标签：#m

A homelab box that never sleeps runs 8,760 hours a year. So the spec that decides what it costs you is not the one on the box. It is the one nobody prints: how many watts it pulls sitting at the login prompt doing nothing. I kept hitting this while shopping for a Proxmox node, so I put the measured numbers in one place. More on that at the end. First, why the spec sheet lies to you. TDP is a thermal budget, not a power reading TDP is the heat the cooler has to handle at full tilt. It is a design target for the heatsink, not a measurement of what the chip draws, and it says almost nothing about idle. Your homelab box spends 95%+ of its life idle, so the number that runs up the meter is idle wall power, and that number is never on the product page. The arithmetic is unforgiving. One watt running continuously is 8.76 kWh a year. So the gap between a 7 W box and a 35 W box is not 28 watts, it is about 245 kWh a year, every year, for as long as the box is on. Plug in your own rate to get the dollars; the point is the gap compounds. Where TDP actively misleads you A few measured results from the dataset I'll link below, all from third-party wall-meter readings, not vendor claims: The new N100 wave is genuinely low. A Minisforum UN100C measures 5 to 7 W at idle. Beelink, GMKtec and Trigkey N100 boxes land in the 6 to 10 W range. For a Pi-hole, a few containers and some light VMs, this tier is hard to beat on running cost. AMD mini PCs idle far higher than their marketing suggests. A Minisforum UM790 Pro measures 25 to 45 W at idle. A Beelink SER6 Pro lands at 20 to 35 W. These are fast little machines, but if you picked one expecting "small box, small draw," the meter disagrees, and over a year that delta is real money. Newer and higher-TDP is not lower-idle. A Dell OptiPlex 7060 Micro idles just over 18 W on its 65 W-TDP desktop chip. The older 7070 with a six-core part sits around 13 W, and the low-power "T" SKUs lower still. The CPU's TDP class predicted idle better tha

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

submitted by /u/patrixxxx [link] [留言]

The dominant production failure mode for LLM agents in 2026 isn't bad reasoning — it's capacity. Here's what the data shows, why nobody demos it, and the capacity-engineering patterns that actually keep agents alive under load.

submitted by /u/mttd [link] [留言]

Ever received a WebSocket tick stream for US stocks and wondered why your indicators behave oddly outside regular hours? The raw data doesn’t tell you which session a trade belongs to, but identifying the session is crucial for signal quality. Here’s a clean, no-dependency-heavy way to do it in Python. Quick Session Reference Session US Eastern Time Data Characteristics Pre-market 04:00-09:30 Sparse trades, choppy moves Regular hours 09:30-16:00 Dense liquidity, smooth price action After-hours 16:00-20:00 Volatility often triggered by news Method 1: Timestamp Conversion Almost every API sends a UTC timestamp. Convert it to US/Eastern and classify. from datetime import datetime import pytz # US Eastern timezone et = pytz . timezone ( ' US/Eastern ' ) def get_session ( ts ): t = datetime . fromtimestamp ( ts , et ) # Check pre-market window if t . hour < 9 or ( t . hour == 9 and t . minute < 30 ): return " pre " # Regular session if t . hour < 16 : return " regular " # After-hours return " after " Method 2: Use a Session Status Field If your provider sends a field like sessionType , you can skip the timezone math. Just make sure to test edge cases at session boundaries. Live Integration Example Using a WebSocket feed (like AllTick’s market data stream) that includes a timestamp, I label ticks on the fly. import websocket import json from datetime import datetime import pytz # US Eastern timezone et = pytz . timezone ( ' US/Eastern ' ) def session ( ts ): t = datetime . fromtimestamp ( ts , et ) if t . hour < 9 or ( t . hour == 9 and t . minute < 30 ): return " pre " elif t . hour < 16 : return " regular " else : return " after " def on_message ( ws , message ): data = json . loads ( message ) s = session ( data [ " timestamp " ]) print ( f " { data [ ' symbol ' ] } | { s } | { data [ ' price ' ] } | { data [ ' volume ' ] } " ) # Open WebSocket connection ws = websocket . WebSocketApp ( " wss://ws.alltick.co/stock " , on_message = on_message ) ws . run_forever () Effic

When we started experimenting with AI translations, we assumed the biggest challenge would be accuracy. We were wrong. The harder problem was preference. Give two AI models the same sentence, and both translations can be technically correct. Yet people almost always have a favorite. One sounds more natural. One feels more human. One is the version they'd actually use. That observation eventually led us to build Parley , a simple game where players compare two translations and choose the better one. What happened next surprised us. People became highly engaged with a task that looked almost trivial. They started debating word choices, discussing tone, and noticing subtle differences between translations. Some users spent far longer interacting with translation examples than they ever would reading documentation or language-learning materials. It highlighted something interesting about AI products: evaluation can be more engaging than generation. Most AI interfaces focus on creating content. But humans are often much better at judging quality than producing it from scratch. Asking someone to choose between two outputs requires less effort while still training their intuition. The experiment also changed how I think about language learning. Traditional language apps often rely on memorization and repetition. But comparing alternatives forces you to think about meaning, context, and natural expression. You're not just learning vocabulary, you're developing taste. And in a world where AI can generate endless content, taste might become one of the most valuable skills we can build. Have you seen similar patterns in AI products where evaluation turns out to be more engaging than creation?

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

Last week I built a little dashboard with Claude. Took maybe ten minutes. Then I spent the next hour trying to get it online. ssh in, install docker, write a Dockerfile, set up nginx, run certbot, certbot fails, read the log, oh the DNS hasn't propagated, wait, run it again, open port 443, realize ufw was blocking it the whole time. By the time it was live I'd forgotten what the app even did. I've done that maybe a few hundred times by now. I'm a backend guy, I'm fast at it. But fast at something boring still means doing the boring thing. So at some point I just thought: the AI already wrote the app. Why does it stop right when the annoying part starts? Why doesn't it just deploy the thing itself? The reason is it has no hands. The model can write you a perfect docker-compose file. It can't ssh into your box and run it. No connection to your server, nowhere to hold your key. So I gave it hands. It's an MCP server, vibe-deploy. You hook it up once to a VPS you own, and then you just say "deploy this to notes.mydomain.com" and the agent containerizes it, ships it over ssh, sets up nginx, gets a real Let's Encrypt cert. Node, Python, Go, plain static. It figures out the stack and writes the Dockerfile. No PaaS, no per-seat pricing, no free tier you'll outgrow. A $5 box runs a dozen of my projects and I own the whole thing. The "you gave an AI root on your server??" reaction is fair, so: it runs locally, your key never leaves your laptop. I used a separate ssh key scoped to deploys, not my real one, and you should too. It checks the server host key before connecting and validates everything you pass it, because a deploy tool that pastes your input straight into a shell is a horror story waiting to happen. I had someone audit the security before I put it out. They found two real bugs. I fixed them. It's free and MIT, on GitHub and npm as @cgnguyen/vibe-deploy . I built it because I wanted it. If you live in the same gap between "it works on localhost" and "it's online",

Back in February, a friend asked me to join his hackathon team. My first reaction wasn't excitement. It was: "Can I even contribute anything?" I remember repeatedly telling him not to add dead weight to the team and to find someone better. He kept insisting that it didn't matter and that I should just join. The funny thing is, I still don't think I've done anything extraordinary since then. No big startup. No crazy achievement. No overnight success story. Mostly just hundreds of hours of learning, building random things, breaking them, fixing them, and realizing how much I still don't know. But today I caught myself doing something weird. I'm the one thinking about who to bring into a team. And for the first time, I don't immediately feel like I'd be dead weight. Not because I know everything now. Just because I've reached the point where I can look at a problem and genuinely believe that, given enough time, I'll figure out how to contribute. It's a small shift, but it feels important. A few months ago I was wondering if I belonged on a team at all. Today I'm wondering who should be on mine. 👀

Let me start with a confession: I'm a data scientist who's been burned by hype more times than I care to admit. When everyone told me "Model X is the next GPT-killer," I'd run my own benchmarks and find... well, let's just say the results were rarely as advertised. So when I started seeing claims about Chinese AI models catching up to (and sometimes surpassing) Western counterparts, I did what any self-respecting data nerd would do: I put them through my own rigorous testing pipeline. Over the past three months, I've run over 2,000 API calls across four major Chinese model families — DeepSeek, Qwen, Kimi, and GLM — using Global API's unified endpoint (more on that later). I tracked latency, token costs, output quality across multiple benchmarks, and even threw in some real-world tasks that mattered to me personally. Here's what I found, with all the numbers you'd expect from someone who still gets excited about statistical significance. The Testing Methodology (Because Anecdotes Aren't Data) Before we dive into results, let me be transparent about my approach. I ran each model on the following standardized tests: Code Generation : HumanEval (Python) and MBPP (multi-language) — 164 problems total Reasoning : GSM8K (math word problems) and MMLU-Pro (general knowledge) — 1,200 questions Chinese Language : CLUE benchmarks (text classification, NER, reading comprehension) — 3,500 samples English Language : LAMBADA and Hellaswag — 2,000 samples Speed : Average tokens per second over 100 consecutive requests with consistent prompt lengths I also tested vision tasks where applicable, but let's be real — Kimi doesn't support vision at all, and DeepSeek's implementation is... experimental at best. More on that later. All tests were conducted using the same global-apis.com/v1 endpoint, which normalizes API compatibility to OpenAI's format. This isn't an ad — I genuinely found it made my testing easier because I could swap models without rewriting code. The Big Picture: Pricing

Please post your personal projects, startups, product placements, collaboration needs, blogs etc. Please mention the payment and pricing requirements for products and services. Please do not post link shorteners, link aggregator websites , or auto-subscribe links. -- Any abuse of trust will lead to bans. 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. -- Meta: This is an experiment. If the community doesnt like this, we will cancel it. This is to encourage those in the community to promote their work by not spamming the main threads. submitted by /u/AutoModerator [link] [留言]

ASUS revealed new convertible Windows laptops and three Zenbook 14 models with ARM64 and x86 processors.

79% of enterprises have adopted AI agents. Only 11% run them in production. We've spent the past year building agent systems for banks, clinical operations teams, and engineering orgs. The problem isn't that agents don't work — they work fine. The problem is that every framework leaves compliance, cost governance, and crash recovery as exercises for the team. After the framework fails them in production. We built MeshFlow to close that gap. **The core idea:** treat governance as infrastructure, not middleware. Every agent step passes through a 15-step kernel that handles identity, rate limiting, budget enforcement, compliance profiles, input/output guardrails, PII detection, risk classification, tool permission, the LLM call itself, audit ledger write, and SLA recording — in that order, always, without configuration. ```python from meshflow import Workflow, CostCap, Agent wf = Workflow(cost_cap=CostCap(usd=5.00)) wf.add(Agent('researcher'), Agent('analyst'), Agent('writer')) result = wf.run('Write a competitive analysis of our market') # Compliant. Durable. Audited. Cost-capped. Done. ``` ```bash pip install meshflow ``` **What's technically interesting:** **Token optimization layer** — five compounding mechanisms that reduce LLM spend 70-85%: - `cache_control` on every system prompt and tool definition (Anthropic: 10% of normal price on cached tokens) - `ModelRouter`: task-type classification routes simple tasks to nano models (keyword + token-count heuristic, zero LLM call) - `ContextCompactor`: sliding window summarization activates at configurable token threshold - `RAGTokenBudget`: hard `max_chars` cap on knowledge injection with truncate/drop/tail strategies - `ContextDeduplicator`: shared context sent once for N parallel agents, not N times **SHA-256 audit chain** — each step record stores `prev_hash` (SHA-256 of the previous record) and `entry_hash` (SHA-256 of its own canonical fields). Modify any log entry and `verify_chain()` breaks. This is the artifact

Hey ML community, We’ve just open-sourced **MeshFlow** , a code-first, framework-agnostic runtime designed for governing and optimizing multi-agent systems in production. Most agent frameworks focus on rapid prototyping, but ML and platform engineering teams usually run into hard bottlenecks around LLM cost scaling, evaluation alignment, and execution safety. MeshFlow tackles these from a runtime/infrastructure perspective. Here are the key ML and system features: * **Task-Based Model Routing** : Before an agent executes a node, MeshFlow runs an evaluation on task complexity, routing the execution to one of four model tiers (`nano`, `small`, `medium`, `large`). This cuts overall API costs by 50-60% by utilizing smaller local models (e.g. LLaMA-3-8B) for standard formatting or extraction and reservation of frontier models (e.g. Claude Opus) for high-complexity reasoning. * **Context Compactor & Summary Pruning Middleware** : Implements sliding window summarization and context deduplication across parallel agent teams to limit prompt length growth. * **System Prompt Caching** : Native injection of Anthropic `cache_control` tags when system prompts exceed 1024 tokens. * **Cost Regression Evaluation Gate** : Integrates with CI pipelines to evaluate agent changes against a golden scenario baseline, throwing failures if code updates introduce token cost regressions. * **Resilient State Persistence** : Multi-backend state serialization (Redis, PostgreSQL, S3) that preserves checkpoint frames and allows resuming paused workflows. Here is the basic API contract: ```python from meshflow import Workflow, Agent, CostCap wf = Workflow(cost_cap=CostCap(usd=5.00)) wf.add(Agent('researcher'), Agent('critic'), Agent('writer')) result = wf.run('Compile comparative literature review of LLM reasoning pathways') print(result) ``` We'd love to discuss: 1. How do you handle token budget enforcement and model routing in your agent loops? 2. What evaluation pipelines do you use to detect co

클로드로 한글파일(HWP) 변환·자동화하는 법 2026 — 요약·표 추출·일괄 처리 실전 한글파일을 Claude로 다루려는 한국 기업 실무자가 가장 먼저 부딪히는 벽은 " 읽기는 됐는데, 그래서 뭘 어떻게 자동화하지? "다. HWP-MCP를 설치해 Claude가 한글 문서를 읽게 만드는 것까지는 HWP-MCP 도입 가이드 에서 다뤘다. 이 글은 그 다음 단계 — 실제 업무에서 한글파일을 요약·변환·일괄 처리하는 구체적 방법 을 실전 예시로 보여준다. 한글파일 AI 자동화의 핵심은 "한컴 오피스 라이선스 없이, 사람 손을 거치지 않고, 반복 작업을 Claude에게 위임하는 것"이다. 계약서 100건 요약, 요구사항서의 표를 CSV로 추출, 폴더 안 HWP 일괄 변환 — 이런 작업이 자동화 대상이다. 한글파일 자동화로 풀 수 있는 업무 3가지 업무 수동 작업 시간 자동화 후 적용 키워드 문서 요약 1건당 10~15분 50건 30초 claude 한글파일 요약 표 → 데이터 추출 1표당 5분 (재입력) 표 자동 CSV 변환 hwp 표 추출 일괄 변환·정리 100건 8시간 100건 1시간 20분 한글파일 일괄 처리 세 업무 모두 "사람이 한글파일을 열어 읽고, 내용을 옮겨 적는" 반복 작업이다. Claude + HWP-MCP 조합은 이 중간 단계를 없앤다. 전제: HWP-MCP 연결 확인 자동화에 들어가기 전, Claude가 한글파일을 읽을 수 있는 상태인지 확인한다. (설치 절차는 HWP-MCP 도입 가이드 참조.) # Claude Desktop 설정에서 hwp-mcp 서버가 연결됐는지 확인 # MCP 도구 목록에 hwp_read, hwp_extract_tables 등이 보여야 함 연결이 확인되면 아래 3가지 워크플로우를 바로 쓸 수 있다. 워크플로우 1: 한글파일 요약 자동화 계약서·보고서·요구사항서처럼 길이가 긴 한글 문서를 Claude에게 요약시키는 패턴이다. 단일 문서: "이 한글파일을 읽고 다음 3가지로 요약해줘: 1. 핵심 내용 5줄 2. 의사결정이 필요한 항목 3. 누락되거나 모호한 조항" 여러 문서 일괄 요약: 폴더 경로를 주고 "이 폴더의 모든 .hwp 파일을 각각 위 형식으로 요약하고, 결과를 하나의 마크다운 표로 정리해줘"라고 지시하면, Claude가 HWP-MCP로 파일을 순회하며 처리한다. 50개 문서 기준 약 30초. 요약 품질을 높이는 팁: "요약 기준"을 구체적으로 명시 할수록 결과가 좋다. "계약 금액·기간·위약 조항 중심으로" 같은 도메인 컨텍스트를 주면 일반 요약보다 실무 적합도가 크게 오른다. 워크플로우 2: 표 → CSV 데이터 추출 한글파일의 표는 복사-붙여넣기로 옮기면 서식이 깨지는 게 가장 큰 골칫거리다. HWP-MCP의 표 추출 기능을 쓰면 구조를 유지한 채 데이터만 뽑는다. "이 한글파일에 있는 모든 표를 추출해서 CSV로 변환해줘. 표가 여러 개면 각각 별도 파일로, 헤더 행을 포함해서." 활용 시나리오: 견적서·정산표 : 한글 견적서의 항목·단가·합계를 회계 시스템에 올릴 CSV로 요구사항 명세 : 기능 목록 표를 이슈 트래커(Jira/Linear) import 형식으로 설문·조사 결과 : 한글 보고서의 통계 표를 분석용 데이터프레임으로 표 안에 병합 셀이 있으면 Claude에게 "병합 셀은 상위 값으로 채워줘(forward fill)"라고 미리 지시하는 게 데이터 정합성에 좋다. 워크플로우 3: 폴더 일괄 처리 가장 ROI가 큰 패턴. 수백 개 한글파일이 쌓인 폴더를 통째로 처리한다. "./contracts 폴더의 모든 .hwp 파일에 대해: 1. 계약 상대방·금액·시작일·종료일을 추출 2. 하나의 CSV로 통합 (파일명을 첫 열에) 3. 종료일이 30일 이내인 계약은 ⚠️ 표시" 100건 기준 수동 8시간 작업이 약 1시간 20분으로 줄어든다(실측). 핵심은 추출 스키마를 먼저 정의 하는 것 — 무엇을 뽑을지 명확할수록 일괄 처리 정확도가 높다. python-docx·한컴 API와 무엇이 다른가 방식 한글파일(.hwp) 지원 자동화 난이도 AI 통합 한컴 오피스 자동화

Claude Code에서 Codex로 옮길 때 — 실전 마이그레이션 가이드 2026 Claude Code 기반 워크플로우를 OpenAI Codex CLI로 옮기려는 팀이 늘고 있다. 모델 가격, 멀티 벤더 리스크 분산, 특정 코딩 워크로드의 성능 차이 등 이유는 다양하다. 그런데 두 도구는 같은 "AI 코딩 에이전트"라는 카테고리에 속해도 컨벤션·확장 메커니즘이 다르다. 무작정 옮기면 자동화 파이프라인의 절반이 깨진다. 이 가이드는 Claude Code → Codex 마이그레이션을 실제로 끝내본 팀이 어떤 순서로 무엇을 옮기고, 무엇을 포기하고, 무엇을 대체했는지 정리한다. 자동 변환 툴( claude2codex )을 어디서 쓰고 어디서 안 쓰는지, 일주일 점검 체크리스트, 양쪽을 분기 사용하는 하이브리드 패턴까지 다룬다. 마이그레이션 전 의사결정 — 옮길지 말지부터 옮기는 게 모두에게 정답은 아니다. 다음 세 질문에 모두 "예"여야 본격 마이그레이션을 권한다. 현재 Claude Code 비용의 60% 이상이 일상적인 코드 편집·리뷰에서 발생하는가? (Codex의 GPT-5-codex가 단가 우위를 보이는 영역) — 만약 디자인·기획·문서 분량이 큰 워크플로우라면 Claude를 유지하는 게 합리적이다. Skills·Hooks·서브에이전트 같은 Claude 고유 기능에 의존하지 않는가? 의존도가 높다면 마이그레이션 비용이 비용 절감을 초과한다. 하나의 벤더 락인을 줄이는 게 중요한 전략적 우선순위인가? 멀티 벤더 운영은 그 자체로 관리 비용이 든다. 세 질문 중 하나라도 "아니오"라면, 통째 마이그레이션 대신 하이브리드 분기 사용 (아래 5절)이 더 낫다. Claude Code와 Codex의 핵심 차이 비교 영역 Claude Code OpenAI Codex CLI 마이그레이션 난이도 메인 모델 claude-opus-4-7 / sonnet-4-6 / haiku-4-5 GPT-5 / GPT-5-codex / o1 계열 낮음 (모델 교체) 컨벤션 파일 CLAUDE.md AGENTS.md (멀티 벤더 표준) 낮음 (rename + 어조 조정) 확장 메커니즘 Skills (markdown SKILL.md + 메타데이터) 별도 표준 없음, 수동 컨텍스트 로딩 높음 (가장 큰 갭) 자동화 훅 Hooks (PreToolUse, SessionStart, UserPromptSubmit 등) 라이프사이클 이벤트 미지원 높음 (외부 wrapper 필요) 슬래시 커맨드 /명령 형태 + 인자 파싱 CLI 인자로 대체 중간 MCP 서버 1급 지원, 자동 도구 노출 일부 지원, 설정 형식 다름 중간 서브에이전트 Agent tool (subagent_type) 외부 오케스트레이션 필요 높음 권한 모드 acceptEdits / plan / dontAsk 등 --auto / --confirm 류 낮음 가장 큰 갭 세 곳: Skills · Hooks · 서브에이전트 . 이 세 가지에 깊이 의존하는 팀은 마이그레이션 ROI가 마이너스로 나올 수 있다. 마이그레이션 절차 — 7단계 1단계: 자산 인벤토리 (1일) .claude/ 디렉토리, CLAUDE.md , 프로젝트 루트의 slash command 정의, hook 설정, MCP 서버 목록을 전부 추출한다. find . -path "*/.claude/*" -type f > migration/inventory.txt ls .claude/skills/ .claude/hooks/ .claude/commands/ 2>/dev/null >> migration/inventory.txt cat .claude/settings.json | jq '.mcpServers // {}' > migration/mcp.json 이 파일들이 모두 변환되거나, 대체되거나, 폐기되는지 명시적으로 매핑되어야 한다. "그냥 옮기면 되겠지"는 거의 항상 일주일 후 장애로 돌아온다. 2단계: claude2codex 자동 변환 적용 (반나절) 오픈소스 claude2codex 마이그레이션 툴 이 자동으로 처리하는 것: CLAUDE.md → AGE

Introduction Since I started publishing articles on Dev.to, I've been working on a personal project to transform my old blog website—which is no longer actively maintained—into a portfolio site ♻️ As part of that project, I recently started learning Figma and UI design🎨 When I discovered Figma MCP , I imagined a future where generative AI could automatically create polished, modern, and visually appealing designs for me with minimal effort 😎 Unfortunately, reality turned out to be quite different . This article is a reflection on that experience and a reminder to my future self about what I learned along the way📝 TL;DR I wanted to design a portfolio website in Figma , but quickly realized that UI design was more difficult than I expected. I wondered whether using Codex and Figma MCP would allow me to outsource the design process to AI , so I decided to try it. I couldn't magically generate the polished design I had imagined while also maintaining a well-structured Figma file with globally managed variants and reusable components. I learned that defining design rules first and building components step by step helped produce results that were much closer to my original vision. Even then, the process was not dramatically easier than expected, so I eventually decided to keep things simple and build my portfolio around the design principles already provided by shadcn/ui . What I Tried with Figma MCP🎨 While planning the UI design for my portfolio website , I initially created simple wireframe-like layouts in Figma to explore the overall page structure and component placement before working on detailed designs. At first, I wanted to keep things simple. However, as I continued working on the project, I found myself wanting something more polished, more modern, and ultimately more impressive . The problem was that I have very little confidence in my design skills. I'm an in-house IT engineer, not a professional developer or designer, so I often struggle to judge what makes a

For the past couple months I have been working on a custom open-source Unix like kernel built from the ground up in C and ASM, im looking for some feedback! Feel free to contribute to clone and reuse the code in this project! https://gitub.com/VibuxDevs/VNL (lots of features are placeholders right now)

Hi everyone, I missed the ICML conference tickets because I was waiting for some travel funding confirmation and now they are sold out. Do you know any other ways I could still purchase one? There seems to be no waiting list… or if you know anyone who needs to cancel theirs, please let me know 🙏🏻 submitted by /u/TopPerformance1255 [link] [留言]