标签：#m

Supervised vs. Unsupervised Machine Learning: How to Choose the Right Approach Supervised learning trains a model on data that's already labeled with the correct answer, so it learns to predict outcomes for new, unseen examples. Unsupervised learning works on unlabeled data and finds patterns or groupings on its own, without being told what the "right answer" looks like. Use supervised learning when you have historical examples of the outcome you want to predict; use unsupervised learning when you're trying to discover structure in data you don't yet understand. That's the short version. Here's what it actually means in practice, and how to know which one your project needs. What is supervised learning? In supervised learning, every training example comes with a label — the "correct answer" the model is trying to learn to predict. Feed a model thousands of emails, each tagged "spam" or "not spam," and it learns the patterns that separate the two. Once trained, it can label emails it's never seen before. The defining trait: you already know the outcome for your training data. You're not asking the model to discover something new — you're asking it to learn a pattern well enough to apply it to fresh cases. Common supervised tasks: Classification — sorting things into categories (spam vs. not spam, fraudulent vs. legitimate transaction) Regression — predicting a number (home price, next month's revenue) What is unsupervised learning? Unsupervised learning gets raw, unlabeled data and is asked to find structure in it — without anyone telling it what to look for. There's no "correct answer" to check against during training. The defining trait: you don't know the outcome in advance — you're trying to find it. A retailer might feed customer purchase histories into an unsupervised model not because they have a label called "customer segment" already assigned, but because they want the model to discover natural groupings on its own. Common unsupervised tasks: Clustering — gr

If you've been following the AI market lately, you already know the headline numbers: DeepSeek V4 costs about 3% of what GPT-4o charges per token. GLM-4 runs benchmarks competitive with GPT-4 at roughly one-twentieth the price. Qwen delivers multilingual performance that rivals Claude for a rounding error in your cloud bill. The spreadsheets look incredible. The problem is actually using these models. Signing up for each provider means navigating Chinese-language dashboards, topping up separate wallets, managing six different API key formats, and dealing with SDKs that don't follow any consistent convention. Most developers give up after the second integration. That friction is why, despite the economics being objectively absurd in 2026, most teams still default to a single Western provider and eat the cost. AIWave exists to kill that friction. One API key. One endpoint. Fifty-plus models across eight Chinese labs, all speaking standard OpenAI-compatible format. Zero code changes to switch between DeepSeek, GLM, Qwen, MiniMax, and everything else. This post covers how the platform works under the hood, what the request lifecycle looks like, and how to integrate it in any language that can speak HTTP. The Fragmentation Problem, Quantified Before getting into the solution, here's what the Chinese LLM landscape actually looks like as of June 2026: Provider Flagship Model API Format Auth Method SDK Language DeepSeek V4-Pro Custom (DS format) Bearer token + signature Python, JS Zhipu GLM-4.5 OpenAI-compatible-ish JWT with expiry Python, Java Alibaba Qwen-3-Max DashScope (Alibaba) AK/SK + HMAC Python, Java, Go MiniMax MiniMax-Text-01 Custom REST API Key + Group ID Python Moonshot Kimi-K2 OpenAI-compatible API Key Python, JS Baidu ERNIE 4.5 Qianfan (Baidu) OAuth 2.0 Client Cred Python ByteDance Doubao-Pro Ark (Volcengine) IAM AK/SK + SigV4 Python, Go 01.AI Yi-Lightning OpenAI-compatible API Key Python Eight providers, seven different authentication schemes, four distinct A

When it comes to our deepest thoughts, secrets, and mental health struggles, "the cloud" can feel like a very crowded place. In an era where data privacy is paramount, sending your private journal entries to a central server for analysis feels... risky. But what if you could have the power of a world-class LLM like Llama 3 running entirely on your MacBook? Thanks to the Apple MLX framework, local LLM execution is no longer a pipe dream—it’s a high-performance reality. By leveraging privacy-preserving AI and advanced Llama 3 quantization , we can build a personal mental health assistant that provides Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) insights without a single byte ever leaving your machine. 🚀 Why Apple MLX? 🍏 Apple's MLX is an array framework designed specifically for machine learning on Apple Silicon. It’s essentially "NumPy meets PyTorch," but optimized to squeeze every drop of power out of your M1/M2/M3 chip's Unified Memory Architecture. The Architecture: 100% Local Data Flow Here is how our private assistant handles your data. Notice the absence of any "External API" or "Cloud Storage" blocks: graph TD A[User Private Journal Entry] --> B{Local Python App} B --> C[Apple MLX Framework] C --> D[Quantized Llama 3 - 4bit/8bit] D --> E[CBT Sentiment Analysis] E --> F[Empathetic CBT Feedback] F --> B B --> G[Local Encrypted Storage] subgraph MacBook Pro / Air C D E end Prerequisites 🛠️ To follow this advanced guide, you’ll need: An Apple Silicon Mac (M1, M2, M3 series). Python 3.10+ . mlx-lm : The high-level library for running LLMs with MLX. Step 1: Setting Up the Environment First, let's create a virtual environment and install our dependencies. We are using mlx-lm because it handles the complexities of quantization and model loading seamlessly. mkdir private-mental-health-ai && cd private-mental-health-ai python -m venv venv source venv/bin/activate pip install mlx-lm huggingface_hub Step 2: Downloading & Quantizing Llama 3 Llama 3 8B is a powerhouse, but it's a bi

Gemini 3.5 Pro goes general-availability in late June 2026 with a 2-million-token context window and a Deep Think reasoning mode that positions it against the most capable frontier models currently live — at a moment when the field is unusually thin. Claude Fable 5 was disabled globally on June 12 under a U.S. export control directive. GPT-5.6 remains a release candidate in Codex backend logs under the codename kindle-alpha . As of June 19, 2026, Gemini 3.5 Pro is the next major frontier model with a confirmed launch window, and it’s already live for select enterprise customers on Vertex AI. This is what’s confirmed, what’s still unknown, and what developers should do before GA drops. The Timing Isn’t an Accident Google announced Gemini 3.5 Pro at I/O on May 19 with a June general-availability target. At the time, that framing put it in direct competition with Claude Fable 5 (released June 9 before the shutdown) and the anticipated GPT-5.6. That competitive calculus shifted on June 12 when Anthropic disabled Fable 5 for all customers worldwide following an export control order. Claude Opus 4.8 is still live — it hits 88.6% on SWE-Bench and is a legitimate coding workhorse — but its 200K context ceiling blocks the entire category of codebase-scale and multi-document workloads that Fable 5 had been handling at 200K. The gap Gemini 3.5 Pro steps into isn’t hypothetical. Teams that built agent pipelines around Fable 5’s coding accuracy have been on Opus 4.8 stopgaps or migrating to GPT-5.5 since June 12. Neither alternative offers 2M context. Neither has a Deep Think mode native to the same model. Gemini 3.5 Pro is arriving into the most favorable competitive opening Google has had at the frontier in 18 months. The 2M Token Context: Where the Ceiling Disappears Gemini 3.5 Flash shipped with a 1M-token context window, doubling Gemini 3.1 Pro’s 500K limit. Pro doubles Flash again. At 2 million tokens, a single API call can hold: A 2,000-file TypeScript monorepo at 200 lin

A small experiment of mine :) Happy to hear your thought about this submitted by /u/soupgasm [link] [留言]

AI Agent Orchestration: Proxmox Automation, OpenAI Data Agents & Azure Serverless Runtime Today's Highlights Today's highlights focus on practical AI agent applications and robust deployment strategies. We delve into building a secure AI admin for Proxmox, explore OpenAI's internal data analyst agent, and examine Azure Functions' new serverless runtime for agents. I didn't trust an AI with my Proxmox cluster — so I built one that can't surprise me (Dev.to Top) Source: https://dev.to/john-broadway/i-didnt-trust-an-ai-with-my-proxmox-cluster-so-i-built-one-that-cant-surprise-me-2k9l This article details a practical, hands-on approach to building a reliable AI agent for managing a Proxmox virtual environment. The author sought an agent capable of performing critical tasks like creating VMs, fixing storage issues, and tailing container logs, but with an emphasis on predictable and safe operations. The core idea is to create an AI that operates within defined boundaries, ensuring it doesn't perform unexpected or destructive actions. This tackles a crucial challenge in AI agent development: achieving trust and control in automated workflows. The implementation likely involves careful prompt engineering, tool use, and possibly a custom execution environment or validation layers to ensure commands are executed as intended and within pre-approved parameters. This project exemplifies how developers can apply AI agent orchestration principles to real-world IT automation, moving beyond simple information retrieval to true task execution, while maintaining human oversight and preventing 'surprises' common with less constrained AI systems. It's a blueprint for anyone looking to build robust, trustworthy AI-powered RPA solutions for system administration. Comment: A brilliant take on building AI agents for critical infrastructure. The focus on 'can't surprise me' highlights the need for robust control and guardrails, crucial for production workflow automation. This is what practic

Nothing's next budget phone is the latest victim of RAMageddon. As 9to5Google reports, Nothing co-founder Akis Evangelidis announced in a post on X that a follow-up to the CMF Phone 2 Pro won't be coming this year: We were working on a successor but with memory prices where they are right now, we can't build […]

The Runbook That Lied to Me at 3am The pager went off at 3:14am for a wedged OpenStack Neutron agent. I did what any tired engineer does: I opened the runbook. It told me to restart a service that had been renamed eighteen months earlier, pointed at a Grafana dashboard that 404'd, and assumed a network topology we'd migrated off of two quarters back. The runbook wasn't just unhelpful. It was actively lying to me, and I burned twenty minutes trusting it before I gave up and went to read the source. That's the real problem with documentation. It isn't that we don't write it. It's that the moment we finish writing it, it starts rotting, and the cost of keeping it fresh is high enough that nobody pays it until the document has already betrayed someone at 3am. A runbook your team doesn't trust is worse than no runbook, because no runbook at least forces you to think. This is where AI actually earns its keep in a platform org, and not in the way the marketing decks suggest. AI is not going to own your documentation. It's going to do the tedious first-draft labor — turning a resolved incident, a chunk of shell history, or a deploy diff into a structured skeleton — so a human engineer can spend their scarce attention on the part that matters: verifying the commands, marking what's unproven, and editing the robotic tone out so the team actually reads it. AI drafts. You verify and sign off. That distinction is the whole game. Why "Humanizing" AI Is the Job, Not a Slogan Let me be precise about what I mean by "humanizing AI," because the phrase gets abused. I don't mean making AI sound human to fool a reader. I mean keeping a human in the loop as the editor and owner of record, and doing the unglamorous work of turning a competent-but-soulless machine draft into something a colleague trusts. Two things break trust in AI-drafted docs, and both are fixable by a human pass: Unverified claims stated with confidence. An LLM will happily tell you to run systemctl restart neutron-l3-

Every developer who has ever muttered "there is a bug in this" is repeating a word with a surprisingly literal origin. On September 9, 1947, the operators of the Harvard Mark II, an early electromechanical computer, traced a malfunction to its source and found something they did not expect: a moth wedged inside Relay #70. They removed the insect, taped it into the operations logbook, and wrote a now-famous line beside it: "First actual case of bug being found." That page, moth and all, survives today in the collection of the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History. It is one of the best-loved stories in computing, and like most good stories it is a little more complicated than the popular version. Worth getting right, because the discipline it gave us is the same one behind every connected device we build. What actually happened in 1947 The Mark II was a room-sized machine built from relays, switches, and thousands of moving parts. When a moth flew into one of those relays, it physically interfered with the contacts and caused a fault. The technicians who found it had a sense of humor: calling it the "first actual case of bug being found" was a joke precisely because engineers had already been using "bug" for years to describe mysterious faults in machinery. Thomas Edison used the term in his notebooks back in the 1870s. So the 1947 moth did not invent the word "bug." What it did was give the term a perfect, photographable origin story, and it cemented the companion word that really matters: debugging. The act of removing that moth was, quite literally, de-bugging the computer. The Grace Hopper connection The story is almost always told with Grace Hopper at its center, and that deserves a small correction. Hopper, a pioneering computer scientist who later helped develop COBOL, was part of the Mark II team in 1947, but the evidence suggests she did not personally find the moth or write the logbook entry. What she did do was tell the story, brilliantly and o

The main idea of a Carousel isn't just about moving a bunch of elements from left to right because there must be a smoothly infinite movement, this can be done by duplicating the element, but wouldn't it be a waste of time and resources to do so. So the best solution would be rather than moving the whole element, we just move each element on a time based manner, all elements will have the animation but each element will have a unique (incremented) index, by which we will delay its start, and if we made this delay negative, we will have a smooth movement without any lagging adding a will-change will make a separate compositing layer to make the animation run on gpu rather than cpu below is a demo by which, you can understand the effect You can reach me (if you had any problems with the effect): X / twitter "where I post a lot!" LinkedIn

Dolphins, sharks, turtles, and human workers are all victims of unregulated squid fishing fleets. Another news article . As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I haven’t covered. Blog moderation policy.

submitted by /u/stronghup [link] [留言]

I built a simple mobile World Cup Bingo game and would love some feedback. The idea is simple: - Create your own World Cup bingo card - Follow the matches during the tournament - Earn points as events happen - Compete against friends - Check the final leaderboard when the tournament ends There's a free version and an optional Pro upgrade (R$4.90) that removes ads, unlocks exclusive themes, allows unlimited cards and gives up to 3 free swaps per game. I built it mainly because I wanted something more casual and social than fantasy football apps. Would love to hear what football fans think: https://bingo-da-copa.vercel.app/ submitted by /u/No_Net_1962 [link] [留言]

submitted by /u/btb331 [link] [留言]

Synthetic monitoring tools all promise the same thing — catch the broken checkout before your users do — and then bill you in seven different ways for it. The hard part of choosing one is not the feature checklist; it is predicting what you will actually pay when a single browser check running every 30 seconds from three regions turns into 259,200 runs a month. We compared seven synthetic monitoring tools on what separates them in practice: browser engine and fidelity, how you author checks (code, recorder, or AI), location coverage, alerting and on-call, failure forensics, and — the one that surprises teams — the pricing model. Every price below was verified against official pricing pages in June 2026. For the concepts behind these tools, start with what synthetic monitoring is . TL;DR comparison Tool Best for Browser engine Authoring Pricing model Browser price Checkly Code-first teams running Playwright suites Chromium (+ suite) Code (TypeScript) Per-run, 3 separate bills ~$4–6.50 / 1k Datadog Enterprises that want APM correlation Chrome/FF/Edge Recorder + code Per-run × freq × locations ~$12–18 / 1k Grafana Cloud / k6 OSS-leaning teams, best free tier Chromium (k6) Code (k6) + convert Per-execution ~$50 / 10k Better Stack Bundled monitoring + on-call Chromium Code + codegen paste Per-minute + per-seat ~$1 / 100 PW-min New Relic Broad type matrix + compliance Selenium (Chrome/FF) No-code step + code Per-check + seats + ingest ~$50 / 10k Sematext Predictable per-monitor pricing Chromium Code Per-monitor / month ~$7 / browser monitor Site24x7 No-code recorder + many locations Chrome/FF Recorder Pooled "advanced checks" ~$10 / 10k runs How we evaluated Real synthetic monitoring is more than a scheduled ping, so we scored each tool on six dimensions. Browser fidelity : does it run a modern engine (Playwright/Chromium) or older Selenium, and how faithfully does it reproduce a real user? Authoring mode : can you write checks as code, record them point-and-click, or gen

If you want to reproduce my current local Hermes Agent + Qwen3.6-27B setup, this is the shape I would start from. Target One local coding agent. One 24GB GPU. Long context. Tools enabled. Thinking enabled. No child agents fighting the main request. The goal is not peak tok/s on a short prompt. The goal is: can the same agent session keep working after hours of tool calls without losing prefix locality, timing out during prefill, or getting wrecked by auxiliary requests? Model This setup is intentionally text-only. I am not serving the multimodal GGUF variant here. The working configuration uses groxaxo/Qwen3.6-27B-GPTQ-Pro-4bit through vLLM with --language-model-only . That choice matters. On a 24GB RTX 3090, the text-only GPTQ-Marlin path gave the best balance I found between long context, prefix caching, stable agent behavior and usable decode speed. Vision should be handled by a separate service/model if needed. vLLM The useful shape: CUDA_VISIBLE_DEVICES = 0 vllm serve groxaxo/Qwen3.6-27B-GPTQ-Pro-4Bit \ --served-model-name qwen3.6-27b-gptq-pro-4bit \ --dtype float16 \ --quantization gptq_marlin \ --tensor-parallel-size 1 \ --max-model-len 131072 \ --max-num-seqs 1 \ --kv-cache-dtype fp8_e5m2 \ --enable-prefix-caching \ --reasoning-parser qwen3 \ --enable-auto-tool-choice \ --tool-call-parser qwen3_coder \ --gpu-memory-utilization 0.95 \ --max-cudagraph-capture-size 32 \ --language-model-only I used a recent vLLM nightly, not an old stable image ( 0.20.1rc1.dev16+g7a1eb8ac2 ). The two flags people will want to argue about: --max-num-seqs 1 --max-model-len 131072 I use max_num_seqs=1 deliberately. With an agent, parallelism is not free. Title generation, context compression, retries, browser checks, tool calls and side jobs can all steal KV/cache locality from the main request. On one 24GB GPU I prefer one useful request over two requests sabotaging each other. 131k context is tight, but workable here. If your service OOMs, reduce context before adding MTP or enf

I was debugging an internal project management application built with SvelteKit and a Rust API. Locally, navigation felt almost instant. On the VPS, opening the Tickets, Timeline, and OpenSpec docs pages felt noticeably slower. Clicking a ticket also took too long before the preview panel became useful. My first assumption was infrastructure: Maybe the VPS was underpowered. Maybe PostgreSQL queries were slow. Maybe the reverse proxy added latency. Maybe SvelteKit SSR was taking too long. The measurements pointed somewhere else. The Baseline I started with the feature list endpoint used by both Tickets and Timeline. For a project with 52 tickets: Metric Result API response time ~4 ms Response size 353,956 bytes Number of tickets 52 The API was not slow. But it was returning around 354 KB for a list of only 52 items. The SvelteKit route payload showed the same pattern: Route Data payload Tickets 349,857 bytes Timeline 354,731 bytes This explained why local testing was misleading. On localhost, transferring and parsing a few hundred kilobytes is easy to miss. Once the app runs behind a VPS, reverse proxy, TLS, and a real network connection, the payload becomes much more visible. What Was Inside the Payload? I broke down the feature response by field. The descriptions alone accounted for: 296,177 bytes That was more than 80% of the complete response. The list endpoint was returning something similar to this for every ticket: interface FeatureListItem { id : string ; title : string ; status : string ; priority : string ; storyPoints : number | null ; dueDate : string | null ; description : string | null ; checkoutCommand : string | null ; openSpecCommand : string | null ; } The problem was not that these fields were useless. They were useful on the ticket detail panel. They were not useful when rendering the initial list. Timeline was even more wasteful. It used ticket status, dates, dependencies, and assignees, but still downloaded every full Markdown description. The D

Stop Fighting Scikit-Learn Pipelines: How Metadata Routing Fixes Sample Weights & Groups A couple of months ago, I stumbled upon this video by Vincent D. Warmerdam about metadata routing in scikit-learn. I'll be honest, I had no idea what "metadata routing" even meant, but Vincent's explanation completely changed how I think about building ML pipelines. The video showed me that one of the most frustrating problems in scikit-learn; passing sample weights and groups through complex pipelines finally had an elegant solution. It piqued my curiosity enough that I dove deep into the feature, tested it extensively, and honestly, I was surprised by how little coverage this gets in technical blogs and articles. So I figured, why not write about it myself and share what I learned? If you've ever struggled with imbalanced datasets, grouped cross-validation, or just wanted to pass custom information through your pipelines, this article is for you. Let's start from the very beginning. What is "Metadata" in Machine Learning? Let's start with a concrete example. You're building a credit card fraud detection model with this data: # Your training data X = transaction_features # Amount, merchant, time, location, etc. y = is_fraud # 0 = legitimate, 1 = fraud # But you also have additional information: sample_weights = [ 1.0 , 1.0 , 10.0 , 1.0 , ...] # Fraud transactions weighted 10x customer_ids = [ 101 , 102 , 101 , 103 , ...] # Which customer made each transaction Metadata is the "extra information" beyond your features (X) and labels (y): sample_weight : How important is each transaction? (Fraud = 10x more important) groups : Which customer does each transaction belong to? (For proper cross-validation) Custom metadata : Transaction timestamps, confidence scores, data quality flags, etc. Why Metadata Matters: The Credit Card Fraud Problem Imagine you're building a fraud detection system for a financial company. You have: Imbalanced data : 99% legitimate transactions, 1% fraudulent T

Imagine a user trying to upload a 100MB video or a high-resolution photo to your app. If you use the standard Rails file upload, that file travels from the user's browser to your Rails server, and then your server sends it to S3 or Google Cloud. This is a terrible way to do it. While that 100MB file is transferring, your Rails worker (Puma) is frozen. It can't handle other users. If three people upload large files at once, your whole app will stop responding. In 2026, the professional way to handle this is Direct Uploads . With Direct Uploads, the file goes directly from the user's browser to your cloud storage (S3, R2, etc.). Your Rails server only handles a tiny bit of metadata. It is faster for the user and much safer for your server. Here is how to set it up in Rails 8. STEP 1: Configure Your Storage First, make sure you aren't using the local disk for production. You need a cloud provider like AWS S3 or Cloudflare R2. In your config/storage.yml : amazon : service : S3 access_key_id : <%= ENV['AWS_ACCESS_KEY_ID'] %> secret_access_key : <%= ENV['AWS_SECRET_ACCESS_KEY'] %> region : us-east-1 bucket : my-app-uploads # Crucial for Direct Uploads! public : true Note: You must configure CORS in your S3/R2 dashboard to allow requests from your domain. If you don't do this, the browser will block the upload. STEP 2: The Rails Form Rails makes the backend part incredibly easy. You just add one attribute to your file field: direct_upload: true . <!-- app/views/users/_form.html.erb --> <%= form_with ( model: user ) do | f | %> <div class= "field" > <%= f . label :avatar %> <%= f . file_field :avatar , direct_upload: true %> </div> <%= f . submit "Save Profile" %> <% end %> When you add direct_upload: true , Rails automatically includes a JavaScript library that handles the "handshake" with S3. STEP 3: Adding a Progress Bar (The UX Win) Direct uploads can take a few seconds. If nothing happens on the screen, the user will think your app is broken. We can use the built-in Ac

We constantly hear that Ansible and Python are apparently the only ways to automate networks, today I even listen in a conversation "Python is the industry standard" probably I missed the RFC document or probably the guy was referring to a sales standard, but back to us what happens when the framework, the platform or the software we are using becomes heavier than the problem to solve? There is a moment where automation becomes necessary, not because we want to look modern, not because every task deserves a framework and not simply because adding automation automatically means we are doing things better. It becomes necessary because repeating the same command collection manually across many devices is slow, risky, boring and almost impossible to diff and validate properly especially under pressure. For this reason I built the Cisco Go Collector during a real migration activity with a very practical goal: collect configuration and command outputs from Cisco devices in an easily repeatable way, without forcing every colleague involved in the process to become developers or to install an automation stack just to run a super simple flow. The idea was simple: define the devices in a CSV which is the comfort zone for everyone define the commands in the same CSV file, super simple and organized to manage one row per device run a portable Go binary against that CSV file collect the outputs in organized text files archive the result as operational evidence that can be easily diff That is it! super lightweight to run no Python virtual environment no Ansible playbook structure no inventory hierarchy no framework onboarding no additional runtime or software on corporate managed workstations just a CSV file and a compiled binary The automation and AI trap when the solution is heavier than the problem to solve I love automation and I fully support AI if used the proper way, but we have to find a balance and recognize when to choose one tool over the other and specially one progra