标签：#m

Day 9. Template matching works. But screen sizes, resolutions, and Android versions might break everything. Eight days ago, the agent was an idea. Now it can read text, handle interruptions, and find icons on a screen. But there's a question I've been avoiding: does it work on any phone other than mine? The Cross-Device Problem Every screenshot I've taken, every icon I've cropped, every coordinate I've mapped—it's all on one device. My phone. Same screen size. Same resolution. Same Android version. Same DPI. Template matching relies on reference images that look exactly like the target on screen. Change the screen density, change the icon size, change the font scaling, and the match confidence drops. Suddenly "send_button.png" doesn't match anymore, and the agent can't press send. This isn't a bug in my code. It's a fundamental challenge in computer vision: reference-based matching breaks when the visual context changes. Today's Experiment I tested the same agent on a friend's phone—different manufacturer, different Android version, slightly larger screen. The results were humbling. Task My Phone Friend's Phone OCR (text recognition) ✅ 95% accuracy ✅ ~90% accuracy Find "Mom" in contacts ✅ Found ✅ Found Template match: send button ✅ 94% confidence ❌ 62% confidence Template match: back button ✅ 91% confidence ❌ 58% confidence OCR held up reasonably well because text is text. Fonts might change slightly, but the characters are the same. But the icons—the send button, the back arrow—were rendered at a different size and slightly different pixel arrangement on my friend's device. The agent failed to send the message. Why This Matters An AI agent that only works on one phone isn't an agent. It's a script. If I want this to be useful to anyone else—or even to myself if I change phones—it needs to be device-agnostic. Possible Solutions I'm Exploring Solution Pros Cons Multi-resolution icon library Simple. Just crop icons at different DPIs. Tedious. How many variants are eno

spent most of my career either in kernel land where you account for every byte yourself, or in nodejs/nestjs world where you just throw objects around and let the runtime sort it out. Monkey C is neither and it kept messing with my instincts. the lead dev once described the goal as wanting something that looked like javascript but with no features that waste memory, basically "syntactic splenda" instead of sugar. so you get this language that reads like JS but the second you write JS-brained code it punishes you. the part that actually got me was memory. everything ran perfect in the simulator and then crashed on the actual watch with out of memory. turns out watch faces get a tiny slice of RAM compared to full apps and the older devices are brutal about it, were talking double digit KB for the whole thing. coming from a runtime where I never think about allocation it was kind of humbling to go back to counting objects like its an embedded target again, because it is one. other thing nobody warns you about is theres almost no ecosystem outside garmins own forums. stack overflow is basically empty so you end up digging through old firmware bug threads to figure out why something behaves diferently on device vs sim. weirdly I enjoyed it more than I expected. it scratched the same itch as kernel work, real constraints and no abstraction to hide behind. would not want it as a day job but as a side thing its a nice reset. submitted by /u/Robservant [link] [留言]

"These are not your friends. These are not conscious beings. These are not sentient interlocutors.”

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

So ... what's your In the Weights score?

Atlantic reporter Alex Reisner recently uncovered four datasets of music being used to train AI models and made them fully searchable for the public. Two of the sets are absolutely enormous at 12 million and 9 million tracks. The other two are much smaller, but still represent a significant amount of training data at over […]

If you’ve spent any time working with autonomous AI coding agents recently, you know the drill. You give the agent a straightforward task: "Add a user profile page and link it to the navbar." The agent says, "I've got this." It writes some code. You run it, and it throws an import error. You paste the error back. The agent apologizes, rewrites the file, and now your routing is broken. You paste that error back. Ten iterations later, your config is mysteriously deleted, the navbar is entirely missing, and the agent is trying to install a deprecated version of React. This is the AI Agent Doom Loop. It happens because current agent frameworks mistake intelligence for discipline. We dump a 10,000-token SYSTEM_PROMPT.txt telling the agent everything about our project, hoping it remembers the architecture constraints on step 45 of its execution loop. It rarely does. I built Agent Rigor because I got tired of babysitting agents that code themselves into corners. The Root Cause: Context Rot When an agent starts a task, its context is pristine. But as it reads files, executes commands, and hits errors, its context window fills up with junk stack traces and previous failed attempts. By the time it's 20 steps deep, the original system prompt you carefully crafted is buried. The agent forgets the architecture guidelines. It starts prioritizing the immediate error in front of it over the overall goal. This is when it starts guessing, hallucinating, and making things worse. The Solution: Progressive Disclosure and Empirical Discipline Agent Rigor isn't a new LLM or a magic prompt wrapper. It's an operating system for agents that enforces strict empirical discipline . Instead of one massive prompt, Agent Rigor uses a 3-tier hierarchy: L1 (Apex Kernel): The absolute, non-negotiable laws. (e.g., "Never guess an API signature. Always grep or read the file first.") L2 (Phase Directors): Orchestration that only loads when the agent enters a specific phase (Planning, Execution, Verifica

Most carbon footprint apps do the same thing: Quiz → "Your footprint is 120 kg CO₂/week" → Generic tips → User never returns. That's not a coaching experience. That's a guilt trip with no follow-through. For PromptWars Virtual — Challenge 3 (Carbon Footprint Awareness & Reduction), I built CarbonCompass with a different premise: Not just measure. Guide. Live demo: https://prompt-wars-virtual-hackathon-8u1kxxwh1-mithunvisveshs-projects.vercel.app/ The Problem with Existing Carbon Tools I started by looking at what already exists — Capture, Klima, JouleBug. Each of them calculates a footprint accurately. But they all fail at the same step: the recommendation layer. "Install solar panels." "Buy an EV." "Go vegan." These are structurally correct but useless for a hostel student in Chennai who travels by bus and eats at the mess. They're recommendations designed for a demographic that already has money and flexibility. CarbonCompass is built around two real Indian users: Aditi — a college student in Chennai. Bus commute, hostel mess food, shared room electricity. Her biggest carbon lever is food waste, not transport. Rohan — a tech professional in Bengaluru. Petrol car + scooter commute, air-conditioned 2BHK, frequent food delivery. His biggest lever is home energy, not diet. The same app, two users with different lifestyles receive coaching tailored to their highest-impact opportunities. That's the core product promise. The Architectural Decision That Made Everything Work Before writing a single line of code, I ran this prompt in Google Antigravity's Plan Mode: You are a senior product architect. Before coding: Generate user personas Design a SINGLE shared calculation module that the Dashboard, Impact Simulator, and AI Coach all call with the same inputs Create the data schema Propose page architecture Flag risks for a one-week build Do not write code yet. Create an Implementation Plan. The agent produced a full Implementation Plan artifact — a structured document I cou

You add a sixth Lambda trigger to your OrderEvents table, deploy it, and within 20 minutes your SLA dashboard goes red. Latency on order writes jumps from 4ms to 40ms. The function itself is fine. The table is fine. The problem is that five other Lambdas are already hitting the same partition key on every write, and you just made it six. DynamoDB's internal partition throttling doesn't care that each function looks clean in isolation. This is an N+1 trigger problem, and your AI coding assistant cannot catch it. Not because it lacks intelligence, but because the fact that five Lambdas already target that table lives in your AWS account and your full codebase — not in the file your assistant has open. Infrawise · npm Why the LLM Can't See the Pattern When you ask Claude to write a new order processing Lambda, it reads the file you have open and generates code that looks correct — because in the context of that one file, it is correct. It doesn't know about ProcessRefundsLambda , NotifyFulfillmentLambda , SyncInventoryLambda , UpdateAnalyticsLambda , and AuditTrailLambda , all of which you wrote in previous sprints and which all write to the Orders table. This is a category of failure that model quality doesn't fix. A better model produces a more fluent explanation for why your latency spiked. The fact that five functions converge on the same table is a lookup, not a prediction. The source of truth is a combination of your code (which functions exist) and your infrastructure (what they access). Infrawise draws that boundary explicitly. It extracts the answer from your code using AST parsing and from your infrastructure using API calls, then hands that graph to the model as structured context — it never generates the answer. How Infrawise Traces Trigger Chains to the Same Table When Infrawise scans your repository, it uses ts-morph to walk every CallExpression in every source file. It's not searching for the string "DynamoDB" — it matches call structure against a known

In a world completely powered by technology, have you ever wondered what actually keeps our digital lives from crashing down? Enter the unsung heroes: system and network administration . Think of an operating system like Windows or Linux as a computer's command center, orchestrating everything from the heavy-lifting CPU to the smallest plugged-in device. To keep your data safe and your machine stable, it cleverly splits its brain into two zones: a restricted "user mode" where your everyday apps play, and a highly secure, privileged "kernel mode" reserved strictly for critical system operations. When individual computers connect to form massive global networks, the complexity skyrockets. This comprehensive guide breaks down those complex environments into simple, bite-sized concepts. Here is a quick snapshot of what we will cover: Host & OS Administration : This module covers how an operating system functions as the primary intermediary between a user and a computer's raw physical hardware. It explains how the system kernel manages critical computing processes, memory allocation, local storage file systems, and administrative tasks like security patching and automated scripting. Networking Concepts, Topologies, and Protocols : This module explores how individual computer systems connect and communicate across localized or global distances. It details the structural design of network topologies, addressing rules like IPv4 and IPv6, and the standardized layer frameworks that ensure safe and efficient data transmission. 🏛️ Part 1: Operating Systems & Host Administration 🖥️ Computer Resources and Functions At its core, every computer system is a collection of physical machinery and digital structures working together to solve problems. To understand how an operating system manages these pieces, it helps to look at the foundational puzzle blocks of a computer. This section maps out the primary hardware and data elements the system has to control, alongside a simple breakd

This is a submission for the June Solstice Game Jam TL;DR Save the Sun is a kids' deduction game set on the eve of the June solstice: you race Sköll—the wolf who wants to eat the sun—to Sól's one true rune before he catches her and the longest day never dawns. Gemini does two jobs and the engine referees both: it reads the player's questions—typed, or spoken aloud and transcribed—as the Oracle, and it plays the wolf as Sköll. The engine owns the secret and never hands it to Gemini. Everything here is checkable: play a round · watch the demo · anchildress1/save-the-sun . What I Built Blame a board game 📞 The idea started with Dream Phone , a 90s deduction game I played as a kid—you dial pretend phone numbers and narrow down which boy has a secret crush on you. The catch: it needed 2-4 players and fell flat with two. So I rebuilt it as a two-player game à la Guess Who and gave the second seat to Sköll, an AI opponent to race. That became Save the Sun , a deduction race for players aged 8 to 12 against Sköll, the Norse wolf who wants to eat the sun. The story of Sól and Sköll comes straight out of Norse mythology and is one of my all-time favorites. Sól drives the sun-chariot across the sky, and Sköll chases her—every day, all day, forever—until Ragnarök, when he finally catches her and the sun goes out. The game drops you into the night before the solstice with the wolf a stride behind: get the true offering to Sól before he reaches her, or the dawn never comes. Teaching AI to lose 🧩 The hard part of a kids' deduction game is making the AI beatable without handing it the answer. The opponent never sees the secret: a deterministic engine holds it and referees every move, and Gemini only ever plays on top. Sköll's side was easy—he answers in structured JSON—but a loose human question has to be read into something the engine can resolve first, and that reading is the only job I gave the Oracle. Twenty-four runes, one short night 🌙 The round itself is small on purpose. Th

The Counterintuitive Truth: Feature Flags Are Not Config Files Most engineers first encounter feature flags as a simple abstraction: a key-value lookup that returns true or false. That mental model works fine for a single service handling a few hundred requests per minute. It becomes actively dangerous at scale. A mature feature flag system isn't a config file with an API wrapper — it's a distributed control plane . The distinction matters architecturally. A control plane manages the real-time behavior of a running system across many nodes simultaneously, with its own consistency guarantees, failure semantics, and propagation latency. That's a fundamentally different design problem than reading a YAML file on startup. One constraint drives every downstream decision: user traffic must never block on a remote flag service call. If evaluation requires a synchronous RPC, you've coupled your request path to the availability and latency of an external system. Netflix's Archaius library enforces this by evaluating flags entirely in-process against a locally-cached configuration snapshot. A network round-trip per evaluation injects 10–50ms of tail latency at p99 — catastrophic when you're competing on streaming start times measured in hundreds of milliseconds. Google, Meta, and Netflix collectively evaluate flags against millions of requests per second with sub-millisecond overhead. That figure is only achievable through local evaluation backed by an async synchronization layer, not RPC. The other failure mode engineers underestimate is flag sprawl . Systems accumulate flags the way codebases accumulate dead functions — gradually, then all at once. I've seen services carrying thousands of flags where fewer than 10% were actively managed. The operational weight alone becomes a liability: which flags are safe to remove? Which ones are kill switches for production behavior that no one documented? Knight Capital's $440M loss in 45 minutes in 2012 remains the canonical cautionar

🌍🚀 Project Showcase: Carbon Footprint Tracker I'm excited to share one of my recent projects — a Carbon Footprint Tracker designed to help users better understand their environmental impact and encourage more sustainable lifestyle choices. As developers, we have the opportunity to build technology that not only solves problems but also creates awareness about important global challenges. This project was a great experience in combining technology, user experience, and sustainability into a single application. ✨ Key Features: • Carbon footprint calculation system • Clean and intuitive user interface • Responsive design for all devices • Real-time user interaction • Environmental awareness focused experience • Modern frontend architecture 🛠️ Technologies Used: • React • JavaScript • HTML5 • CSS3 • Git & GitHub 💡 What I Learned: • Building interactive user interfaces • State management and user input handling • Creating responsive layouts • Writing cleaner and more maintainable code • Designing applications around real-world problems 🔗 GitHub Repository: https://github.com/Prem759-0/Challenge-3-Carbon-Footprint 🔗 Live Demo: https://challenge-3-carbon-footprint.vercel.app/ I am continuously improving my skills through hands-on projects and exploring how technology can create meaningful impact. Every project teaches me something new and pushes me one step closer toward becoming a professional Full-Stack Developer. Feedback and suggestions are always welcome! 🙌

Launcher V2 will go through a private beta before a public release.

submitted by /u/ukanwat [link] [留言]

Jumper isn't the only big name leaving Google DeepMind.

Debugging authentication in web apps is painful. You need to test the same flow as five different user types — new visitor, returning user, admin, expired session, logged-out — and the easiest way is to constantly create new accounts or clear all your cookies and start over. There's a faster way. These five techniques use direct cookie manipulation to simulate any auth state without touching your database or creating dummy accounts. I use CookieJar for most of this — a free Chrome extension built natively on MV3 that gives you a proper UI for cookie editing. But I'll show you the underlying Chrome DevTools method too, so you understand what's actually happening. 1. Simulate a Logged-Out State Without Clearing Everything The naive approach: clear all cookies and reload. The problem: you just nuked your dev server session token, your local storage flags, your Stripe test mode cookie, and everything else you carefully set up. The targeted approach : identify and delete only the session/auth cookie. Most session cookies are named session , sid , auth_token , _session_id , or something close. In DevTools: Application → Cookies → [your domain] → find the session cookie → right-click → Delete With CookieJar: open the extension, search session , click the trash icon next to just that cookie. Your dev environment stays intact. The user state resets to logged-out. 2. Test the "Returning User" vs "New User" Path Without a Second Account Session cookies tell the server you're authenticated. But many apps use separate cookies to track whether a user has seen the onboarding flow, completed setup, or visited before. Look for cookies like onboarding_complete , setup_done , first_visit , or custom flags in your app code. To test the new user experience: Export your current cookies (CookieJar → Export → JSON format, or copy from DevTools) Delete the specific onboarding/first-visit flag cookie Reload and test the new user path Re-import or re-set the cookie to restore your state This

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

Il venture capital con progetti a 4-5 anni incarna perfettamente la tensione tra la teoria di Manso e la filosofia di Taleb. È un orizzonte temporale che suona contro-intuitivo: troppo lungo per la logica del "fail fast" da incubatore, troppo corto per la pazienza della ricerca fondamentale. Eppure è proprio qui che si gioca la partita dell'innovazione dirompente. Il problema strutturale I fondi VC operano tipicamente su cicli di 10 anni. Un progetto a 4-5 anni occupa il cuore del fondo: non è un esperimento rapido da liquidare, ma nemmeno un investimento da tenere per un'intera generazione. Manso ci dice che il contratto ottimale per l'innovazione richiede tolleranza nel breve termine e ricompensa nel lungo. Ma cosa significa "breve" e "lungo" quando il progetto stesso dura 4-5 anni? Qui emerge un paradosso. Il VC tollerante — quello che Manso celebrerebbe — potrebbe essere tentato di mantenere vivo un progetto che sta fallendo, perché il fallimento prematurato distruggerebbe il valore dell'opzione. Ma Taleb ci avverte: l'antifragilità non è la persistenza a oltranza, è la capacità di trarre beneficio dallo stress. Un progetto che assorbe risorse per 5 anni senza generare informazioni utili non è antifragile: è semplicemente costoso. La soluzione di Manso: il contratto come orologio Per Manso, la risposta sta nella struttura contrattuale. Il contratto ottimale per un progetto a 4-5 anni non è lineare: non è un flusso costante di finanziamento legato a milestone arbitrarie. È qualcosa di più sofisticato. Il principale (il VC) deve commettere a un livello di finanziamento iniziale che copra la fase esplorativa — i primi 12-18 mesi — senza richiedere risultati misurabili. Questa è la fase di "tolleranza eccezionale per il fallimento" di cui parlava Holmström. Poi, a intervalli predeterminati, il VC ha l'opzione — non l'obbligo — di continuare. Ma la soglia di abbandono deve essere più bassa del livello ottimale ex-post. In altre parole: il VC deve essere disposto a co

The crash reportedly happened on an airstrip near the western coast of France on June 19.