per-example results, draw N of them with replacement many times, recompute the metric each time, and read percentiles off the resulting distribution. There's no assumption that

Introduction This is the second part of sharing my journey to create a microservices-based backend system, in the previous part, I introduced the system and its services. In this part I am going to mention the main things that happened with me from then until now. Transitioning to online DBaaS platforms The first main thing was to transition my databases from my local device to accessible over the internet. I used Neon and MongoDB Atlas . Although performance-wise it is better to deploy the database on the same server that the whole system so all services can access the databases without network overhead , This solution is better from a point, that is avoiding consuming the free VM instance that I got to host my main services, as with DBaaS platforms I will not require storage for databases or additional overhead to handle the DBMS on a free small resources-constrained VM. Observability Observability is one of the main concerns in any system, it gives the ability for the system to expose what happens inside it without any need to guess and manually trace the code to determine where the error may happened. I utilized OpenTelemetry , as I found it is most used and accepted tool to log, trace and collect metrics about the system and the traffic. Also, I loved that it is not related to specific framework, that is .NET by the way, I loved the idea that it is standalone tool. But logging and tracing and metrics collection will not be beneficial if we do not see it actually and can achieve monitoring from those telemetry data, so I used Grafana Cloud to export the telemetry data to some place that is accessible online and a tool that can generate dashboards and visualizing for the metrics ( Prometheus ), and UI that can show all the telemetry data easily. Deployment Until this point, we have a system that is fully functional and have consistent docker configuration for its services via Docker Compose, and it database is already there and available. Now this is the point at

submitted by /u/varad177 [link] [留言]

OpenAI and Broadcom introduce Jalapeño, a custom AI chip built for LLM inference to improve performance, efficiency, and scale across AI systems.

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

The biodegradable material can help improve healing after surgery—or an avocado-related accident.

OSS extensible K8s shadow environment submitted by /u/arnonrgo [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/Successful_Bowl2564 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/cake-day-on-feb-29 [link] [留言]

One-time passcodes are everywhere: sign up for a service, log in from a new device, confirm an action, and a six-digit code lands in your email. A human glances at it and types it in. An automated flow, a signup script, an end-to-end test, or an AI agent connecting to a third-party service, can't glance at anything. It has to pull the code out of the mailbox programmatically, and that's a surprisingly fiddly job: the code arrives seconds after a trigger, it's buried in a templated email, and every sender formats it differently. This post covers extracting verification codes from two angles: the nylas CLI , which does it for you in one command, and the Email API pattern you build when it's part of a larger flow. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I just need the code. Two ways to get the code There are two paths depending on what you're building. For terminal workflows, local testing, or scripting a login, the CLI has a dedicated nylas otp command that finds the latest code in a mailbox and hands it to you. For an application or an agent that reacts to incoming mail, you build the extraction into your own flow: catch the message when it arrives, pull the body, and parse the code out. The difference is who drives. The CLI is pull-based: you ask for the latest code when you need it. The API pattern is push-based: a webhook tells you a message arrived, and your code extracts the value as part of handling it. Both end at the same place, a string of digits you feed into whatever's waiting for it, but the CLI is the fast path for a developer and the API pattern is the durable path for a product. In practice you use both: the CLI to learn which sender and code format you're dealing with during development, then that same understanding baked into the application pattern for production. Grab the latest code from the CLI When you've just triggered a code and want it now, nylas otp get finds the most recent one in your default accoun

Every Nylas request you make on a user's behalf needs one thing first: their permission. Before you can list a mailbox, send on someone's behalf, or read a calendar, the user has to authorize your application through their provider, and that authorization is what's called a grant. Doing the OAuth dance yourself means registering with Google and Microsoft separately, handling each provider's consent screen, token exchange, and refresh quirks. Hosted OAuth collapses that into one flow that works the same across every provider. This post walks through connecting an account from two angles: the HTTP API your web app uses in production, and the nylas CLI for connecting a test account from the terminal. I work on the CLI, so the terminal commands below are the ones I reach for when I need a grant to develop against. What a grant is A grant is an authenticated connection to a single user's account. When a user authorizes your application, Nylas stores the connection and hands you a grant_id , a stable identifier you pass on every subsequent request to act on that user's email, calendar, or contacts. The grant is the unit of access: one user who connected one mailbox is one grant, and everything you build addresses /v3/grants/{grant_id}/... . Keep two credentials distinct here. Your API key authenticates your application to Nylas and goes in the Authorization header on every request; the grant_id identifies which connected user that request acts on. The API key is yours and stays on your backend, while a grant_id is minted per user when they connect. The grant is also where provider differences disappear. A Gmail grant and a Microsoft grant have different OAuth scopes and token mechanics underneath, but once connected, both are just a grant_id you use the same way. That's the point of hosted OAuth: you run one flow, the user picks their provider, and you get back the same kind of identifier regardless of who hosts the mailbox. Hosted OAuth supports Google, Microsoft, Yahoo,

Line AI Chatbot In Production: A CTO's Honest Breakdown Three months ago I was staring at our infrastructure bill wondering where the hell our runway went. We'd been running a customer-facing chatbot powered by a popular "enterprise" AI provider, and the cost curve looked like a hockey stick in the wrong direction. Every new sign-up bled money. I knew we had to make a change before our next board meeting, but I also couldn't afford a six-week migration that would tank our product velocity. What I found surprised me. After running the numbers, testing 184 models through Global API, and stress-testing everything at scale, I cut our inference costs by more than half without touching quality. This isn't a theoretical comparison from a vendor whitepaper. These are the real numbers from my production stack, with my actual users, in my actual platform. If you're a CTO weighing your options for 2026, here's everything I wish someone had told me before I started. Why The Line AI Chatbot Approach Matters Now Most chatbot guides treat AI integration like a toy problem. Send a prompt, get a response, ship the demo. That's fine for a hackathon, but it's not how you run a production system. The questions I care about are different: What's my cost per active user? How do I avoid vendor lock-in? Where's the single point of failure? How fast can I iterate on model choice when something better drops next Tuesday? The Line AI Chatbot framework flips the typical approach. Instead of treating the model as a black box you can't replace, you build a thin abstraction layer over a model-agnostic API. That single architectural decision is what unlocked every other win I describe below. If you're not thinking about model portability on day one, you're going to pay for it later. I learned this the hard way. In 2026, the market has matured to a point where you genuinely have 184 models to choose from, with input prices ranging from $0.01 to $3.50 per million tokens. That's not a marketing line.